Talk:NAACP LDF v. Trump
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Funcrunch in topic PACER Suggestion
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
PACER Suggestion
editIt strikes me that there is a lot of territoriality in WP. The box above seems to be a bot-generated. WikiProject Law seeks to take control and apply reviews.
A similar article ACLU v. Trump and Pence attracted no such attention, but it was originally dinged.
The Law Project would be well served to look at this suggestion User_talk:Dakleman#PACER.
Just my two cents. Rhadow (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Gee. "It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources." The records of the S.D.N.Y and the White House? The New Hampshire Union Leader and CNN? Gimme a break. The article is of low importance. So are 19,728 others. Does this tag add anything to the discussion? Rhadow (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhadow: Please WP:Assume good faith. WikiProject templates are frequently added to talk pages by editors to bring attention to the articles, not to "take control" of them. I added multiple WikiProject templates, including WikiProject Law, to the talk pages of both Trump lawsuit articles I created (D.C. and Maryland v. Trump and Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump) even though I am not active on any of those WikiProjects myself. Few of the articles I've created have gotten anything higher than a "low" assessment initially, if they were assessed at all. Funcrunch (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Funcrunch: I don't doubt WP:Assume good faith. I just find the classifications heavy-handed. It make me feel better to hear that your initials are poorly rated, too. This is the predictable result of a faceless bureaucracy. I will learn to live with it. Thanks Rhadow (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhadow: Low importance and start class are reasonable assessments for many new articles, not comparable to "poor ratings", and I'd hardly call that evidence of Wikipedia being a "faceless bureaucracy" as any editor can assess any article. I'm sorry you have that impression. If you disagree with the assessments you might consider joining WikiProject Law yourself, or perhaps leaving a message on the talk page of that project. Funcrunch (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)