major changes, about what's in the article and why, what could be added and what could be removed. Had you done so, I might have been willing to have a good discussion about these things and I wouldn't be feeling the way I am now, and perhaps the article would be a GA. Instead, I watched it blow up on my watchlist for several days at a time, after which you nominated it and went on to other things.
161:
586:, Part I begins on page 260 and ends on page 264, so it's less than 5 pages. I don't have the actual United States Reports in front of me, but someone should be able to look them up and give the proper page count. (Footnote 1 precedes Part I in Blackmun's opinion and consists largely of quotes from the Major League Rules and the Uniform Player's Contract relating to the reserve clause.) --
93:
178:
842:-ish. And to be fair in that department, I am also a little offended myself that this seems to be symptomatic of the way you have approached this whole thing. I know it is not necessary that you ask anybody else's permission to edit an article in any way but ... a cursory look through the article history would probably have disclosed to a perceptive editor that I
329:
308:
339:
969:. And the victim blaming continues with the fact that you compare yourself to the car here. The car that suffered almost no physical damage. The driver was fine. I'm the one who had to shell out money for repairs, for my body and for my bike, I'm the one who has to go to physical therapy, I'm the one in
830:I have never had a reviewer at either page have an issue with that, and I would request a second opinion if one did ... I consider exact dates to be excessive detail that should be included only if there is continuing relevance to that exact date, or if events are occurring within a short time frame.
548:My concern is not the accuracy of the statement or the breach of normal Supreme Court protocol of the time (which I am not disputing). It's the context. You tell someone that something lasts 7 pages, they're going to think of an essay 4-5 times as long as what was actually written. Put in context,
854:Then, after your accident and subsequent rehabilitation, you finally wander back here and make this rather presumptuous post that addresses "to whom it may concern" ... again, as if invisible wikisquirrels not worthy of a name put this together (And may I say that it was necessary: you were framing
850:see an article that I think could be expanded to some level of recognition-worthiness, I make a point of searching through the history to see if there is anyone who put substantial effort into it and pays regular attention to it, someone to whom it might be a good idea to reach out to before making
930:Now that you have withdrawn the nomination, again on your own initiative, that question is settled. I will at some point later this summer (I hope) create that spinoff article and, then, I think, nominate the remaining article here for GA as it will be leaner and meaner. You of course deserve some
835:supports, and in fact by using the term "nitpick" it appears as if you are tacitly aware that it is an entirely arbitrary criterion for article quality. Frankly, it appears too often as if an editor continually using them is trying to impress a reader or reviewer with the quantity of the research
788:Firstly, I have removed my good article nomination of this article, as it has been edited far beyond the scope of what I initially submitted for review in April. If someone were to conduct a review now, there is no universe in which I could respond to many of the comments. I am not trying to
803:Additionally, I noticed that many of the specific dates that I had added when I initially submitted the article at GAN have been removed. I would prefer if precise dates be included wherever possible, as this is absolutely something that I would nitpick if I were a reviewer at GAN or FAC. —
867:do, and generally the writers of sports articles and books are not the most ideal sources for interpreting what a judge writes, especially when said judge's language is pretty plain and there are more legally focused writers you can cite), you were apparently unaware that
34:legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at:
900:, also a featured article, is 127K. If you have some cuts to suggest to it to get it down to 100K, no one's stopping you from going to the talk page and asking "to whom it may concern" why they aren't doing it.
549:the section qualifies as brief. I'm not sure if the "7 pages" should be taken out, or a note put in stating the actual length, but it seems to me that, as it currently stands, it's inadvertently deceptive.--
909:That said ... I began to come to the same conclusion myself as I was nearing the end of my expansion. I realized there's really enough her to spin off into a new article that would ideally be titled
290:
890:like, say, the dimensions of and distance between every wooden bench in a subway station. We have plenty of featured articles over that length; while this article is now undeniably the longest in
1046:
838:I am also rather taken aback by your tone ... I realize what you may have been through recently and you may not be yourself, so to speak, but that "I would prefer" sounds rather
1041:
280:
917:have just gone ahead and done it myself I thought it better to wait until you were up to working on the article again because I thought you might like to be consulted since
1026:
727:
723:
709:
256:
237:
214:
1036:
800:, anything with a prose size over 100 kB is likely far, far too big. This currently clocks in at 173 kB, enough to slow my computer down when I opened it.
