User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2010

You got it

There are certain things that move bozos like that to the head of the line. That kind of garbage is pretty close to the top of the list. Thanks for reporting it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comma vs. semi-colon in text of First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Re this revert, the anon IP has some valid grounds for the semicolon, as the original text has a semicolon rather than the comma. No biggie either way. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at two pocket versions of the Constitution. One had a comma in that part of the First Amendment; the other had a semi-colon. Maybe a reference should be made to this, like is done in the 2A article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you are in school (college)

What do you study in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7ben16 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in my second term at law school. SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama reversion

You are a law student but violate the law. For Obama, you must discuss changes, not just do what you want. Read up on the law in Wikipedia and please follow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith Merrick (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my reversion on the talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

No problem. Thanks for the explanation. :) Malke 2010 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cquote vs. quote

Noticed that in several articles on the Amendments to the Constitution, you've replaced {{quote}} with {{cquote}}. I must admit to personally disliking cquote myself - it's rather cartoony - but I think that quote should be used here regardless? The documentation on cquote had a big bold note about not using it for block quotations, which should be used with quote instead. cquote is only for short snappy pull-quotes, magazine style, presumably from things someone actually said, rather than excerpts from a written document.

Anyway, I was thinking of going around and standardizing this, moving all the Amendments to use quote. But figured I'd check first - would you be okay with that? Prefer to ask others? SnowFire (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Months ago there was a technical problem with cquote, so I changed those articles' Text sections to quote. There no longer is a problem with cquote, so I changed those sections back. I prefer cquote, because it provides bigger font; quote is too small. If you changed those sections to quote, but kept the font at the cquote size, I would have no objection. SMP0328. (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

I just reverted your recent edit. Obama's time as a State Senator began on January 8, 1997. He was elected in 1996. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I was fooled by an error within the Introduction of this article, which I have corrected. SMP0328. (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for POV text

i've tried to remove non-POV text. i'm pretty sure that this case is relevant and belongs in the article. if you feel it must change please make the change, but i'm not sure simply *deleting* it is the correct thing to do? davec (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it so you could fix it yourself while not leaving the POV material in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how does plainly stating a person's political affiliation or describing the general makeup of a session of congress??? for example, is the use of "Democrats" in the first two paragraphs here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_Tariff_Act, neutral?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.195.216 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL a Welcome template

If my edits are judged on their merits, then I shouldn't need to register. If not, then I have no desire to register. I suspect the latter and said so at the WP:VP. If Wikipedia wants me to register, it'll take more than sending me templates through Twinkle; they need to start actually reading my diffs carefully enough that they don't reinsert the vandalism I remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.148.179 (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing is not always vandalism

Just a reminder that, while the IP user may be about to break WP:3RR at District of Columbia voting rights, pushing POV is not the same as vandalizing an article. Accordingly, reverting his edits is not an exception to the 3RR. You might want to bring the issue up at the talk page to see what wider consensus is. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Epicadam

Hello, SMP0328.. You have new messages at Epicadam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

full protection

Well, it is anybody's guess. Perhaps one day of protection would be helpful and allow a cool down period. Alternately, we can just pay close attention to our watchlists. As you recall, the stable consensus version of the article was established after a lot of very hard work, and changes now should only occur after careful consideration on the talk page. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteenth Amendment

Dear colleague: I reverted your most recent edit to this article, but only on a very technical ground. The Court in Pollock did not actually rule that income taxes were direct taxes. The Court ruled only that income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were to be treated as direct taxes. The Pollock holding did not change the treatment of income taxes on wages, etc., as indirect taxes. This is a very important point, because tax protesters often misinterpret -- actually they almost always misinterpret -- what the Court ruled in Pollock.

I believe I've said this before, and I'll say it again: your work on this article and other tax related articles has been excellent, and consistent. We owe you a lot of thanks. Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment, but I believe the better course of action would have been to fix my wording; reversion was excessive. I have restored my edit, but with the correction you mentioned. Thanks for your help. SMP0328. (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Thanks! Famspear (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me

The articles I linked to, coming as they did from the NYTimes, are worth discussing (and linking to) in regards to Obama somewhere, wouldn't you say? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed it, but I did explain it on the talk page.

You might have missed it, but I did explain it on the talk page[1]. Feel free to go in and fix the butchering of that passage, the version you restored is kind of mess now both grammatically, the footnotes are out of sequence (footnote 9 states just the opposite of what the article says, and more), chronologically the order is wrong (why lead with Blackstone who occurred last, and bury Henry II that occurred first and the NPOV balance is wrongly skewed. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 20:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Please read WP:LEAD. The "current supreme court interpretation" does not belong in the lead. It belongs in the body. The lead is merely an introduction. Details go in the body of the article. N419 BH 23:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roundness (geology)

Hello, pleas, help me with translation and edition of this Paper from Russian. I do not english! Thank you!--Heljqfy 18:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC) ru:Heljqfy--Heljqfy 18:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand Russian, sorry. SMP0328. (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber

It is perfectly acceptable to use "chamber" to refer to a legislative body.[2][3][4][5] -Rrius (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it's better to say "House" or "house", because a bill is voted on by each House/house of Congress each of which is located in a "chamber". SMP0328. (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Log entries on my watchlist

I history merged and imported old edits to all the articles about amendments to the U.S. constitution. There is no way to remove the log entries from your watchlist, but you might want to unwatch the pages in the MediaWiki namespace that will be there because of my recent page moves. For an explanation of how I import old edits, see User:Graham87/Import. Graham87 03:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.)

