User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2009

DC voting rights article overhaul and merge

Hey. Since I see you're pretty active on the District of Columbia voting rights article, I thought I'd discuss this next "overhaul" step with you. I'm thinking of reworking the "proposals for change" section by merging the District of Columbia vote in the United States House of Representatives into that section. Much of the information there, from the looks of it, is redundant from the voting rights article. Plus, the legal arguments apply for all legislative actions to allow the District voting representation. I really don't see the benefit of having the two separate articles when we could have a really good comprehensive article. Thoughts? Best, epicAdam^(talk) 22:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed this edit [1] to the DC voting rights article with the edit summary "Moved Congressional links into section body; removed an unreliable soure - a blog". While I don't really have a problem with that particular source being removed, I thought you should know that Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not ban blogs outright. The page says, "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers and other periodicals host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the organization's full editorial control." Since that source is from the Wall Street Journal's editorial staff, it would be considered a reliable source. Just wanted to give let you know. Best always, epicAdam^(talk) 01:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A note from the GACC

Hi there SMP0328.!
	The Good Article Collaboration Center has been restarted, and since you are a member, we are asking for your help in making the articles Seinfeld, Sarah Palin, and President of the United States good articles. We hope to see you there. Cheers. --LAAFansign review 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Notice delivery by xenobot 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

President pro tempore of the United States Senate

Having a little dispute over when the office was formed. Was it formed with the federal gov't on March 4, 1789, or when the first person was elected to hold the position, on April 6, 1789? See talk page. Guidance, please... Foofighter20x (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about the compromise edit I made? Foofighter20x (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your change is fine by me. It clarifies that while the office was created on March 4, 1789, it wasn't filled until April 6, 1789. Of course, I'm not the one who was complaining. SMP0328. (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship on Obama 'discussion" page

Hey. You deleted my contribution to the discussion page on Obamas article. Your excuses are it's a sensitive topic, postings need to be objective, blah, blah, blah. But you deleted it so quickly that I question as to whether you even read it at all, or just reacted to the title about Baracks support the the inequality of opposition to gay marriage. I am not one of those wacky Obama haters, just someone pointing out a gross inequality that he supports and giving a logical comparison to that which his race has faced{ie: the give up seat to white people on bus anaology}. There is no way to make this criticism without well...critisizing. Plus that discussion page is hardly objective or neutral it's mostly trivial baloney that is the exact opposite of objective and neutral, if it were neutral it would allow for rationally based opinions and concerns to be expressed in the discussion page. I have never seen such careful censorship of another articles DISCUSSION PAGE{not even the article, just it's discussion page}. I am not against nor for Obama, I merely wish to present a fair criticism, since there is so little rational critticism of Obama or any of his political views anywhere. You hardly ahd time to read it or consider it before you deleted it; which sugests to me that you have an agenda. This is not democratic nor neutral either. I suggest you apologize for this abuse of power and Orwellian censorship of a rational and valid concern and put the article back up. If you think you would put it back up so long as I edit something, let me know what I need to edit but keeping to the main point and concern of the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclastithon (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

44th

Hello, thanks for your recent edit to Barack Obama. I've recently started a discussion regarding whether or not to include "44th" in his infobox title and I'd appreciate your input at Talk:Barack Obama#44. My rationale for its removal is basically that other incumbent world leaders do not have it, while some of their predecessors do. It strikes me as the more logical option to maintain consistency with them than with former U.S. Presidents. That being said, though, some former world leader pages conflict with each other (for example, Vladimir Putin's page and incumbent Dmitry Medvedev's pages list each as "President of Russia" rather than 2nd and 3rd, respectively; meanwhile, Jacques Chirac is listed as 22nd President of France and incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy has no number). This raises another question: should the presidents have ordinals in their infoboxes at all? Anyways, I look forward to reading your thoughts. The Sartorialist (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Wondering what your reason is to change the consistency (also against WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words at George W. Bush's[2] and Barack Obama's[3] article?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I was having trouble when found Dear leader redirected to Obama. I didn't know that his other name. I taken more than 5 minutes to find North Korea article, the one I wanted. I thought why not direction to it. Why you think it's not so good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.93.31 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of clearly bad faith vandalism at the redirect page (which was reversed).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Electoral College (United States)

I fixed the sentence so 1824 could be included, as I foresee people adding it to the old sentence despite the distinction. Please compare the two:

• Before: In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000, the candidate who received the plurality of the nationwide popular vote did not become President.
• After: The elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000, produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the plurality of the nationwide popular vote.

