Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:56, 22 June 2015

This is GregJackP's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

TFA

Menominee Tribe v. United States, - thank you, precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock

Hello: I have been copy editing your article Lone Wolf v. Hitchcok and before I sign off as having completed it, I have a few questions for you to clarify.

In the first paragraph you write: "the Kiowa also formed an alliance with the Comanche and formed a barrier to European-American incursions into their territories. This alliance made travel on the Santa Fe Trail hazardous, with attacks on wagon trains beginning in 1828 and continuing thereafter." By "barrier" do you mean they responded by attacking intruders? If so, then the attacks actually began in 1790 when the alliance was formed?

In the second paragraph of the lead you write: "The decision marked a departure from the holdings of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), which had greater respect the autonomy of Native American tribes." I have changed this to read: " which had shown greater respect for the autonomy of Native American tribes." Is this accurate?

In the Treaties section: is Fort Ackinson actually Fort Atkinson, WI? If so there can be a WP link to the article on Fort Atkinson.

In the section Opinions of the Court you write that the decision was unanimous but at the end of the section say: “Justice John Marshall Harlan concurred in the judgment, but did not author a separate opinion.” If the decision was unanimous why would he write a separate opinion? This seems to be irrelevant.

In the final section you mention that land was transferred in two ways – first by allotment. You don’t specifically mention a second way but imply that land was simply seized by settlers which would be another form of “transfer”. Can you clarify.

Please read the article over and let me know if you have any concerns. I enjoyed this one as I did another article of yours I edited a few days ago.
RegardsTwofingered Typist (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. To answer your questions:

By "barrier" do you mean they responded by attacking intruders? Yes. The barrier also prevented the Osage tribe from moving east. Ecueracapa (Comanche, "Iron Shirt") unified the tribe, made agreements with the Spanish governor of New Mexico, and generally resisted all encroachment into Comanche-Kiowa-Wichita lands. Attacks and battles occurred both before and after the alliance.

I have changed this to read: " which had shown greater respect for the autonomy of Native American tribes." Is this accurate? Yes.

In the Treaties section: is Fort Ackinson actually Fort Atkinson, WI No, it is not. It may be Fort Ackinson, Nebraska, but I could not further distinguish it other than Fort Ackinson, Indian Territory, so I left it alone.

If the decision was unanimous why would he write a separate opinion? He did not write a separate opinion, but made a point to have it noted in the opinion that he concurred in the judgment.

In the final section you mention that land was transferred in two ways – first by allotment. You don’t specifically mention a second way but imply that land was simply seized by settlers which would be another form of “transfer”. Can you clarify. The land remaining after allotment was seized by the United States as federal property, with a payment of $2 million to the tribes.

As before, you've done a great job on the copyedit, and I appreciate it very much. GregJackP Boomer! 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: June 2015

You have to be kidding me. An editor of an article that is in AFD, who supports its deletion on account that it's not notable, who is actively editing the lede of the article to ensure it's not notable? If that's not an act of bad faith, per WP:SPADE, I don't know what is. I'm not the only editor who has called this out. -- Kendrick7 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Glaxo - griseofulvin

Thank you for your comment. I responded to his last post on my talk page. He is an imperious fellow isn't he? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. I can't believe that he would even question your edits, nor your expertise. If, for some reason he escalates this, let me know, I'll be more than happy to help. GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There's more on the GSK Talk page and my Talk page. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction: See the Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Talk page. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Bowman

Took a look. Didn't see any mistakes in your edits. Saw another one. Bad citation; I assume that wasn't your mistake. Mentioned it on talk page. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PraeceptorIP, fixed the bad cite. I appreciate your help and expertise on these issues, I'm more of a GP type (criminal defense/family/probate). I can get in over my head very quickly on patent and copyright law. GregJackP Boomer! 20:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Others who can help you on IP edits are bd2214 (one of my former students) and Edcollins. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for review and edit

You answered my question already. Delete this whole section?

PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, we can leave it. It'll archive in a couple of days anyway. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Bowman v. Monsanto Co. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I post these primarily as a good faith reminder for editors that they have reached three reverts in case they just weren't aware. You are currently at four reverts in the approximate 24 hour period, so please be wary of edit warring in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)