User talk:Agradman

How can we work with the law student community? ...

What do you think of these ideas, to engage more JD students in improving articles on U.S. caselaw -- After exams I'd be willing to contribute heavily to these projects.

A proposal for a new community page - a portal/homepage/community page for "law students"/"US JDs"
A proposal for a new series of articles: An article for each casebook, containing a hyperlinked list of the "table of cases" (perhaps organized according to the table of contents). Students with that casebook might use that as their "portal" (or even homepage).
A proposal for systematic additions to certain existing articles (my favorite idea!): how about adding a new section at the bottom of caselaw articles, "Casebook appearances". It would have sub-headings by casebook, with hyperlinks to: the other cases that the authors have chosen to distinguish it from; the "topic area" it appears under; and the related law review articles invoked by the authors. (I'd argue that it's within the precedent set by other Wikipedia articles. I'd like to have the discussion, because [setting aside the "precedent" issues] it seems like a very USEFUL idea.)

Agradman (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your contributions to some of the new case pages, and we definitely need them, so thanks for the good work. I would suggest a little format standardization, but that's another discussion.

Agreed. I have been quite lazy. I tend to revisit old articles, though, and so I promise to clean this stuff up over time. Agradman (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about your casebook idea. As I think you know, there's already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Law at WP:LAW. There is a category for law students at Category:Wikipedian_law_students too, of which you are a part since you added the userbox.

My first idea will fall pretty flat, I think. I agree with you that the pre-existing portals do the trick. My second & third ideas excite me the most.

As for your second idea, I doubt most casebooks are going to be notable enough to justify their own articles, and including the TOC (which by the way, is usually not entitled to cpyright protection) is going to be met with resistance. Frankly that's not the purpose of the encyclopedia.

We gave up on the notion of creating articles for individual casebooks. However, take a look at the user page of user:JD Caselaw. She has done a rough sketch of the table of contents for our books. We have gotten SPECTACULAR feedback from people using these pages. (We are being very delicate about this because we didn't want to infringe copyright; also, this is on a user page because it's not appropriate as an article.) As an example, scan through the second article on her user page, User:JD Caselaw/Basic_Federal_Income_Taxation_(Andrews). This serves as our starting point.

I like the third idea. I think what you're shooting for here is a template that could be added to seminal casebook cases. That template project is viable, and if you make the template first, then add it to the cases, nobody's probably going to complain (at least not directly about the addition of the template to the pages).

As for the third idea: glance at Eisner_v._Macomber and Haverly_v._United_States, which are in the table of contents of the Andrews book/article. While these are polar opposite in terms of quality, what they have in common is that we have interspersed within them some analysis by our professor (taken out of his published hornbook, Chirelstein, Marvin (2005). Federal Income Taxation). I agree that it would be good to have a template for seminal casebook cases. This is a project I will think about.

I'm interested in your ideas. Let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadowjams, thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I have interspersed my answers between your paragraphs.
My thoughts on this have evolved a lot since I wrote the three ideas up top, in April. I've also had the benefit of discussions with my classmate user:JD Caselaw on this. I'm optimistic that if people using the Andrews casebook use that webpage as their portal, then they will gradually start to incorporate insights from the book into the articles -- properly referenced, so as not to violated copyright. Let's keep discussing this stuff. Are you a law student? Agradman (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is the idea to have an index of casebooks with links to the wikipedia article on the case? And then to incorporate some additional information from the casebook analysis (although, how did you find a casebook that does more than ask redundant questions)? I think that could fly, although I doubt it could exist in the primary namespace. You might drop a question over at reference desk asking where it would be appropriate to have an index, with links to the appropriate section.

I'm pretty confident that this would be perfectly alright in your userspace, and that could be edited by others and really evolve into something very useful.

Your List of Casebooks is a good idea too. I'll try to add to it if I can get around to it. There are a disproportionate number of law students/lawyers on the wikipedia... probably due to laptops in class and an aversion to reading actually reading a case (that was my motivation). I'm in awe that at this point in the year (even first year) anyone's still case briefing. And so yes, I was once a law student :) Shadowjams (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

belated welcome

Hello, Agradman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dloh cierekim 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

sourcing

significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources are what you need. BTW. After looking up Dr. Strauss on Google Scholar, he might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). And you are certainly welcome. Regardless of how the AFD turns out, I think you are the type of editor we need more of. (My first article got speedily deleted.) Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U R Welcome. Dloh cierekim 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English v. General Electric

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of English v. General Electric, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/388276. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash conversion cycle

I've made some formatting in Cash_conversion_cycle#Basic_equation as you requested. Is this OK now or you want some further improvement? --CiaPan (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ahhh, very smart improvements. I appreciate your help. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Parker immunity doctrine

A tag has been placed on Parker immunity doctrine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly mistagged this article par a notice on my talk page. Personally i thought i was dealing with an analysis from a court case as opposed to a judge's decision on that case; The copyright notice on the bottom of the findlaw page didn't help that conclusion either. Apologies for the inconvenience caused! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, no problem. Thanks for coming back to clear things up. I definitely understand how a really large block of text can give the impression of a copyvio! ;) Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]