User talk:Notecardforfree/Archive4

Your GA nomination of United States v. Drayton
The article United States v. Drayton you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:United States v. Drayton for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Davis v. Ayala
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Drayton
The article United States v. Drayton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States v. Drayton for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Glik v. Cunniffe
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Gerda -- thank you so very much for this honor! It really means so much to receive this award. I truly appreciate everything you do for the community, and I hope to have the opportunity to create many more articles in the future. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! In order to write more articles, I reduced giving Precious from daily to special ;) - What you did about the two articles of our missed friend (who joined the cabal of the outcasts only to leave, speaking as clearly as the first time) warmed my heart. I also liked your waiting for a better date of a main page appearance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Seniority of SCOTUS Justices
Nonetheless, the assertion needs to be sourced. Please see WP:REF for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:75F9:6A00:2548:3F7A:2CAF:6438 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, sources have been added that substantiate the assertion. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan
Hello,

I have reviewed and approved the above nomination. I admire your article. Compared to the WP pop froth of Ga Gas and Kardashians, X-box games and porn stars, your article is quite a substantial and important contribution to knowledge. Well done.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words -- and thank you for the prompt review of my nomination! Your comment really means a lot. Even though Supreme Court cases impact millions of people, there are only a handful of editors who work on articles about them. Hopefully I'll be able to write many more in the future. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, you will be able to. Especially of this quality.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi
If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Margareta Hallin. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I'm a little busy today, but I'll try to take a look at this later this evening. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And thanks for reviewing the DYK nom as well. I feel a little lost with this article. I have received plenty of help with it (thankfully) but if you can help in any way feel free. :) Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prado Navarette v. California
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prado Navarette v. California you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Concertmusic -- Concertmusic (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Montanile v. Board of Trustees of Nat. Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions. Since you have had some involvement with the Reintroduced, Reintroducing, Reintroduction, and Reintroductions redirects (i.e. Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 5), you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I'll make a comment in the discussion soon. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating SCOTUS cases
Is there a typical way to disambiguate similarly named SCOTUS cases? I was going to write on Lockhart v. United States, but realized there are other cases that have the same or similar name (City of Lockhart v. US (1983), Lockhart v. US (2005)). I disambiguated the two Lockhart v. US cases by a parenthetical year, but would it be better to use the full name (ie, Avondale Lockhart v. US and James Lockhart v. US)? Your thoughts on this? Wugapodes (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When multiple SCOTUS cases have the exact same name, we usually differentiate between them by placing the year in which the case was decided in the article's title. If one case is signifacntly more well-known than the others, that will usually be the primary topic, and we direct readers to a disambiguation page via a hatnote. Here are a few examples:
 * United States v. Jones (2012), which has a hatnote to United States v. Jones (disambiguation)
 * Jones v. United States (a DAB page)
 * United States v. Johnson (a DAB page)
 * Johnson v. United States (2015), which has a hatnote to Johnson v. United States (2000)
 * If you enter Lockhart v. United States into the search function, you are directed to a DAB page that lists several cases, each of which is distinguished by year (actually, it looks like you created this page); one of those cases is the one you just created. I would keep the title of the article for the 2016 case as-is because it properly reflects the title that is on the slip opinion, and will likely be the title that is listed in the United States Reports. In any event, I am excited to see that you are writing more articles about SCOTUS cases! If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Otherwise, I hope all is well and I hope you are enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prado Navarette v. California
The article Prado Navarette v. California you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prado Navarette v. California for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Concertmusic -- Concertmusic (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On a side note: I really enjoyed doing this review. Once I am back online in mid-April, I plan on having a closer look at doing additional reviews in the Law space. The articles I have read in this subject area are among the better-written, better-referenced work, and are fun to dig into. Thank you again for your efforts in this area! --Concertmusic (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the kind words! Your review was excellent, and I really appreciate your willingness to work quickly through the process. Also, you may be interested to know that I created an article about close cases and added a wikilink at Prado Navarette v. California (you mentioned in the GA review that it was still something that needed to be explained). Hopefully our paths will cross again in the future. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The new page for Close case is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia - thank you! I have added a few commas to the article on Navarette, as discussed, but please feel free to review and edit if necessary. I look forward to working with you again. --Concertmusic (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pooh-pooh
The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kansas v. Carr
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Margareta Hallin
--BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Gärdestad
If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Ted Gärdestad. I am thinking about improving it as it is about one of Swedens most famous singers. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll try to give the article a thorough read-through over the next few days. Let me know if there is something specific I can help with. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reed v. Town of Gilbert you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha Lachma Anya
Hi, I am totally behind your building a prep set for Passover, but I think that the articles you've been writing are a bit fuzzy on "who says" the information. Instead of writing "some say" or "commentators suggest", just use the name of the author of the book ("According to Friedman"). (When you say "commentator", I think Rashi, not a modern scholar.) In this article, the beginning of the History section also makes it sound like that Haggadah was put together piecemeal. I think you should lead off with a brief explanation of the authorship of the Haggadah and the time period it was written before saying this is one of the oldest parts of the Haggadah. I also think it's important to discuss why this text combines Aramaic and Hebrew words. However, if this is the extent of your start-article, maybe I'll add something later. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per your advice, I identified commentators in the commentary section by name, rather than simply as "commentators say, etc." I also added a paragraph to the history section to provide background about the authorship of the Haggadah, which will hopefully provide needed context. Of course, I certainly welcome your help expanding this article. I'm going to do a little more background research about why Ha Lachma Anya appears in Aramaic, but my understanding has always been that it was written in Aramaic so that more people could understand it (or so that children can understand it). While doing a quick internet search, I found a PDF copy of the portion of the Artscroll Haggadah with some interesting commentary (I also found this interesting explanation from Rabbi Yochanan Zweig, which says "It is therefore appropriate to begin the Seder in Aramaic for this is the language that symbolizes the sensitivity of seeing the perspective of another"). Thanks again for your advice and feedback; I very much appreciate your help with this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can see in the ArtScroll PDF the words "L'shanah ha'baah" and "L'shanah ha'baah bnei chorin" are in Hebrew. That's what I meant. Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. I thought you meant that the article should explain why the Haggadah includes both Hebrew and Aramaic. Do you know of any sources that explain why those potions are in Hebrew? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. I hope to get to it later this week. I'm also busy cleaning for Pesach :) Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I started looking around online for more info, and realize that you and I are approaching this topic from opposite perspectives. I am coming from a religious perspective and you from a scholarly perspective. Every year the religious publishing world comes out with many new Haggadahs for people to learn from, and they are not learning anything like what you are reporting in your article. (See this for example.) This is a basic problem that I have with Jewish articles on Wikipedia, and it's why I don't work hard on inserting the religious perspective, because someone will always come along and either dilute it with scholarly theories or delete the religious stuff entirely. I prefer to spend my time working on more straightforward and uncontroversial articles, like the Maxwell House Haggadah. Hope you understand. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

