Viciouslies
|
Perry v.
editIn a note earlier this year on the Perry v. Schwartzenegger, you mentioned that the article at the time contained several misstatements of the ACLU, NCLR, etc. positions on the Perry case. (I've been trying to make some cleanups to the article in general, in part based on a new article on the background of the Perry case in the January 2010 issue of California Lawyer.) If you have any suggestions, etc., I'd love to hear them, it'd be great to have this article in a little better shape before it starts getting media attention when the trial begins in a couple weeks. --Joe Decker (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Out of town today, but I saw your response and wanted to get back to you.: Your suggestions sound really sane to me. BTW, the Callawyer article (which someone gave me a photocopy of) is now up on their web site, it wasn't when I read it: http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=906575&evid=1 Don't know if we need it in the ref or not, but thought you might want to know of it in any case. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know that I've reviewed your article. Really great work! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
UK Supreme Court case drive
editHi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.
As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.
During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.
I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.
I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.
How you can help
- Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK case based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.
- Complete that template and add it to existing cases.
- Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.
- Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking
- Create new articles for UKSC cases
- Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.
- Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
References
edit
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.
If you don't understand the message above, please ask. The content you are adding at proton pump inhibitor is not OK for content about health. I took a glance at your history and you don't edit much in this space. Please do review WP:MEDRS before continuing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
.jpg){kind=logo}
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.
We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.
More information, and registration details, at QW2021.--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 03:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)