Jump to content

User talk:Frgx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (talkcontribs) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 06:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Court Opinion

Eric Goldman's Blog Post

WSJ Article

Seattle Trademark Lawyer Blog

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)[reply]

DYK for Microsoft v. Shah

[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]