User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2012

Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1

Please allow me to do the striking at Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your restoration

Your restoration of an indiscriminate and improperly sourced collection of opinions has been noted. We should not have such a section at all; least of all should we have one like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of such a large portion of an article has been noted as well. Such removals should occur only by consensus. SMP0328. (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You deny policy. The burden to show that something should be included at all rests on those who would include it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear User:SMP0328, thanks for correcting the misspellings among the new references I provided. When I type quickly, I tend to make a few of those mistakes! I hope you have a pleasant evening. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've gotten some free time, I have added a section on Accommodationists to the article in order to satisfy WP:NPOV and have left a message on the talk page. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 23:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues

You have not responded at Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

To what in particular do you want respond? SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The sections are noted at the bottom of the discussion. Please respond within 48 hours or this will be failed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Due Process is not the same as the Due Process Clause

I saw that you undid my edit. A couple of things.

First, the funny one. It seems that you undid your edit as well, with 20:32, 11 February 2012. Dunno if you meant to do that since your edit title mentions something else.

The other is that if you look at the other Clauses mentioned, Citizenship Clause and Equal Protection Clause, their links are Citizenship Clause and Equal Protection Clause rather than Citizenship and Equal Protection. Parallelism argues for Due Process Clause.

Olsonist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonist (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on Fourth Amendment

Since you reverted all my changes to the Introduction without any explanation or discussion (except for one change), I am escalating this to Dispute Resolution. DavidForthoffer (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Acting President

Hi, I reverted your partial revert. "Acting president" has never been a title, nor the name of an office. It just means acting as president. It's commonly lowercase in sources, like in [1]. Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Twenty-fifth Amendment capitalizes it. As for "Representative", I'll fix the wording so capitalization will be correct. SMP0328. (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I don't know how I missed that. Still, most sources don't recognize it as the name of an office or a proper name. But I won't bother with it any more. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, or when referring to a specific person (e.g., Acting President Cheney), I wouldn't capitalize it. Glad we were able to work this out. SMP0328. (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

capitalization

I'm not going to revert your changes again. I just want to point out that the example you cited is "the correct formal name of an office (e.g. King of France)". As I noted in my first edit summary, when the usage is President of the United States, it's obviously capitalized (much as with King of France). When you're referring just to the president (as in most of the Electoral College article), it's a common noun, even if it is by extension referring to the specific office. I don't care enough to keep fighting about this, though. Esrever ^(klaT) 19:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of external link re 25th Amendment

Hi,

Responding to your notification re removal of external link in the article on the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The link refers to a book (For the Good of the Country) - which is a novel (so, a fictional discussion) about the amendment, and the oft-discussed problems which it poses for secure governance. Another such discussion is William Safire's Full Disclosure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.36.196 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SMP0328.. You have new messages at User talk:Rachack/Jewish Star of Jealousy.
Message added 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Friendly warning

As a long time editor, you are surely aware that adding material without citations -- as you've done at Second Amendment is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Consensus does not, in fact, need to be reached to delete large sections of material. especially if they are uncited, are contentious, or constitute original research. If you want to restore the material, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find reliable sources before doing so. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A burden I have now met. SMP0328. (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)