See the difference? :) Foofighter20x (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I agree with you, that 1824 doesn't belong, but I'm trying to end-run the problem by trying to find a way to include 1824 so that those naive few who don't see the distinction won't continue adding it. We may just need to move the note into the body of the text. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSCAPS

Good hello. I'm not going to edit war over this but you really should read the Titles section of WP:MOSCAPS. The formal title President of the United States requires capitalization. The title president, when followed by the name of the office holder holder, requires capitalization. The generic form president and the short form of the title American president, president of America, the president's desk, etc. do not require capitalization. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sue Simmons

Who her father was, at least as far as the article goes has nothing to do with the topic (as presented by the article). There's certainly no place for a history of what musicians her father played with. That irrelevant information is sourced, you can agree, makes no difference. Associating with someone who is notable does not make one notable as far as Wiki guidelines are concerned, as you may be aware? 67.161.42.30 (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

25th Amendment

What is the deal here? You may not arbitrarily go around changing others contributions. Get you ego in check and stop it. And while we are discussing it, ALL research is ultimately original research. I am a professor - are you telling me I have to publish all my research before I can use it? That is, to be polite, asinine. Do I have to publish my experience working as a White House intern before I can use it? Where does it end? Themoodyblue (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am not reporting you for anything, I was just a bit annoyed. So often my additions get vandalized by people with a political agenda that it gets frustrating. I am a published University professor. How DO I use myself as a source? Lots of other people do. Any insights on this? Themoodyblue (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the thoughtful and insightful answer to my very serious question. I added OTHER research that is out there, but since I worked in the White House, I would think that counts as a source. The articles are now documented. Please leave them alone. Themoodyblue (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming your published material is sourced. What about using some of that sourcing when you make additions to Wikipedia? Also, for any questions regarding Wikipedia policy, you can ask your questions here. SMP0328. (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Being tried as a minor

Can you please explain to me why that edit I made about being tried as a minor is not common knowledge? Besides, I may not know of an exact documentation (well, technically, my source was a textbook from high school, but I can't remember the title), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Somebody else may know of some citation to back this claim up, but won't think to do that unless the uncited material is there and needs citing. By deleting my uncited edit, you are prohibiting anyone else from coming along and finishing what I started.70.178.75.61 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, instead of out-right deleted it, wouldn't it be more productive to just do the thing? Or, rather, since it's common knowledge, do whatever template it is that lets you ask for elaboration. Even if I, myself, do not know which ones do and don't have juvinile courts, somebody else may. Out-out deleting it because it doesn't have enough information for your personal tastes can easily be considered bad faith.70.178.75.61 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I have just realized that the article we are arguing over is exclusive to the United States. I mentioned "some" because most law-related articles try to include the whole world, but this one is different. In the United States, ALL juristictions recognize being tried as a minor, so this "weasle word" that you describe is really just a misunderstanding on my part about the nature of the article. I am about to go and correct the wording so that it IS common knowledge, and requires no elaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.75.61 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DC vote (and impact on EC)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_go_co/dc_congress I'll let you tackle any edits. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment

Hi -- I responded to your request for discussing my change to the Second Amendment article here. Joriki (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment GA Nomination

So I belatedly realized that there's already a list of things that need to be done on the article [4] We took care of the second suggestion with the recent restructuring and I've tried to take care of the third and fourth suggestions earlier today, but we definitely need to add some inline cites to the due process, incorporation, and equal protection sections. Idag (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment

With all due respect, I was clearly responding to another editor's request for another reliable source regarding whether the right to own a gun is considered a "civil right". This was not merely general discussion of the topic but was, as you say, discussion related to improving the article. You might consider my source unorthodox, but the NYT is a reliable source. I noticed you removed my comment from the talk page. I now asking you to restore it. Since you appear to be pretty new to wikipedia, I should let you know that removing another user's comments on a talk page can be considered vandalism (See Discussion page vandalism at WP:VANDAL). Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I've restored my comment myself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it again. The New York Times is a reliable source, but its crossword puzzle isn't relevant to the Second Amendment article. SMP0328. (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong sir. That comment was not "irrelevant to the article". The fact that the New York Times (whether in the crossword or anywhere else, including the op-ed) considers the Second Amendment right to own a gun a "civil right" was directly in relation to the topic of discussion. I should not have to ask you again a second time to restore this edit.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama

