This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KoA (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 22 June 2015 (→Edit warring: r an done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:53, 22 June 2015 by KoA (talk | contribs) (→Edit warring: r an done)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is GregJackP's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
- Do not place bogus and untrue warnings on my talkpage. See comments on your talkpage. GregJackP Boomer! 22:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you're being prickly about this, but that was about as civil as one could be. It's not good to lash out an uninvolved editors.
- To respond to your comments at my talk page (I prefer to keep discussions in one place), I didn't warn Jytdog because they indicated they were no longer going to be involved in the discussion, plus they technically would be at three reverts though (I don't consider such minor editors like correcting reference pages reverts).
- You didn't give any such indication though, so you would be the one where a reminder about edit warring would have the most potential use. As I stated before, I intend the warnings as a reminder to stop or prevent behavior issues, not as some kind of punishment. In this case, you have made four distinct sets of changes to the article over a 24 hour period. Keep in mind that hitting the undo button is not the only way to revert. Adding new content is also considered a revert as well when one starts counting everything up. Each of your uninterrupted series of edits can be considered a single revert, so even if you wanted to ignore Jytdog's edits at this point and consider your edits after that part of your previous ones, you'd still be at three reverts by my count. Even ignoring that, you have been engaging in edit warring (three reverts aren't needed for that), so the warning was only intended to remind you to be wary of edit warring regardless, utilize dispute resolution when it's apparent edits are contested, and to slow down when disputes come up. I don't intend to jump into any personal dispute you have with Jytdog but rather focus on editing articles in a good-faith manner. In the end, this was only intended to let you know that you could run into issues if you end up flirting with the 3RR bright line in the future and nothing more. Since that's done, there's nothing more to discuss in this conversation at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
. That's what the policy states, which means there were only two (apparently you are counting some that did not undo other editor actions). I noticed that you did not bother to provide diffs - don't bother at this point. Just stay off my talkpage from now on. GregJackP Boomer! 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)- For clarity's sake this is what I was referencing from WP:3RR: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I won't comment here any further per WP:NOBAN. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)