1056:
385:
242:
395:
879:Again, it would not have been so difficult to look through the article history and see who spent a good deal of your downtime making all these edits.
1031:
153:
135:
1061:
1071:
550:
496:
486:
361:
1051:
246:
131:
1076:
705:When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
630:, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
910:
27:
352:
313:
681:
1066:
998:I apologize ... I had been working late, was not in a great mood thanks to yesterday's news, and I will strike that part.
896:
846:this article 14 years ago and then developed it at least to DYK level, after which I have regularly maintained it. When
770:
189:
528:Within the context of a Supreme Court opinion (at the time, anyway) that was pretty much what it was. Seven pages of
869:
457:
418:
726:to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
68:
590:
58:
863:welcome and useful, but it was lacking in legal background (it did not even cite the case directly, which you
554:
761:
673:
583:It doesn't even appear to be accurate that Part I takes up seven pages in the U.S. Reports. As indicated at
461:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
113:
886:, more IMO a guideline intended to keep newer editors from overstuffing articles with tables and lists of
1003:
936:
745:If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
733:
641:
605:
568:
539:
195:
108:
672:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
980:
811:
177:
587:
360:on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
693:
730:before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
584:
92:
746:
699:
999:
947:
932:
891:
836:they did, while not being aware that the ensuing article may look cluttered with the facts.
797:
637:
601:
564:
535:
146:
20:
931:credit for what you've done, and if you'd like to be part of that process, I'd welcome it.
753:
229:
208:
993:
975:
887:
825:
806:
653:Last edited at 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
344:
682:https://web.archive.org/web/20081008210203/http://www.dsl.psu.edu/faculty/ross/Flood.pdf
712:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
636:*The section on Flood's playing career needs references and could be written better. -
530:
127:
73:
752:If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1020:
923:
883:
839:
790:
665:
627:
141:
872:for citing law-journal articles than there is for regular journal articles, because
832:
433:
412:
882:While I realize the article got extremely long in the process, that 100K cap is
719:
685:
443:
117:
718:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
449:
439:
334:
49:
103:
873:
357:
31:
859:primarily through a sports lens. Your additions about Flood's biography
796:That being said, the article in its current state is much too long. Per
36:
1007:
986:
940:
817:
775:
645:
609:
593:
572:
558:
543:
112:column on 29 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,600 times (
534:-esque writing that have absolutely no legal relevance to the case.
328:
307:
921:had nominated it for GA on what was entirely your own initiative.
831:There is nothing in policy that requires them (in fact, I believe
793:the article. I do not care if someone else submits it at GAN.
462:
171:
87:
44:
15:
973:. Your low blow is so far out of line here it's repulsive. —
159:
700:http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/443/264/443
676:for additional information. I made the following changes:
241:, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to
843:
669:
622:
251:
356:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
722:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
600:It's about four pages. I will amend appropriately.
955:really feel like a car hit by a motorcycle here
874:there is a different format for those citations
626:, and are posted here for posterity. Following
708:This message was posted before February 2018.
265:Knowledge:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
1047:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
686:http://www.dsl.psu.edu/faculty/ross/Flood.pdf
620:The comment(s) below were originally left at
268:Template:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
8:
563:So we should put in the word count as well?
