Idag

I have commenced a review of this article. Please see the article review's talk page. At this stage, it's mainly about citations. Looking good, though. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wondering if you are planning to have a look at this. Some changes have been made, some not. Drop me a line to discuss, but i am dropping in on the page each day too. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I won't expect significant changes for a week or so. Good luck with the move. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Since you have started to work on this again, I thought I would provide quick feedback about two issues.

1) You have been clearing the cite tags with reference, which is great. What I was thinking was needed was refs like the Patterson book you added in recently, not only court cases (where relevant). For example, after this: "The Court has also greatly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits" you added the relevant case. That is an improvement, but what I was really hoping for was a published source for the interpretation of the case's effects, particularly the phrase "...has also greatly expanded the reach of procedural due process...". Are you able to find that, both here, and for "the Court has extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent test than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race"?

2) See new comments (which I am about to go and write!) at the GA talk page re the lead. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) This article has gone quiet. It's better, but I don't really want to pass it without more citations in the article. See also the GA review talk page. Are you in a position to help? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I've been somewhat busy lately. I thought we took care of all the GA issues? Idag (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It may be my fault. Though I tagged some cases where citations were lacking, I think there were more such cases, particularly later in the article. I have added three new ones myself (with the help of some hints in other WP articles), but there are other things I just can't solve myself. Have a look and see what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just took a look and I don't see any tags, though thank you for adding the much-needed refs! Am I missing something? Idag (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm not making myself very clear am I?! I had meant that there were places in the article that I had not specifically tagged, that needed refs. I will go through and mark the key ones (in my view). Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

(outdent)Please see my discussion of references here for clarification of why I am tagging certain parts of thie article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have failed the article owing to the long time lag on dealing with the citations issue. As I noted at the review talk page, I will be happy to revisit in future if the citations get hunted down and added. Feel free to ping me at my talk page if you want me to revisit a review if/when you or another editor wants to renom this article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello! As a member of Wiki Project Objectivism would you please see my post on the excessive coverage of fictional technology, etc. in Atlas Shrugged and my proposal to replace it with more coverage of the meaning of the events in that novel. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am clearing the participant list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism due to inactivity. Please add yourself again if you want to participate. --Karbinski (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply