Talk:West (publisher)

message: Wasn't there a reference to the Hubke decision in the Supreme Court Reporter?  Seems there was once, but in some SCRs there isn't?  The same with Hickman vs. Jones, there's a federal reference, but questions arise about the Supreme Court reports.
Hard to cite case law when it's there one moment and gone the next.  At least California's consistent in its inconsistency with case law.  Many recent decisions have come from CMF at Vacaville, and there's lots of medication there.  I believe that West's has to dutifully report the case law decisions irregardless of their origins, but it makes for difficult reading at times.
Or are there some decisions that West's omits?
:Supreme Court Reporter should eventually have everything, basically because it has to be at least as inclusive as U.S. and L.Ed.2d. Different in other areas. F.3d obviously doesn't have everything, because there is Fed. Appx. of unpublished decisions, which, however, aren't as West says "not selected for publication in F.3d," but usually designated "Not for publication." It was noted a while back that F. Supp. is not inclusive of cases printed by CCH and BNA, and in fact, West would delete citations in the court opinion to those sources, and just say [unpublished]. There are, of course, all sorts of opinions that have WL cites but not printed ones, such as 200X Ohio 1234, 200X WL 987654, or Mass. App. Div. However, once a case gets into a bound volume, it is as permanent as it can get. One should also remember that unless West is designated as the official reporter, citations to the Official Reports, such as U.S. or N.Y. are required, so that governs.
:Of course, since you aren't paying me for legal research, I can't spend the time or paid databases to find the particular case. Busjack (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Court Reporter and Hubke

message: The image :File:Thomson Reuters logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Thomson Reuters logo.svg

message: I keep seeing these random edits that attack West's outsourcing policy.   This is ridiculous because most major corporations outsource jobs all the time.  It puts undue emphasis on an issue that is clearly a tangent, in violation of WP:UNDUE, and also in violation of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a soapbox).  It's as silly and childish as adding a statement to the articles on Microsoft or Procter & Gamble that the vast majority of their employees wear underwear, or that their CEOs take home millions of dollars each year.  That is, like those statements, the statement is most likely true, but does not add any actual substance to the article.  
Besides, only losers complain about outsourcing.  (There's a talk that most responsible parents give their kids about not talking or acting like a loser, which the person who inserted those edits obviously missed out on.)  Smart, successful people upgrade their skills and move to where the jobs are. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]