The "POV" tag was NOT proper. It was a drive-by, from a user who took conspiracy-theory shots in the edit summary but did not enter anything on the talk page. The article has been under constant scrutiny for months. The tag is unjustified. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's been claimed at this talk page, but the tag remains. If any editor believes the article isn't neutral, then the tag stays. For more, read this. SMP0328. (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete other editors comments without a very good reason. That is totally unacceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had moved it to the other section. SMP0328. (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Following an exchange on my talk page, I'll reiterate that the probation notice is not intended by itself as any evidence of problem editing. Most editors who have been on the article regularly have been given notices by each other or even self-acknowledgment. It is clear to me that SMP0328 is trying to help, and trying to find ways to keep the article and talk page orderly. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear by now that SMP0328 was assuming good faith, and was unaware (as many of us were) that the POV tag was merely the opening round in a war fomented by the WND parrots this evening. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Scrubbing on Obama

Scrubbing the talk pages are only going to make this worse. Arzel (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point and agree but on the other hand it could be worse not to "scrub" certain entries and allowing WP principles to be "scrubbed" by letting it become a forum like thousands of others out there. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My response to Arzel is here. SMP0328. (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it but thanks for pointing it out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the content removed there is an impression that content is being controled within the main article and when discourse questioning this fact is subsequently removed, sometimes very quickly, the implication is that it extends to the talk discussion as well. Arzel (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment Text

Thanks for fixing that. Celestra (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment

Please stop interfering with the removal of material that does not belong on a wiki article. See wiki rule on minuscule opinions.141.154.12.116 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You know I'm not the only editor who feels that material is proper. SMP0328. (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether he opinion expressed has enough of a following to be included in a wiki article. It does not.141.154.12.116 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment

Hi there. You consolidated tags at the 14th Amend. article. Normally that would make sense, but in this case i have inserted the tags in the context of current GA Review, signalling key points that I have suggested need supporting citations for the article to be passed at GA. It will help editors trying to get this piece to GA if the tags are left so they can be progressively replaced with citations. Thanks for your vandalism patrols on the Const. Amend. pages - sure looks like you are kept busy with that. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

...And thanks for the subsequent suggestion, now implemented. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nineteenth Amendment

I have a question to ask you about Wikipedia's "Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" article. In the History section, I see that you restored a user's edit, nullifying mine. I wanted to state my disapproval of this sentence, as I feel that it is superfluous:

The Nineteenth Amendment specifically guarantees women in the United States that the right to vote can not be denied to them simply because they are women.

This is already stated and made clear by the introduction to the article and the text of the amendment. I simply ask that you consider eradicating this sentence from the article's context, as it seems to say what has already been said. Or I could edit the page if you cannot. I just thought that since you invalidated my previous edit, you might want to do it yourself. I do not condemn your edit in any way, as I understand that everyone has a different opinion of how it should be written. I would just like to settle on some sort of compromise.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by United States Patriot (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Nineteenth Amendment

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying the situation for me. United States Patriot (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Preamble

I'm unclear on how/why the wording prior to your recent edit was "original research." It seems to me that the citation to the Legal Tender Cases directly supports both assertions: (a) that the Constitution is more vaguely worded than some legal documents (which is a modern, 21st-century way of saying the 19th-century Supreme Court's business about filling in based on outlines) and (b) that the stakes are higher when interpreting the Constitution than other legal documents ("And there are more urgent reasons for looking to the ultimate purpose in examining the powers conferred by a constitution than there are in construing a statute, a will, or a contract."). In light of those authoritative statements of the Supreme Court from the Legal Tender Cases, I don't see how the wording prior to your edit constitutes original research. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed this:

Due to the relatively vague or general language which the Constitution uses, combined with the particular importance of properly interpreting it

Nothing in the material you quote from the Legal Tender Cases refers to the Preamble as "vague" and the rest of it are your "assertions" of that decision. SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I based that on the language from the Legal Tender Cases. I summarized as "vague or general language" the Supreme Court's lengthier (or, perhaps wordier) commentary: "We do not expect to find in a constitution minute details. It is necessarily brief and comprehensive. It prescribes outlines, leaving the filling up to be deduced from the outlines." I'm not sure what else they're getting at when they say basically the same thing 3 different ways in 3 successive sentences. A document that is bereft of "minute details" seems safely described as "general," and one that prescribes only "outlines" that are to be "filled up" by deducing content from those outlines seems safely described as "vague." "Vague" does not necessarily carry a negative connotation; my dictionary defines it as "of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning." If there is widespread consensus in the legal community about one thing, and one thing only, it would be that most (or even all!) of the Constitution could be characterized as "of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning."

