User talk:Frgx
Bibliography for Microsoft vs. Shah case
[edit]Hi Frgx,
When do you think you can finish the first review of my article and finish the nomination?
Lingqi
Hi Frgx, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulingqi (talk • contribs) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you leave me a note on my talk page or the article talk page about what you changed and what's your suggestions after the first review? Thanks.
Lingqi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulingqi (talk • contribs) 05:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Frgx,
This is Lingqi. The page I wrote is at the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._AT%26T. Or you can just goole microsoft v. at&t in wiki. Before this article is characterized as stub with only one short paragraph. So what I did is totally write a new article and replaced the old one. So I wrote the whole article not just some changes. I'm now also trying to improve this article and make it perfect. I really appreciate if you could give me some feedback. Thanks. Hopefully this answers your questions. Please let me if you still have problem in viewing the article or other confuses. You can also contact me through lingqiwu@gmail.com or cell phone 510 508 3699. Since sometimes I feel talking using Wikipedia is not the most efficient way. Thanks.
Lingqi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulingqi (talk • contribs) 06:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Harvard Law Journal Online Digest
The Wayward Anti-Cybersquatter Consumer Protection Act: A Survey of 11 Years of ACPA Caselaw (not directly related, but still might be useful.)
Realspace Sovereigns in Cyberspace: Problems with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) (Again, unrelated but useful reading)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For writing Microsoft v. Shah Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
DYK for Microsoft v. Shah
[edit] | On 5 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microsoft v. Shah, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that one can be sued for encouraging others to cybersquat on a trademarked domain name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Microsoft v. Shah. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
There are still major issues with this DYK nomination that need to be addressed. As you expressed an interest in it, I thought you might want to take a look. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)