Shaonbarman
|
DYK nomination of SEC v. Rajaratnam
edit
Hello! Your submission of SEC v. Rajaratnam at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of United States v. Cotterman
edit Hello! Your submission of United States v. Cotterman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I am here and will be done with your second review within a few days. Pengstr (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
DYK for United States v. Cotterman
edit | On 27 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Cotterman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that United States v. Cotterman showed that property presented for inspection at a United States border can be seized and held for a reasonable time to be sent elsewhere for further examination? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Cotterman.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 01:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
edit Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/SEC v. Rajaratnam at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that there are some new comments on the nomination. It looks like there's not much left to do: just a couple of additional citations are needed. (The general rule for DYK is that each paragraph, except for the ones in the intro, must have at least one citation to cover the material therein.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
DYK for SEC v. Rajaratnam
edit| | On 3 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SEC v. Rajaratnam, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in SEC v. Rajaratnam, the US 2nd Circuit Court held that defendants can be compelled to disclose relevant wiretapped conversations given to them in a separate trial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SEC v. Rajaratnam. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Wikipedia Education Program Student Survey
editHi! Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey about the Wikipedia Education Program. This is our opportunity to improve the program and resources we provide students, so your feedback and input is integral to our future success. Thank you so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)