User talk:Sfieldman

Welcome!

Hello, Sfieldman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced message

was to let you know why another editor had reverted your edits here. I saw that you hadn't had a welcome message and might be confused about why you were reverted. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the changes that were reverted were simple enough and clearly connected enough to the sources already there that an additional source, while preferable, was not totally necessary. But I understand the guidelines and why an editor might disagree. Thanks.

Ways to improve New York Circular Letter

Hello, Sfieldman,

Thanks for creating New York Circular Letter! I edit here too, under the username Domdeparis and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Hi this article needs more attention. There are no dates in article and I've read it 3 times and I do not really understand how the letter was a solution and to what problem. The source you provided seems quite clear and I think you should try and make this article clearer. You do not explain what the convention provision please do not forget that the majority of readers know very little about constitutional history

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Domdeparis}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dom from Paris (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]