Talk:Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser

message: Based on the discussions on the Percy Schmeiser page, I added a suggested merge tag there and a machine one here. Kenj0418 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think merging the case article into the bio would be that good an idea. There are many famous litigants, such as Morgentaler and Marshall, none of which have the cases within their article. To do otherwise would set a precedent that would be awkward when applied to many other similar case articles. The fact of the matter is the Percy Schmeiser article is more about the case than the person himself, and so the case title would be more appropriate for most of the text. --PullUpYourSocks 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, the Percy Schmseiser article should stay. Looks good as is. --PullUpYourSocks 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have noticed that my attempt to cleanup this article has been reverted, which is unfortunate because it has made it a much poorer article. In my defence against having "decimated" the pre-cleanup version I would say that I did anything but. The version that I had cleaned up focused on just the basic facts that are needed to understand what the supreme court said and was easy to understand. As the article is now it is very difficult to read and is generally very messy. It contains far too much insignificant information from the trial, it is not organized into any coherent fashion, contains some confused statements of the law, and mixes fact and opinion without citing anything.  I would recommend reverting it back to the version from 15:16, 10 March 2006 --PullUpYourSocks 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to be edited down quite a bit, but I find your major edit wiped out much of the important and interesting detail. Since this a complicated case, and it also received a lot of publicity over several years, stripping it down to a barebones outline IMO doesn't properly serve the subject. I'll try to clear up the main dense block... --Tsavage 07:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting the cleanup 

message: I've started to clean up the article. Here is the pre-clean-up version for quick reference; it can be used to check the diffs between any subsequent version.
I'm using the following outline, taken from an Australina case article. I'm not sure if there are other conventions for Canadian case coverage, however, this is practical for organizing and editing down. If there is another format, it can perhaps be updated after the article is in better shape. These are the four main text sections I've installed: 
:Background includes setting up the case and the previous trials.
:Arguments includes the substance of the Supreme Court trial, including reference to the final ruling.
:Judgement summarizes the results (which have been discussed in part in the previous section)
:Consequences summarizes all post-trial occurrences, discussion of the impact of the ruling, related "trivia", and so forth.
I don't know how long it might take me if I do it alone, so contributions are encouraged. I think much of it is simply reducing the redundancies in the text and writing in a more summary style. At least, that's what I'm planning to do. --Tsavage 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on the edit Ttguy 05:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's looking much better. I doubt I will have time to re-read the judgment any time too soon, but I hope to help out when I can. --PullUpYourSocks 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on major revision started March 2006

message: I gave today's version of the article a rating of Start class.  While it has a lot of content, it needs verifiable external references - especially in the "Consequences" section, which appears to be entirely unreferenced. PKT 13:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: @User:Mark Marathon We have been exchanging edits, reversions and discussion (previous thread) about the first paragraph in the Publicity section. After subsequent incremental edits by me and two reversions by you, I have reverted back to the original version before your initial changes, per WP:BRD. That version is below, please make your proposed changes here so it can be discussed, and we can avoid disruptive editing in the article. Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made it clear that you have no intention of respecting WP:BRD. I have initiated a discussion at length above, and you refuse to engage any of the points, instead trying to ram through your edits. That's fine, you will find that you have no chance at all of achieving consensus for your changes and they will rapidly be deleted as per the above discussion. Please note that I have not broken the three revert rule. I have reverted to the version of 4 November 2014‎ exactly once. I did this in the face of your refusal to discuss this issue here and your constant reverse my edits. This means that you have reverted the 3RR by reverting my edits "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" because  "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. I have reported tou for edit warring accordingly. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not choose the WP:BRD cycle, Rather than revert your entire set of edits, I continued editing, building on your changes, which I thought was more inclusive, respectful and constructive. If had chosen the revert route, the version you are so vigorously trying to change would be sitting there in the article while Talk discussion likely stretched on...forever. The only actual deletion was one unsourced sentence, which you could have sourced and replaced. I also continued the disucsson in full on this page. --Tsavage (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsavage, when you repeatedly revert with edit summaries complaining about others edit-warring, that just discredits you. bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what side you are on if you are on one, have you actually followed that sequence of edits? What I should have done was revert the whole thing per WP:BRD and bring it to discussion, but I was trying to be inclusive and continue editing with the new material. Wikipedia has become so about wikilawyering of various sorts... Thankfully, my winter/Wikipedia season will soon come to a close. --Tsavage (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity section paragraph rewrite for local consensus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060316000103/http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/biotech01_canola.html?OpenPage to http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/biotech01_canola.html?OpenPage
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/temp-2010-12-09/IhhbywnicHkEsqDmfgAwmGguoGfsxytkhclpIvycurnCAqvmeldbmJruhFmF/mchughen_etal_popular_misconceptions_about_ag_biotech.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UYRT34AOQ&Expires=1350011984&Signature=f62TLCS7C25NX0RLi0LvWLaPSdE%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905011001/http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)