Moreover, the citation from the Legal Tender Cases supports the notion that there is particular importance in proper interpretation of the Constitution. The stakes are higher. It seems to me that would hardly need any support at all, but in the event, the opinion directly supports that proposition as well: "[T]here are more urgent reasons for looking to the ultimate purpose in examining the powers conferred by a constitution than there are in construing a statute, a will, or a contract."

In short, it seems to me that the prior wording was a fair, NPOV characterization of the Supreme Court's statements. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I still believe it's better to refer to what the Legal Tender Cases ruled, rather than interpreting a general description it gave to the Constitution which is clearly obiter dictum. SMP0328. (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To demarcate particular language as dicta seems to require at least as much original research as anything I did; there is substantial debate about which passages in any given opinion even constitute dicta (I daresay that the Court rarely thinks it is wasting its breath at the moment it wastes it). If the Court were describing an unrelated hypothetical for the purpose of illustration, I would agree that it is "clearly" dicta, but this is exactly the sort of gray area scholars argue about. Moreover, even if it were unambiguously dicta, the Supreme Court on many occasions has treated its own dicta as presumptively valid, in that the Court routinely will acknowledge its own past dicta that is inconsistent with its present holding and distance itself from it (as opposed to, say, hectoring the parties for relying on such statements as an authoritative construction of the law, which is essentially what we're talking about here). I think that my original wording is totally defensible as a fair, NPOV, contemporary construction of the Court's language in the Legal Tender Cases. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

You made a recent revert of a change in the lead and intro of Fourteenth amendment. I'm going to go back and review more carefully, but I think you might have reverted a change I actually recommended on the GA Review page, and was implemented by one of the page's main editors (and GA nominator), User:Idag. Perhaps drop in on the review page before making changes over the next few days, apart from the vandalism reversion of which you do a great job. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A Text section in any article which is about a part of the United States Constitution only contains the Constitutional text which such an article about. SMP0328. (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thing is Hamiltonstone is right, the first post-lede section should introduce the amendment instead of simply diving into the text. The way I have it now may not be perfect, so if you think of a better way, feel free to tweak it, but please don't simply revert. Idag (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Make the changes to the Introduction you feel are necessary, but don't alter the Text section. That section should remain consistent with other such sections in articles about the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no one set standard for how constitutional articles should be structure. The section as it currently stands reads just fine. Please discuss on article talk page if you feel that it is still bad. Idag (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. Your repeated reverts and talk page warning to Conlawgeek seems kind of heavy handed. Firstly, you were very quick to call his/her good faith, noncontroversial and easily verified edits to be WP:OR and quickly deleted them (twice), when equivalent effort could just as easily have confirmed and assisted Conlawgeek with the work finding the citations, teaching by example. Secondly, ConlawGeek is a newcomer here, with only a few dozen edits in a few weeks since arrival. Try please to be more welcoming, and avoid "biting" newcomers. We all were new once and giving more encouragement, and less criticism would be preferable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would be more generous, but in light of the multiple heated disputes involving the article I felt I couldn't be as generous as normal. SMP0328. (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. Still, you waited just 4 minutes before reverting. And, the edit which you reverted wasn't particularly controversial. Your second revert of the same material, this time reverting the {{fact}} tag too waited 6 minutes. I appreciate your concern about 'heated disputes' though please consider that your two reverts in quick order may contribute to increasing the heat as opposed to reducing the heat. See this Wikipedia:Don't panic essay. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

POTUS v. POTUSA

I've reverted the "of America" business as well, and have started a discussion here. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wiki box

Thank you for the welcome, and the information that came with the welcome. Refer to my talk page. I really appreciate it. Ti-30X (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment again

The article has gone quiet. It's better, but I don't really want to pass it without more citations in the article. See also the GA review talk page. Are you in a position to help? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you and I are pretty much the primary editors of this article, do you want to split the search for the needed cites? I was thinking of doing a day at the library sometime soon, but there's too much cites here for one person. Idag (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of references here for clarification of why I am tagging certain parts of thie article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

25th Amendment

Hi! You forgot to nominate on the article talk page. Hekerui (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done so now. SMP0328. (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of Nobility Amendment

You deleted an edit of mine to the Title of Nobility Amendment on grounds of original research despite the fact that I provided a specific citation to the relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that support the assertion made in the edit. Your message to me is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohwilleke&redirect=no

You cite a case in support of your belief that U.S. citizenship cannot be revoked, but the case actually states that citizenship cannot be revoked in the absence of a voluntary act. Acceptance of a title of nobility, an act that generally includes a loyalty oath to the granting nation or the diplomatic equivalent form of affiliation with another sovereign, is not impacted by the case cited. Ohwilleke (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops...

