User talk:MeatheadMathlete

Welcome

Hello, MeatheadMathlete, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Σxplicit 03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

MeatheadMathlete, when you're making comments on a talk page, please try to avoid inserting your comments in the middle of someone elses post, as you did here. It makes it hard to determine who said what, and can lead to complaints that you're altering posts (as it did happen). It's tough when you are replying to long posts to explain context, but overall, doing so helps keep the talk page organized and the other editors happier. Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I had done that. Thanks for letting me know (and thank you for making the corrections). --MeatheadMathlete (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help on new article

{{helpme}} Thank you! I've created a new article on the C.L.A.S.S. Act (U.S. law) - it's actually just a provision of the new health reform law, but it really merits it's own article because it sets up and entirely new federal program. There hasn't been much news coverage of it yet. I appreciate it if you'd take a look. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I don't claim that I've perfectly sourced the material in the new CLASS Act article, but I think it's a good start. Also, I've set-up an outline that includes topics that I expect people to chime in on pretty soon. However, the sections or subsections I've set-up for those topics don't have any content in them yet. I hope that's OK. I guess I'm just trying to constructively set-up a structure that makes sense and also communicate to detractors that I think criticism/concerns are ok to have in the article, at least least at an overview level anyway. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK, overall. Nice one. The blank sections shouldn't be there - remember it's live, so, you can't have half-finished stuff. But, mostly, good. I'll remove the 'unreviewed' thing now, and will make a few more comments a bit later (here).

For more help, you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello. Chzz ► 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more, as promised;

I moved the page from C.L.A.S.S. Act (U.S. law) to C.L.A.S.S. Act. The old name will redirect to the new one. Reason - there is no need to disambiguate and explain within the title; instead, the opening sentence(s) should clarify the context, ie US. And that is needed; I will add "is an American provision"
In the dab page Class_Act_(disambiguation), it said *[[C.L.A.S.S._Act_(U.S._law)|CLASS Act (U.S._law)]]. Usually, piped links should be avoided in DAB pages. I'll change it to just *[[C.L.A.S.S. Act]], an American legal term
Do not use the abbreviated form "Doesn't" - I changed it to "Does not" (it's in WP:MOS, somewhere, if you can be bothered to find it)
I made some other minor edits, which you can see in the history if you wish
Re. According to Barbara Manard... - this is quite a long passage to quote; it might be better to paraphrase some of it instead
The sections are too short. I realise that it is a 'work-in-progress', but still - a section should have about 2-4 paragraphs in it. Consider combining some.
Same goes for the ^{[citation needed]} stuff - you really shouldn't put information into an article until you have the references. Better to work on it in userspace, get it all sorted, and then make it live. This is especially important in this case, because some of those statements make quite bold claims, which - without reliable sources - look like they are non-neutral / original research

The above are just a few observations, designed to be constructive criticism. I hope that it helps. For more, try WP:FEED, and for a detailed review (maybe when you have written more), see WP:PR.

I recommend that you submit it as a "Did you know..." - to qualify, an article just needs to be new, and long enough - it meets these criteria. If it is selected, and appears on the main page, several thousand people will see it. See WP:DYKS - the procedure is a little bit complicated, so ask if you need help with it.

Best, Chzz ► 05:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. MeatheadMathlete (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

I was skimming through the talk page and failed to read your post in its entirety—sorry for somewhat misunderstanding the idea behind your proposal. Take a look at Charles Edward's list of major details and see what you think should be added/removed. — C M B J 04:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]