Talk:United States v. Grimaud

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

File:Sierra Forest Reserve.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Sierra Forest Reserve.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josephlamar.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Josephlamar.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:USDA.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:USDA.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting[edit]

The article, as indicated by the 'lacks encyclopedic tone' tag, was pretty poorly written and had clearly POV material throughout. I've removed all but the last section of the article body (which were poorly sourced to begin with) and re-wrote the article introduction as a concise summary of the text of the decision. I've taken the liberty of removing the tag, as now the issue it raised should be fixed.

--Doncurzio (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see another user has reverted the edit; I would suggest that if removal of particular material is problematic, they rewrite those parts into the article with better sourcing and proper tone. I don't see any point in keeping the very POV material around, even if deleting it means deleting large parts of the article. If there's useful material, it's better added from a new slate without the POV cruft around it.

--Doncurzio (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts, Amherst supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot[edit]

In fixing the bare urls, I removed the rotten link: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=24+J.+L.+%26+Politics+169&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=81c22154d87cccccde70c479cb466849 I tried searching both on the lexisnexis database and in general for what that would link to as well as the text it was used to cite, to no avail whatsoever. Feel free to re-investigate, it has the potential to be a great reference, if it exists.