This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Things are named by what names them (Aristotle). This thing is called "Wikimedia v. NSA" by the thing that spawned it. [1] End of. c1cada ( talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Really? There's no appropriate photo for this article. It's about a text, which is already linked. A generic photo of lawyers/courtrooms/legal documents would add nothing here, and there are no specific photos generated. Risker ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
i'm asking because in the german wikipedia there are a few critical voices concerning the foundation's move (without asking the writing community). wikimedia vs. wikipedia. just curious. best, Maximilian ( talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thank you, all very helpful. Maximilian ( talk) 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
... Wikimedia Foundation, et al, v. National Security Agency, et al.
Do your worst page-shifters .
The quote in full from a Reuters page
c1cada ( talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor has switched the Event info box to the Court case box, although as far as I know there hasn't been a hearing yet. Originally this had fields for "prosecutors" and "defendants". You usually see "prosecutors" in the context of criminal procedures, but the concept applies to civil cases as well, the prosecutor simply being the party that initiates legal proceedings:
So in this case that would be the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who filed the lawsuit and who (as far as I know) will prosecute the lawsuit. An editor has fixed the Court Case by introducing a parameter "Plaintiffs". I'm going to restore ACLU as prosecutor, but revert me if I'm wrong. Not a huge fan of infoboxes anyway, me. c1cada ( talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
When I'm on the article (latest Firefox, Microsoft XP), I see a big gap at the end of article (when page is fully loaded). It is exactly so big, that, when I press each "show" in {{ NSA surveillance}}, there is no gap; removing {{ clear left}} doesn't help. Tested random other articles with {{ NSA surveillance}} - there is no gap. Could somebody (@ Redrose64 and Alakzi:?) fix it, if I'm not the only one, who sees it. If I am, then nevermind. I can live with that :) -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 20:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
NSA surveillance|1}}
with the {{
Global surveillance}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Things are named by what names them (Aristotle). This thing is called "Wikimedia v. NSA" by the thing that spawned it. [1] End of. c1cada ( talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Really? There's no appropriate photo for this article. It's about a text, which is already linked. A generic photo of lawyers/courtrooms/legal documents would add nothing here, and there are no specific photos generated. Risker ( talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
i'm asking because in the german wikipedia there are a few critical voices concerning the foundation's move (without asking the writing community). wikimedia vs. wikipedia. just curious. best, Maximilian ( talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thank you, all very helpful. Maximilian ( talk) 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
... Wikimedia Foundation, et al, v. National Security Agency, et al.
Do your worst page-shifters .
The quote in full from a Reuters page
c1cada ( talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor has switched the Event info box to the Court case box, although as far as I know there hasn't been a hearing yet. Originally this had fields for "prosecutors" and "defendants". You usually see "prosecutors" in the context of criminal procedures, but the concept applies to civil cases as well, the prosecutor simply being the party that initiates legal proceedings:
So in this case that would be the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who filed the lawsuit and who (as far as I know) will prosecute the lawsuit. An editor has fixed the Court Case by introducing a parameter "Plaintiffs". I'm going to restore ACLU as prosecutor, but revert me if I'm wrong. Not a huge fan of infoboxes anyway, me. c1cada ( talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
When I'm on the article (latest Firefox, Microsoft XP), I see a big gap at the end of article (when page is fully loaded). It is exactly so big, that, when I press each "show" in {{ NSA surveillance}}, there is no gap; removing {{ clear left}} doesn't help. Tested random other articles with {{ NSA surveillance}} - there is no gap. Could somebody (@ Redrose64 and Alakzi:?) fix it, if I'm not the only one, who sees it. If I am, then nevermind. I can live with that :) -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 20:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
NSA surveillance|1}}
with the {{
Global surveillance}}
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
20:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)