L'Shana Haba'ah
Hi, I'm afraid this new article is a cotton-candy interpretation of what the phrase means. You're even treating it as a "song"! If you would look at Orthodox interpretations rather than "Judaism for beginners" books, you would be able to write a more comprehensive and truthful article. IMO this needs a rewrite. Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * please understand that I meant no disrespect to this Tefillah (or the minhag of reciting L'Shana Haba'ah at the end of the Seder) with the article that I wrote. The limited commentary section is simply a reflection of the fact that I have limited time available for writing articles, and I certainly recognize that this topic deserves a much more thorough article. I characterized L'Shana Haba'ah as a song because there is a melody associated with L'Shana Haba'ah and a number of sources characterize it as a song (see, e.g., R' Telushkin's Jewish Literacy). Of course, if there are portions of the article that you think are incorrect, please let me know, and I would certainly appreciate your help expanding the article. Thanks again for your help and guidance! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Close case
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Matzah pizza
I commented on this nomination a week ago and am still awaiting your reply. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delayed response. I've been dealing with a few things in the offline world (nothing serious) that have prevented me from coming online this last week. Except for an hour or so yesterday, I haven't been on Wikipedia since last Monday. In any case, I replied on the talk page for the template. Thanks again for your help with this article, and please let me know if you think there is anything else that needs improvement. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ha Lachma Anya
Hello! Your submission of Ha Lachma Anya at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Reed v. Gilbert: GA
I don't know if you noticed this but the reviewer for this GA nomination seems to be a high school student with an interest mostly (or exclusively) in pop music. He may be in over his head. I don';t know if there is a mechanism for solving this problem, but the problem might explain why he is so late in doing anything. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up about the GA reviewer; your comments certainly do offer some insights into the delay. However, I have also been away from Wikipedia for much of the last two weeks, so the timing actually worked well. In any event, I am going to AGF that the reviewer will be able to work through the technical language in the article, and hopefully I will hear from them soon. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Matzah pizza
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ha Lachma Anya
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for L'Shana Haba'ah
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Petition for review
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Davis v. Ayala
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Davis v. Ayala you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Davis v. Ayala
The article Davis v. Ayala you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Davis v. Ayala for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)