Revision as of 05:56, 4 May 2008 editEubulides (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers27,779 edits →Citing legal opinions: cite court template not ready← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:15, 4 May 2008 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Citing legal opinions: agreedNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
::Maybe the Cite court template could work. ] 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | ::Maybe the Cite court template could work. ] 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
::: I tried that a few weeks ago but it clearly was not ready for prime-time. Formatting it by hand is fine for now. ] (]) 05:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | ::: I tried that a few weeks ago but it clearly was not ready for prime-time. Formatting it by hand is fine for now. ] (]) 05:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::Okay. ] 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:15, 4 May 2008
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of April 2008.Comment
People seem a little on edge. Consider letting it cool down. Jefffire (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- That would not be a good idea. Listen, take a break for a few days to think things over. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst have a new book out called "Trick or Treatment", which seems like it does a very good job of reviewing the evidence for a lot of alternative medicines. I think it might have some quite useful material in, judging from the reviews I've read. Jefffire (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would prefer it if you left messages on my talk page rather than emailing me unless the topic is strictly private. Jefffire (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- A gentle approach is generally much more effective, working one little logically uncontestable change at a time. Consider Sport Chiropractic. Obviously extremely biased when first written. When I went through the sources one by one I found that CorticoSpinal had completely misrepresented one of them, neglecting to mention that it was highly critical of the increase in scope of practice. A direct quote from the article was minor change, but brought the article that little bit closer to neutrality. Likewise, the book "Opportunities in Chiropractic Careers" is clearly a piece of rubbish and not worth citing for anything. Cortico insisted that it be quoted as factually infallible (this takes be back to my days on the Creationism articles actually), attributing it correctly makes it clear to the reader the nature of the source. As you can see, these small steps look inconsequential, by they add up. The article is still highly biased, but more of these little steps will gradually bring it into line. Jefffire (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would prefer it if you left messages on my talk page rather than emailing me unless the topic is strictly private. Jefffire (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Potential misinterpretation
Hans Adler pointed out that we may have had a miscommunication. If that is so, please let me apologize for not being more clear and I will rephrase my posting at ANI. My initial post was simply meant to invite you to explain your opposition to the ban, as I had asked for clarification and Jim had quickly remove his inappropriate comment upon request. If you're unwilling to post to ANI, I would still appreciate it if you could just drop a line to my talk page to explain. Again, sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Vassyana (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- It sincerely was not my intent to heckle you. I honestly wanted to know why you were objecting and why you thought it was too harsh. I have been known to change my mind on occasion when presented with contrary evidence or a compelling reason to so do. :) Vassyana (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You are a valuable contributor
You are a valuable contributor here at Misplaced Pages and I fear that if things continue down the current path, we might lose you in one or more topic areas. Try to "bite your tongue" more often, or tone things down just a tad, so we do not end up losing your input in these pseudoscience areas. Just a suggestion...--Filll (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...
but not a hope, of me joining in, that is. I'm glad you're finding it fun and good luck with the Good Article! --Slp1 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it has been under dispute! I've already had a quick look but will examine further for interests sake at some point. But right now, William is calling! --Slp1 (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Citing legal opinions
As a general rule, when citing legal opinions it's best to cite the actual opinion rather than a summary of that opinion by one of the parties involved; any such summary is likely to be biased. So, "Wilk v. AMA, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)" (the actual opinion) is better than "Wilk vs American Medical Association Summary" (a summary of the opinion by one of the parties). Eubulides (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know of a good template for citing judicial opinions. ", 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)" generates the standard legal style for citing opinions in the U.S. federal circuits. How to cite judicial opinions gives info about citing judicial opinions in general. More generally, Introduction to Basic Legal Citation describes how to cite other legal documents. Eubulides (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the Cite court template could work. QuackGuru 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tried that a few weeks ago but it clearly was not ready for prime-time. Formatting it by hand is fine for now. Eubulides (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the Cite court template could work. QuackGuru 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)