User talk:Overthrowlies

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

9th amendment rights over powers

The fact that you wrote "appears to contradict Madison's original intent:" leads one to ask "appears to whom?" Since you did not supply a reliable source to answer that question then it looks like it "appears to you", which is original research. The final line "In other words, Madison viewed 'rights' as 'exceptions to the grant of power' and therefore he felt that the grant of a power by the Constitution must not be construed to allow government to extinguish any right - listed or unlisted - retained by the people" is your take on what Madison intended and is not an opinion taken from a reliable source. In other words, yes, it's Madison's words, but it's your interpretation of those words and, most importantly, how they are applied to issues surrounding the 9th Amendment that constitutes original research on your part. Just quoting Madison without any commentary on your part might be OK, but that you're clearly editorializing is the problem. If you can find a reliable source who expresses the same idea then it can be added in. SQGibbon (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded to you at the Talk page for the 9th Amendment. SQGibbon (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reserves vs. addresses

It might be that "reserves" is the more accurate term but more neutral than "addresses"? According to the OED it can mean "to turn attention to" and from Google dictionary "Think about and begin to deal with (an issue or problem)" either of which in no way implies "ignore" as you suggested on my talk page.

But here's the bigger problem, you clearly have an ax to grind which is why your edits are being closely scrutinized. It might help if you read Wikipedia Essay on Single Purpose Accounts and Wikipedia Is Not a Soapbox. As for "appealing to a higher authority", when it comes to content there is no higher authority per se. Article content is dictated by consensus which ideally happens on the talk page of the article. If that's moving too slowly or doesn't have enough participation there are links at the top of the talk page (in the tan boxes) to people who take an active interest in these kinds of articles. You'll probably be able to solicit comments from them by posting requests on those pages. SQGibbon (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)