Tinfoilhat8001
October 2023 edit
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, from its old location at User:Tinfoilhat8001/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri has been accepted edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
gobonobo + c 22:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)October 2023 edit
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, from its old location at User:Tinfoilhat8001/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. - RichT|C|E-Mail 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation has been accepted edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for the article! Always good to see new editors filling in the (many) gaps in our coverage of Supreme Court cases—feel free to let me know if there's anything you need help with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
City of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart moved to draftspace edit
Thanks for your contributions to City of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and As currently referenced and written, article has far too much original research. If fixed, resubmit via AfC. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Tim,
- I appreciate your thoughts, but respectfully disagree. It does not need more sources to establish notability. It is a Supreme Court case. That alone makes it notable enough to have a page.
- I’m also not sure what you mean by “original research.” The article is primarily just describing what the Supreme Court said. That’s why it’s pretty much just citing the case itself. Tinfoilhat8001 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Tinfoilhat8001: thanks for your helpful contribution on the City of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart page, and I see that the article has expanded and improved since being moved to draft space. I agree that there's an important topic here (supreme court judgement). On the question of sources, the issue is that supreme court judgements are WP:PRIMARY sources, and what we really should be building articles on is WP:SECONDARY sources - so, published reviews/opinions of those court judgements, not those court judgements themselves. My view is that its worth leaving in article space for improvement in the usual way, but it would be great if you (and other editors) could look more to secondary sources. Klbrain (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started edit
Hello, Tinfoilhat8001. Thank you for your work on City of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Concerns regarding primary sources remain, but the topic is an important one worthy of discussion.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)