Rushlite

Contributions

Hi there. First, let me thank you for your substantial contributions to the articles on popular sovereignty and constitutionalism – they have not gone unnoticed. A concern that I and some other editors have, however, is that those contributions read like an academic paper, particularly in the footnotes, and that they may violate either Wikipedia's prohibition on original research or copyrighted material. The purpose of this note is to give you friendly notice of this concern, and an opportunity to bring your contributions in line with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. – SJL 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. My first suggestion is that footnotes should only be used for citations, and should not provide additional commentary (which is appropriate for a research paper, but not a Wikipedia article). Any substantive content that is currently in the footnotes should be incorporated into the text of the article itself. My second suggestion, which should help guide you when deciding what to keep from both the footnotes and the rest of your contributions, is for you to carefully review Wikipedia's policy on original research. Your contributions are well-sourced, but it is not clear whether the arguments presented are reported from those sources or based on them. As a compendium of information that has already been published, Wikipedia only allows the former – novel interpretations are not permitted, regardless of their quality. Let me know if you have any questions. – SJL 04:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)