Dunno why that got cut on T:POTUS. Thanks for catching it and for the restore... --Foofighter20x (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I bet it involved an accidental highlighting, followed by you typing your comment (thereby wiping out the highlighted material). It happens to all of us. SMP0328. (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Help on VPOTUS?

I completely redrafted the the intro to be as neutral as possible about the VP in re executive vs. legislative. I invited Rrius to make minor tweaks, to which he's practically reverted the whole edit. I really don't feel like fighting with him any more, and I've made the effort to come halfway. Need a neutral editor here to sort it all out, please. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He's even accidentally lopped off the part about tie-breaking votes. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears you two have worked out your differences. Also, any changes I attempted to make were blocked, because of there was always an "edit conflict". SMP0328. (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Preamble ref error

Hey, I followed up on the edit you were trying to do, if you don't want to have something carried over when a page/template is transcluded, you can just use <noinclude>Don't transclude me!</noinclude> to prevent it from transcluding whatever is inside the noinclude, while it still shows up normally on that page. Still trying to figure out how we will do this whole thing and the protection level, etc, but thank you for your input and help with this.--Terrillja _talk 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

14th amendment GA review

Hi there. I recently failed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution at GA Review, owing to the long time lag on dealing with the citations issue. As I noted at the review talk page, I will be happy to revisit in future if the citations get hunted down and added. Feel free to ping me at my talk page if you want me to revisit a review if/when you or another editor wants to renom this article. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

PS have you thought about archiving your talk page? It's getting pretty long - probably because you're doing lots of good stuff on WP!

Template:USSC

Do you have any inputs to the changes in the template I made two months ago? So far, at least two editors are/were unhappy with my decision to switch it from Findlaw to Justia (one expressed dissatisfaction at the time, the other just messaged me on my personal talk page today). I'd love to have your opinion on the matter on the talk page. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Vicenarian (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to reading from you. SMP0328. (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for things needed to be addressed. Vicenarian (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Vicenarian (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Preamble

It's funny that you ask about that, because it's been something on my mind as well. In my mind, it is a good article, whether or not it meets Wikipedia's definition of the same. My thing is this: I am disinclined to go out and advocate for it being recognized as a "good article." Whether or not it gets that recognition, I am satisfied with it, and I fear that I may be called upon to make changes I disagree with if I had gone about making rumblings that it should receive that recognition. I guess my feeling is this: I am disinclined to be the point man on the issue, but if someone else (such as yourself) took the lead I would offer support as needed. I guess it is driven in large part by my own apathy surrounding the rankings/recognition that articles on Wikipedia get. I doubt that most disinterested readers go leafing through articles flagged as "good" or "featured" just to learn something new; people look for whatever they're looking for, and if it's flagged as "good" or "featured," hey, bonus. The designations seem to me more like notches on the belt for the editors, which is a form of recognition that has never motivated my contributions to this project (in fact, I initially contributed anonymously out of a feeling that who I am, even under a consistent pseudonym, shouldn't affect the validity of my contributions). But at the same time, it is nice to have the work you've done get some recognition, so while I don't want to make getting GA status "my baby," I can offer some support. Your feelings on this? MrArticleOne (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concern is understandable. There's nothing wrong with recognition (e.g., barnstars). If the request for GA-status results in demands for major changes, or simply changes you insist shouldn't be made, I will withdraw the request. SMP0328. (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good! Although, I am sensitive to concerns about attempting to "own" the article; I have worked hard on it, but it belongs to Wikipedia. I guess the best approach will be to "play it by ear" and see what develops. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that you removed the period from the end of several citations at the Preamble article. Do you feel strongly about this? It is not proper Bluebook form. Although I don't know of any rule that says we have to use Bluebook form, as a general matter we have. The citation in the footnote/reference is generally regarded as a sentence unto itself that needs a period at the end, in addition to any punctuation that is required within a parenthetical that quotes a complete sentence of a case or other authority. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree with this point re: periods? Your silence makes me wonder whether you just haven't gotten to it or what. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy with other Wikipedia articles and other things. I didn't notice your comment. I removed those periods, because they aren't at the end of sentences and so are unnecessary. When a period has come at the end of a sentence in a citation, I have left it. SMP0328. (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't all citations sentences? I would argue that they are. Certainly in legal writing they are considered such when placed in a footnote like this. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

