User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2010You got itThere 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) Comma vs. semi-colon in text of First Amendment to the United States ConstitutionRe 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)
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)
Barack Obama reversionYou 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)
TwinkleNo problem. Thanks for the explanation. :) Malke2010 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC) cquote vs. quoteNoticed 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)
ObamaI 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)
Sorry for POV texti'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)
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) LOL a Welcome templateIf 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) POV pushing is not always vandalismJust 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) ![]() You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. full protectionWell, 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) Sixteenth AmendmentDear 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)
Seems to meThe 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) 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) 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) Second Amendment to the United States ConstitutionPlease 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. N419BH 23:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 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)
ChamberIt is perfectly acceptable to use "chamber" to refer to a legislative body.[2][3][4][5] -Rrius (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Log entries on my watchlistI 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) 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) ClarificationJust 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) Thank youThank you. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated. 99.93.195.221 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) UnprotectionSo 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)
Second Amendment to the United States ConstitutionWith 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.
--Hauskalainen (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
27th AmendmentHi, 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)
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) Happy holidaysWhat year of law school are you in? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Information related to User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2010 |