User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2018

2A article intro

I've been trying to edit the opening of the 2nd Amendment page to include the actual wording. I believe it should precede any interpretation of the meaning. I have been getting editors who simply "undo" with stating a viable reason. I think we need a moderator to decide? Shouldn't the words of the amendment supersede a Supreme Court interpretation of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington-Art-Movement (talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Constitutional amendment articles have an introduction then a Text section showing the exact wording of the amendment. There's no reason for the 2A article to deviate from this practice. SMP0328. (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

2nd Amendment Article is Completely biased and not true to the history of our 2nd Amendment.

The article is full of half truths and incomplete information. The history of the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. has its roots in the Declaration of Independence and the State Constitutions of the Revolutionary Period. There is hardly any information in providing for a balanced history of this subject. The article appears to be in complete service to populist propaganda without regard to primarily sourced historical data. Whoever controls this article is doing so at the expense of the truth of the diversity of opinion as expressed in our primary documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroMagus (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Was this edit the result of me adding a comment below it? I didn't intentionally remove the comment, but now I'm thinking there may be a script that I added to my common.js that's causing the issue. It has been doing strange things, like making my edit window flash and making the text disappear leaving only the syntax highlights. Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 05:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't know if you whether you intended to delete the preceding comment, but I knew it had to be restored. Does your script allow you to preview before posting? In the end, it turned out fine, so no problem. SMP0328. (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's this script but I always use the default Show preview before I publish any changes, and everything looked fine at the time. I would not have known that comment had been deleted if you had not restored it, so thank you again. I've removed the Writ_Keeper script from common.js but there must be a duplicate somewhere else so off to try to find it. Have a good evening. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Equal Rights Amendment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simple majority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart

...is correctly labeled a right-wing source. Look at the Breitbart News article. NPOV does not allow censorship. Keep in mind that DS sanctions apply to the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A wiki-article is can not be a source for another wiki-article. That would be Wikipedia being a source for itself (i.e., bootstrapping). Please provide a RS saying Breitbart is "far right". SMP0328. (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously. I expected you'd follow the "look at" and see the RS used there. Needless to say this has been hashed out many times and this is consensus. It's also something that Breitbart is proud of, so don't hide it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

According to that article, some consider Breitbart News to be of the alt-right and others consider it to be a traditional conservative news website. The Presidency article should not pick a side in that discussion. We should either mention both sides or neither side. SMP0328. (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit War, United States Electoral College

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You seem to be in an edit war on the United States Electoral College page. No matter how much you think you are right, this should be resolved in the talk page. P37307 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SMP0328.. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNIGUIDE explicitly recommends not listing concentrations

Your edit that restored a detailed listing of concentrations cites WP:UNIGUIDE's section about "academic structure." I'm confused because that section explicitly says "Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section." Can you please clarify how that section supports your edit? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I consider the concentration list to be part of the "academic environment" and a "special course system", as the concentrations are optional. A student is choosing the specialize the course system under which he advances toward graduation. SMP0328. (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How is that different from a major, degree, or program? And how does that list not run afoul of WP:NOT? ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How is it different from a "special course system"? That essay does not define the terms it uses. As for WP:NOT, to which part of it are you referring? SMP0328. (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Concentrations aren't "special;" they're extraordinarily common. And of course I'm referring to WP:NOTDIR as already stated above in the first paragraph. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)