When I refer to a "sentence", I mean it in its standard sense. Something like a SCOTUS citation is not, IMO, a sentence. SMP0328. (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess for me it opens up uncomfortable questions. We use Bluebook citation form on this, apparently out of convention as opposed to a specific rule. Deviating from it like this seems to me to raise the issue of why we would follow any of the rules at all, or which ones. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it means that much to you, restore the periods. I will simply curse your name for all time. ;) SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

George W Bush

The version that was being restored was the consensus version proposed by Happyme22. Talk:George_W._Bush#One_of_the_lowest_approval_ratings_in_American_history You were changing it from the consensus to another version. RTRimmel (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit done by Joker123192. I have no objection to the consensus wording. SMP0328. (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

i know you mean well, but please don't "correct" my spelling. it's extremely rare for me to genuinely misspell a word, and phantastic is a legitimate, albeit archaic, spelling. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, sorry. SMP0328. (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment, Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery exceptions to Exclusionary Rule

I see that you removed the names of these two principles I had added to the Fourth Amendment article. Since these names are somewhat common, why hide their names? Also, I think the style of explaining a principle and supplying a reference provides clearer and more understandable reading that prefacing the explanation with a reference. Do you actually think the latter style is better? DavidForthoffer (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The "latter style" is common to this article and similar articles. I simply conformed your additions to that style. SMP0328. (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why not give the names of the Independent Source and Inevitable Discovery exceptions? DavidForthoffer (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

POTUS

Go nuts on it, man. All I was doing today was reorg'g it and adding the roles and duties section. You'll notice I comment blocked a large portion of the article. Sift out any data you feel is needed. Chuck the rest. As for me, I'm done for a few days: eye strain after doing this today. Thanks for all you do! -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit wasn't a comment on you. You've done a great job. For all you do, this Bud's for you! Couldn't resist. :) SMP0328. (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hi. You dropped in to my talk page, mentioned you had been working on the above article (esp. the refs), and whether it should go for reasssessment. I've been keeping an occasional eye on 14th amend, so first of all, good work keeping improving this, and the many related, articles. A couple of responses:

• GA reassessment (GAR) "is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed." (from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment). I don't think what is happening here fits any of those categories, so i don't think it should go to GAR.
• There does still look to be one remaining 'cite needed' tag, in the citizenship section.
• I have worked to improve the footnote format, to bring them up to what I believe would be expected at GA standard. Have a look at my last few edits, then check if you think any of the other footnotes need similar tweaking. If you are unclear about how or why I made any of those footnote changes - one of them in particular may look odd to you - let me know, and I can explain.

I would suggest you look at the reference issues I've mentioned above, then nominate the article once again at WP:GAN. While my presence on WP may be on-and-off in coming days / weeks, if you were to ping me at my talk page when you go to GAN, and would be happy for me to be the reviewer second third time around, I would be willing to assist. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion re. Obama talk page

Regarding this edit,[5] I agree that the discussion was a WP:SOAP / WP:FORUM that has no real chance of going anywhere useful. Personally I've found that archiving discussions like this with the {{hat|comment}} and {{hab}} templates is just as effective at heading off unproductive discussions, yet a little less controversial because it preserves the record and could in theory be undone more easily if someone had a good faith contribution to make. Not a request or anything, just a suggestion. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going easy on me

I spent some time looking at your history and how you started out on wikipedia as "repeal 16-17". Based on that I am assuming you are a friend to liberty. I understand the need to be pragmatic which is what I'm sure you are doing by removing the content pointing to William J. Benson. I actually hadn't heard of him before and became aware of him and his books by looking at the history for the sixteenth amendment on wikipedia. So at least it's in the history. Thanks. Junkernator (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If I didn't revert you, someone else would have. The material you wanted to add probably belongs in Tax protester (United States). SMP0328. (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: archiving

I see MiszaBot got to these articles, you might consider adding {{archives}} or some similar pointer to the newly created archives. –xeno^talk 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I added that link to all of those talk pages, except Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That one has individual links to past archives. How can I unify those archives into an {{archives}} box? SMP0328. (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

what do you mean there's a 'consensus'? millions and millions of republicans do not count? Please link both articles, the B.O. article and the article about what you think is a 'conspiracy'. Please treat Obama just like you would treat the great JFK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the consensus on that talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Electoral College (United States)

I hope you don't mind my undo-ing of your undo over at Talk:Electoral College (United States). I've seen your quality contributions in many articles, and I don't undo lightly.