249:. If you would like to participate, you can
902:
1042:Low-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
664:I have just modified one external link on
407:
302:
203:
911:Professional baseball antitrust exemption
120:). The text of the entry was as follows:
154:Knowledge:Recent additions/2008/February
1027:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
409:
304:
205:
175:
954:
623:Talk:Flood v. Kuhn/Comments (baseball)
152:A record of the entry may be seen at
7:
455:This article is within the scope of
350:This article is within the scope of
255:attached to this page, or visit the
238:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
1037:B-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
465:and the subjects encompassed by it.
194:It is of interest to the following
971:very real physical and mental pain
14:
1057:High-importance Baseball articles
668:. Please take a moment to review
628:several discussions in past years
160:
59:mentioned by a media organization
442:
432:
411:
337:
327:
306:
228:
207:
176:
149:was beneath the Court's dignity?
91:
48:
19:
1032:Knowledge Did you know articles
785:Hello. To whom it may concern,
491:This article has been rated as
390:This article has been rated as
285:This article has been rated as
28:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Legal
884:not a rigorously enforced rule
573:21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
559:19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
370:Knowledge:WikiProject Baseball
37:Cornell's Basic Legal Citation
1:
1062:WikiProject Baseball articles
897:United States v. Wong Kim Ark
870:there is a different template
646:15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
610:04:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
594:03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
544:05:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
373:Template:WikiProject Baseball
364:and see a list of open tasks.
67:Amy Davidson (18 June 2010).
1072:Low-importance law articles
616:Baseball assessment comment
271:U.S. Supreme Court articles
1093:
739:(last update: 5 June 2024)
661:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
497:project's importance scale
396:project's importance scale
1052:B-Class Baseball articles
1008:22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
987:15:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
941:00:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
818:17:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
776:19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
635:
490:
471:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
427:
389:
322:
284:
223:
202:
26:This article follows the
1077:WikiProject Law articles
959:what if it happens again
950:, you most certainly do
474:Template:WikiProject Law
262:U.S. Supreme Court cases
235:This article is part of
215:U.S. Supreme Court cases
102:appeared on Knowledge's
657:External links modified
857:Supreme Court decision
184:This article is rated
165:
57:This article has been
163:
130:'s colleagues on the
1067:B-Class law articles
720:regular verification
353:WikiProject Baseball
963:my very real trauma
855:an article about a
710:After February 2018
243:Supreme Court cases
136:history of baseball
965:as a metaphor for
764:InternetArchiveBot
715:InternetArchiveBot
190:content assessment
166:
132:U.S. Supreme Court
69:"Joshua and Kagan"
740:
651:
650:
511:
510:
507:
506:
503:
502:
406:
405:
402:
401:
376:Baseball articles
301:
300:
297:
296:
170:
169:
86:
85:
43:
42:
1084:
997:
983:
978:
905:
904:
829:
814:
809:
774:
765:
738:
737:
716:
697:
633:
632:
625:
522:
521:
517:
479:
478:
475:
472:
469:
452:
447:
446:
436:
429:
428:
423:
415:
408:
378:
377:
374:
371:
368:
347:
342:
341:
340:
331:
324:
323:
318:
310:
303:
291:importance scale
273:
272:
269:
266:
263:
254:
252:edit the article
232:
225:
224:
219:
211:
204:
187:
181:
180:
172:
162:
147:majority opinion
95:
88:
78:
52:
45:
23:
16:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1017:
1016:
991:
981:
976:
967:Knowledge edits
901:
823:
812:
807:
783:
781:Trimming needed
768:
763:
731:
724:have permission
714:
691:
674:this simple FaQ
659:
621:
618:
523:
519:
515:
514:
476:
473:
470:
467:
466:
458:WikiProject Law
448:
441:
421:
392:High-importance
375:
372:
369:
366:
365:
345:Baseball portal
343:
338:
336:
317:High‑importance
316:
270:
267:
264:
261:
260:
250:
217:
188:on Knowledge's
185:
82:
81:
66:
62:
12:
11:
5:
1090:
1088:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1059:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1029:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
913:, and while I
782:
779:
758:
757:
750:
703:
702:
688:
680:Added archive
658:
655:
649:
648:
617:
614:
613:
612:
597:
596:
588:Metropolitan90
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
551:76.108.205.225
531:Finnegans Wake
512:
509:
508:
505:
504:
501:
500:
493:Low-importance
489:
483:
482:
480:
454:
453:
437:
425:
424:
422:Low‑importance
416:
404:
403:
400:
399:
388:
382:
381:
379:
362:the discussion
349:
348:
332:
320:
319:
311:
299:
298:
295:
294:
287:Low-importance
283:
277:
276:
274:
233:
221:
220:
218:Low‑importance
212:
200:
199:
193:
182:
168:
167:
157:
151:
150:
134:felt his long
128:Harry Blackmun
96:
84:
83:
80:
79:
74:The New Yorker
63:
56:
55:
53:
41:
40:
30:. It uses the
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1089:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1009:
1005:
1001:
995:
990:
989:
988:
985:
984:
979:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
928:
926:
925:
920:
916:
912:
907:
899:
898:
893:
889:
885:
880:
877:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
852:
849:
845:
841:
834:
827:
822:
821:
820:
819:
816:
815:
810:
801:
799:
794:
792:
786:
780:
778:
777:
772:
767:
766:
755:
751:
748:
744:
743:
742:
735:
729:
725:
721:
717:
711:
706:
701:
695:
689:
687:
683:
679:
678:
677:
675:
671:
667:
666:Flood v. Kuhn
662:
656:
654:
647:
643:
639:
634:
631:
629:
624:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
595:
592:
589:
585:
582:
581:
574:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:
527:
526:
525:
518:
498:
494:
488:
485:
484:
481:
464:
460:
459:
451:
445:
440:
438:
435:
431:
430:
426:
420:
417:
414:
410:
397:
393:
387:
384:
383:
380:
363:
359:
355:
354:
346:
335:
333:
330:
326:
325:
321:
315:
312:
309:
305:
292:
288:
282:
279:
278:
275:
258:
253:
248:
247:Supreme Court
244:
240:
239:
234:
231:
227:
226:
222:
216:
213:
210:
206:
201:
197:
191:
183:
179:
174:
173:
158:
155:
148:
145:
144:
143:
142:Flood v. Kuhn
137:
133:
129:
125:
122:
121:
119:
115:
111:
110:
105:
101:
100:Flood v. Kuhn
97:
94:
90:
89:
76:
75:
70:
65:
64:
60:
54:
51:
47:
46:
38:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
951:
929:
922:
918:
914:
908:
895:
881:
878:
864:
860:
856:
853:
847:
837:
805:
802:
795:
787:
784:
762:
759:
734:source check
713:
707:
704:
663:
660:
652:
619:
529:
524:
492:
477:law articles
456:
391:
351:
286:
257:project page
236:
196:WikiProjects
140:
139:
124:Did you know
123:
109:Did you know
107:
99:
98:A fact from
72:
1000:Daniel Case
948:Daniel Case
933:Daniel Case
638:Mattingly23
602:Daniel Case
565:Daniel Case
536:Daniel Case
463:legal field
118:check views
1021:Categories
994:GhostRiver
903:(Redacted)
826:GhostRiver
771:Report bug
450:Law portal
114:disclaimer
892:WP:SCOTUS
798:WP:TOOBIG
754:this tool
747:this tool
694:dead link
164:Knowledge
126:... that
104:Main Page
760:Cheers.—
513:
Index
Knowledge:Manual of Style/Legal
Bluebook
Cornell's Basic Legal Citation
mentioned by a media organization
"Joshua and Kagan"
The New Yorker
Main Page
Did you know
disclaimer
check views
Harry Blackmun
U.S. Supreme Court
history of baseball
Flood v. Kuhn
majority opinion
Knowledge:Recent additions/2008/February
content assessment
WikiProjects
U.S. Supreme Court cases
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
Supreme Court cases
Supreme Court
edit the article
project page
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
↑