This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a wikilink to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 331 that was listed under "See Also". I don't see any reason to have a link to that volume - Pruneyard vs Robins is in volume 447 anyway, as shown in the article itself. I didn't add a link to Volume 447 as I'd see no reason to do this - none of the other cases there have any bearing on this one from what I can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny252 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The addition of the reference to International Society for Krishna Conscious v. City of Los Angeles IS RELEVANT to Pruneyard because Pruneyard is the main argument for the International Society for Krishna Conscious with regard the a "public forum." THEY did reach Pruneyard in International Society for Krishna Conscious v. City of Los Angeles, it is even cited in the opinion. Their conclusion was that the exchanging of funds was not speech, and hence was not covered by Pruneyard. Please stop deleting the reference. It is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.142.209 ( talk) 03:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it still is relevant, and its presence, insofar, does not harm anything about the article. Hence, it is not vandalism. If you think there is a better place for the information or a more appropriate way to present, you are free to suggest one. However, carelessly marking a serious addition as vandalism simply because it does not meet your standards is not warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.142.209 ( talk) 11:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I will not be bullied!
I have specifically asked you to discuss the matter, and come to a meaningful consensus. All you have done is willfully bully, harass, and threaten another editor in order to conform to your opinion on the matter. I have specifically asked you to comment on an appropriate placement of the information added, however, you have yet to do that. The fact of the matter is that someone did cite it, and hence, to perhaps the smallest degree, is relevant. Some people are interested in the differences in free speech policy between California and the rest of the nation; and even though it is not well determined where that line is, it is important, at the least to the people at large, that California law does not protect "the immediate exchange of funds" (i.e., panhandling) on quasi-public private property (i.e., a shopping center, etc.). If you believe there is better way or place to express this difference, please suggest one. However, intimidating me with threats of bannings, etc. is not appropriate.
If you have in fact you have been an editor for over five years, you should know that one of the main pillars of WIkipeida: WP:5P, WP:CIV is Civility. Which, to be blunt, you have not at all engaged in. You mislabeled a CLEARLY serious edit as "vandalism" and reverted such an edit numerous times without using the talk page. My edits, in fact, are not vandalism: WP:VAND#NOT.
Lastly, your attitude here, without a thought, sincerely discourages other editors from participating on this project. Please reconsider you attitude and tone towards other editors. 71.132.142.209 ( talk) 08:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Legal decisions are never binding outside their jurisdiction. The article in its current state blurs interpretation of related issues in jurisdictions other than California with "subsequent developments". The subsequent case law, particularly Ralphs vs UFCW, is an important topic which deserves to be set forth without muddling. Optimized nuerons ( talk) 21:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
An inappropriate use of a nonfree image (
Image:Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg) has been removed from the article, as it fails several of the
nonfree content criteria. It first fails #1, replaceability, as the point made by the image is also made by the following text: Because of the Pruneyard case, people who visit shopping centers in California may regularly encounter people seeking money or attention for various causes, including charitable solicitations, qualifying petitions for amendments to the state constitution, voter registration drives, and sometimes a beggar. In turn, many shopping centers have posted signs to explain that they do not endorse the views of people exercising their right to free speech, and that if patrons do not give them money, the speakers will go away.
Therefore, the image is not needed for understanding of that point. While failing one criteria is sufficient for removal, it also then fails #8 (being replaceable, the image's use is decorative), and #3a (one nonfree image should not be used when free text suffices), and #10c (its nonfree rationale is incomplete).
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed a wikilink to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 331 that was listed under "See Also". I don't see any reason to have a link to that volume - Pruneyard vs Robins is in volume 447 anyway, as shown in the article itself. I didn't add a link to Volume 447 as I'd see no reason to do this - none of the other cases there have any bearing on this one from what I can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny252 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The addition of the reference to International Society for Krishna Conscious v. City of Los Angeles IS RELEVANT to Pruneyard because Pruneyard is the main argument for the International Society for Krishna Conscious with regard the a "public forum." THEY did reach Pruneyard in International Society for Krishna Conscious v. City of Los Angeles, it is even cited in the opinion. Their conclusion was that the exchanging of funds was not speech, and hence was not covered by Pruneyard. Please stop deleting the reference. It is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.142.209 ( talk) 03:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it still is relevant, and its presence, insofar, does not harm anything about the article. Hence, it is not vandalism. If you think there is a better place for the information or a more appropriate way to present, you are free to suggest one. However, carelessly marking a serious addition as vandalism simply because it does not meet your standards is not warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.142.209 ( talk) 11:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I will not be bullied!
I have specifically asked you to discuss the matter, and come to a meaningful consensus. All you have done is willfully bully, harass, and threaten another editor in order to conform to your opinion on the matter. I have specifically asked you to comment on an appropriate placement of the information added, however, you have yet to do that. The fact of the matter is that someone did cite it, and hence, to perhaps the smallest degree, is relevant. Some people are interested in the differences in free speech policy between California and the rest of the nation; and even though it is not well determined where that line is, it is important, at the least to the people at large, that California law does not protect "the immediate exchange of funds" (i.e., panhandling) on quasi-public private property (i.e., a shopping center, etc.). If you believe there is better way or place to express this difference, please suggest one. However, intimidating me with threats of bannings, etc. is not appropriate.
If you have in fact you have been an editor for over five years, you should know that one of the main pillars of WIkipeida: WP:5P, WP:CIV is Civility. Which, to be blunt, you have not at all engaged in. You mislabeled a CLEARLY serious edit as "vandalism" and reverted such an edit numerous times without using the talk page. My edits, in fact, are not vandalism: WP:VAND#NOT.
Lastly, your attitude here, without a thought, sincerely discourages other editors from participating on this project. Please reconsider you attitude and tone towards other editors. 71.132.142.209 ( talk) 08:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Legal decisions are never binding outside their jurisdiction. The article in its current state blurs interpretation of related issues in jurisdictions other than California with "subsequent developments". The subsequent case law, particularly Ralphs vs UFCW, is an important topic which deserves to be set forth without muddling. Optimized nuerons ( talk) 21:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
An inappropriate use of a nonfree image (
Image:Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg) has been removed from the article, as it fails several of the
nonfree content criteria. It first fails #1, replaceability, as the point made by the image is also made by the following text: Because of the Pruneyard case, people who visit shopping centers in California may regularly encounter people seeking money or attention for various causes, including charitable solicitations, qualifying petitions for amendments to the state constitution, voter registration drives, and sometimes a beggar. In turn, many shopping centers have posted signs to explain that they do not endorse the views of people exercising their right to free speech, and that if patrons do not give them money, the speakers will go away.
Therefore, the image is not needed for understanding of that point. While failing one criteria is sufficient for removal, it also then fails #8 (being replaceable, the image's use is decorative), and #3a (one nonfree image should not be used when free text suffices), and #10c (its nonfree rationale is incomplete).
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)