I thought the person posting the question was indeed relating it to article content, although maybe inartfully expressed. Although he wrote "How come some people insist that your vote will not count?", I think the idea behind it is more, "What is the basis for the belief that the electoral college system means your vote may not count, and why doesn't the article deal with that?" I thought it was a worthy topic and restored the comment and replied in that spirit. TJRC (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Torres v. Puerto Rico

Hello SMP0328,

If you examine the Torres v. Puerto Rico article, you can see that the U.S. Supreme Court refer to the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment to declare a Puerto Rico State law unconstitutional. On this case the U.S Supreme Court do reference to this amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional. In the Opinion of the Court, authored by Chief Justice Burger, the substance of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures was held to apply in full force to Puerto Rico.

Although the Insular Cases had established that the Constitution does not wholly apply to territories, Burger cited Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952), for the proposition that the Congress had the authority to extend greater constitutional protections to a territory than would otherwise apply. The Congress had, in 1952, authorized Puerto Rico to write its own constitution, which included language identical to the Fourth Amendment. Burger also noted that the Court had applied other federal constitutional protections, such as free speech and due process, to Puerto Rico. Burger's opinion leaves explicitly undecided whether the Fourth Amendment here applied directly, or through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here, the fact that a federal guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure existed was crucial. If the guarantee had been only under the Puerto Rican Constitution, there would have been no federal question, and thus no jurisdiction in the US Supreme Court.

Having found the protection against unreasonable search and seizure applicable, Burger held that Public Law 22 was facially unconstitutional. It did not require probable cause before a search was initiated. The Court then dismissed Puerto Rico's contention that probable cause was not required because the search was conducted at an airport and on an island, where the border was international except as to United States citizens. Burger noted that both Hawaii and Alaska, which were states, were also geographically isolated from the rest of the United States, but only federal officials were authorized to make searches—and then only of international travelers. This authority to search was derived from inherent sovereign authority to control who comes and goes into the country, but Puerto Rico lacked such sovereign authority, just as would a state.

In a brief concurrence in the judgment, Justice Brennan argued that any implicit limits from the Insular Cases on the basic rights granted by the Constitution (including especially the Bill of Rights) were anachronistic in the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.65.236 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see why you thought that case was a Fourteenth Amendment case, even though it's not. You quoted part of that decision:

Although the Insular Cases had established that the Constitution does not wholly apply to territories, Burger cited Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952), for the proposition that the Congress had the authority to extend greater constitutional protections to a territory than would otherwise apply. The Congress had, in 1952, authorized Puerto Rico to write its own constitution, which included language identical to the Fourth Amendment. Burger also noted that the Court had applied other federal constitutional protections, such as free speech and due process, to Puerto Rico. Burger's opinion leaves explicitly undecided whether the Fourth Amendment here applied directly, or through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Puerto Rico is a United States territory and so, Constitutionally speaking, is under the direct authority of the Congress. Of course, the Congress has granted Puerto Rico "commonwealth status", so it can run its own affairs. So it would appear that the Bill of Rights would directly apply to Puerto Rico, instead of via the incorporation doctrine. Additionally, there have been federal laws applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the territories. So it would appear that the Fourth Amendment applies to Puerto Rico directly or via federal legislation, rather than by way of the Fourteenth Amendment (which deals with Constitutional rights within the States). SMP0328. (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On 442 U.S. 465 (1979) (section II) the U.S. Supreme Court indicate the following (Please read the full U.S. Supreme Court decision):

On the other hand, this Court has held or otherwise indicated that Puerto Rico is subject to the First Amendment Speech Clause, id. at 258 U. S. 314; the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 416 U. S. 668-669, n. 5 (1974); and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the

Page 442 U. S. 470

Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 426 U. S. 599-601 (1976). In Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1, 435 U. S. 4 n. 6 (1978) (per curiam), we assumed without deciding that the constitutional right to travel extends to the Commonwealth.

