Jump to content

User talk:Csturton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Csturton (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 30 September 2009 (Response to comment about Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Csturton, 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! TJRC (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test

Please see my comments at Talk:Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. TJRC (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TJRC, Thank you for the welcome and the feedback, I didn't realize that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. I understand that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but I'm not sure what that means for the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test article. I didn't think I was providing any original analysis, I used the explanation of the AFC test given by the court in the published opinion for the case. Can you give me an example of where an alternate source would be preferable? Is it the Background and Acceptance and Use of AFC sections that are most in need of support by secondary sources? Thanks again for the feedback, I would like to make my Wikipedia contributions as strong as possible. Csturton (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]