I am proposing a serious change to the Broadcast section of this article. Please take a look and provide feedback. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Just to be clear, the "advocacy" I was reverting was not your edit, but the previous edit - guess you beat me to reverting it. Wikipedia didn't give me any warnings that another edit had intervened. Sorry! SnowFire (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

So I take it that as soon as there's any amount of Vandalism on Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which you removed from being semi-protected, you will have it be semi-protected again. Am I correct? SMP0328. (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I also posted a notice about the unprotection at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism#Nineteenth Amendment article for good measure. Believe me, I don't unprotect articles on a whim. I'm usually the one doing the opposite. It's just really crazy that this article gets so much traffic (3,655 views per day average) but is still basically a stub. Kaldari (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What changes/additions would you recommend? SMP0328. (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history section needs major expansion. Right now it sounds like Woodrow Wilson just invented the amendment by himself one day, which is very misleading. Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

With regard to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=prev&oldid=397591658 which you reverted, would you kindly indicate which element in this you believe needs a reference. It seems to me to be a fair statement of the situation. I was slightly perturbed by your deletion of the word "reinterpretation" in the lede as if this was somehow controversial. That is why I went back to look again at what was said in the English history section regarding the reinterpretation. I have an excellent scholarly critique of the Heller case to hand and I could go berserk backing up statements in here all over with reference to this source.My problem is keeping it short to be frank. So it would help me if you said what you think is "my own opinion" so that I could allay your fears and provide suitable reference in the right places.

Here is the text again below. Perhaps you will be so kind as to enumerate the elements you object to and say why....Thanks.

Both the U.S. and English texts were initially about protecting an inferior body's rights to determine law being infringed by a superior body. In the English case the superior body was the monarch and the inferior body the Parliament. When this was transcribed into American law the superior body was the newly created Federal government and the inferior bodies being the individual States. Although some ordinary people in the United States would come to regard the Second Amendment as creating or recognizing a right similar to other rights (such as free speech and the right to life, liberty and happiness), the Courts had generally dismissed this idea when ruling on various gun control measures enacted by the States. The general legal view was that States could regulate on matters relating to arms and that no personal right existed. This view prevailed in the United States until very recently when the Supreme Court overturned this. In Heller it ruled that the second amendment did create a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), it ruled that protection was extended to protect against infringement by state and local governments. English law has never enumerated a right to keep a weapon that was not subject to the rule of the King (or since 1689) the Parliament. To this extent the recent Supreme Court rulings marks a determined shift away from the English law tradition.

--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit appears to simply be your opinion; it clearly is not neutrally worded. As for the whole reinterpret-interpret controversy, I felt it was better to not use either word. Notice that while I removed "reinterpreted" I didn't restore "interpreted". SMP0328. (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27th Amendment

Hi,

I just discovered how to find the history of Wiki edits and see that you are the person that keeps changing my edits about the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. (and I keep changing yours!). Anyway, sorry that I didn't discover this talk feature until now. I'd like to resolve this so we don't keep this up. I did quite a lot of research through the National Archives and with Constitutional scholars. While there may have been subsequent discoveries, such as Kentucky that you refer to, the official record is what counts. It's not unlike reviewing the tape of a sports game after it's over and learning that there was a bad call that would have reversed the fortunes of the teams. The United States Congress and the National Archives and Records Administration both still officially recognize the order of states that I have on my list. They both still officially recognize Michigan as the 38th state to ratify the 27th Amendment. The federal government trumps here. Tcarterva (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The federal government doesn't trump facts and Wikipedia is about facts. How about we have the article refer to the dispute without saying which State was the 38th to ratify? SMP0328. (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the federal government does trump here because the state ratifications as I listed them are the official version and what the government recognizes. Every source I cited supports the order and dates. This includes the official opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice. On the other hand, the source you cited at DOGluvers.com says at the bottom of the article that "The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org." It appears that you're using yourself as a source. That said, the article provides no documentation as to the assertion concerning Alabama. Please note that all of the references and external links in the article support Michigan as being the 38th state;none cite Alabama or the story about Kentucky. In the Findlaw article, footnote 2 references the Office of Legal Counsel opinion I cited above, as well as the scholarly article The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, by Richard Bernstein. I read Mr. Bernstein's article and contacted him when doing my research, and he wrote: "To the best of my knowledge, Michigan was and remains the needed state to provide that 38th ratification." So there is no dispute, as the claim about Alabama is simply unsupported by facts. I recommend that you remove the footnote to the article you added since this violates Wikipedia's requirement that content be verifiable.Tcarterva (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

What year of law school are you in? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second, fifth term (my school has three terms per year). SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should give you some credit for your wikistudies. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]