Congress may make constitutional provisions applicable to territories in which they would not otherwise be controlling. Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U. S. 415, 342 U. S. 419-420 (1952). Congress generally has left to this Court the question of what constitutional guarantees apply to Puerto Rico. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, supra at 426 U. S. 590. However, because the limitation on the application of the Constitution in unincorporated territories is based in part on the need to preserve Congress' ability to govern such possessions, and may be overruled by Congress, a legislative determination that a constitutional provision practically and beneficially may be implemented in a territory is entitled to great weight.

On the Page 442 U. S. 475 section the U.S. Supreme Court indicate the following:

I concur in the Court's holding that the Fourth Amendment applies in full force to Puerto Rico, that the search of appellant's luggage without a warrant based on probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment, that Public Law 22 is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to authorize what the Fourth Amendment prohibits, and that the evidence discovered in the unconstitutional search therefore must be suppressed

Appellee concedes that the Fourth Amendment applies to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Brief for Appellee 12, citing Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 426 U. S. 599 (1976); Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 416 U. S. 668 n. 5 (1974). Whatever the validity of the old cases such as Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 (1901), Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138 (1904), and Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298 (1922), in the particular historical context in which they were decided, those cases are clearly not authority for questioning the application of the Fourth Amendment -- or any other provision of the Bill of Rights -- to the Commonwealth Page 442 U. S. 476

of Puerto Rico in the 1970's. As Mr. Justice Black declared in Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 354 U. S. 14 (1957) (plurality opinion):

Page 442 U. S. 471

We conclude that the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment apply to the Commonwealth. [Footnote 3] As in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, supra at 435 U. S. 601, we have no occasion to determine whether the Fourth Amendment applies to Puerto Rico directly or by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court expressly held or indicated that Puerto Rico is subject to the First Amendment Speech Clause, the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment. --24.139.65.236 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fourth Amendment applies to Puerto Rico because it is under the authority of the Congress. Anything that is under the control of the Congress is subject to the Bill of Rights. That's why the Second Amendment applies to Washington, D.C. (see District of Columbia v. Heller) SMP0328. (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback rights

You appear to have filed This AIV report which appears egregiously meritless: Content disputes are not vandalism, and asking for an explanation of a reversion on the talk page is NOT grounds for an AIV report. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

After a brief discussion, my rollback rights were restored. SMP0328. (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

JFYI

IP mentioning your warnings here.  7  04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Private property

Come on now. You've been here long enough to know that this is ridiculous. AfD, RfC? Sure why not. Blanking as a courtesy? Please. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The courtesy blanking may indeed be a Twinkle default. But that's not the point: this article is not even close to meeting the requirements for speedy deletion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

hi

i think you mistaken me for some other user... cheers. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd Amendment

Thanks for following that page. I think it's more in your knowledge/interest domain than mine anyhow :-) BTW, an IP dropped by my talk page, you might be interested in seeing what they said and seeing if my answer was correct. I trust your judgment. tedder (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would leave it as is. If you start editing the article, SaltyBoatr will be on your case in short order. They need to work out their differences. SMP0328. (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cookies.

Thanks for the welcome. I was just researching for a government project and noticed a grammatical error and corrected it. Thanks again for the welcome.

-New Kid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.232.79 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I ordinarily respond on my own page, but...

W.r.t. this edit to my talk page, it seems to me you're referring to this edit of mine to the article on the "right to bear arms" in the US, I responded on my own user-talk-page. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama Article

Hello,

While my characterization of the the Stupak Amendment as "extremely" controversial may have been excessive, I think that you'll agree that it can be described, objectively, as "controversial." For example, a litany of "Stop Stupak" websites can observed through a mere Google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=stop+stupak&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a . Further, the Congressional Pro-Choice Congress has said that it will block health-care reform bill with the the Stupak amendment included, eliciting contempt from their own party and the president. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/41_House_libs_vow_to_block_Stupak_amendment.html While all amendments to the bill, in as sensitive a debate as this, are controversial, I believe the Stupak amendment merits the qualifier of "controversial" because to not do so gives the impression that the amendment passed with no problems and everyone was happy in the end.

Well, girl, look at you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Well, girl, look at you! (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but, while the Stupak Amendment is "controversial", so are abortion, health care reform, President Obama and almost everything else political. So why should the Stupak Amendment be the only thing referred to as "controversial"? SMP0328. (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)