User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2008

SMP, I think you might not be able to edit a semi-protected page because this specific account has not been active for 4 days. I think there is now a requirement to be "established."--Crossman33 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbent infoboxes

Incumbent infoboxes use Incumbent in the successor section. The Bush article shouldn't be made the exception. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea, but that's not how the incumbent infoboxes are done. If you want to bring your idea up at Wikipedia: WikiProject Infoboxes, I'll support it. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

politician

okay, but is President a job then?

Officeholder code

• The page I sent you to was a copy of the template with my mods, to get the code you just had to click 'edit this page'. Here's the link anyway. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politician vs. Senator

Please see my response at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to United States Electoral College has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a constant vandal on your hands do you stop and ask Why were you replacing pages with suck my cock?. No. Sorry but its just standard policy. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corwin Amendment

Hi,

I used WP:AWB to clean up the page.. it removed 2 line breaks from the external links section. Cheers. Sniperz11^talk|edits 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

refactoring other user's talk page commentary

please don't do it. see WP:TALK, section 1.5.1. most users find it annoying having their commentary edited. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas v. White

You asked how Morgan v. United States overruled Texas v. White. From pg. 496 of the report: "The position there taken [in Texas v. White], that the legislature of Texas, while the state was owner of the bonds, could limit their negotiability by an act of legislation, of which all subsequent purchasers were charged with notice, although though the bonds on their face were payable to bearer, must be regarded as overruled." Thus, as I noted in the citation in the article on the Preamble, White was overruled on other grounds than those for which it is cited. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Albert

Hello SMP0328, you may want to check that article out. Its 'Mr Speaker' section seems confusing - it seems to suggest Albert would've become President, yet also to say he would've become Acting President. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we do make a good team. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple edits

I've thought of that, but I make edits as they occur to me, and after seeing how it renders and re-reading it, I will fiddle with it. I see no real reason to try to do things in one shot other than (possibly) my own convenience, and it doesn't seem convenient to me. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second amendment intro

I see your edit to the intro of the 2A article. Have you also seen the negotiation and development of the wording of the intro on the talk page? That consensus text was painstakingly negotiated, and if it needs more change, lets discuss on the talk page rather than making casual changes at whim. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: Have you also seen the negotiations and development of the consensus on the talk page? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump talk page

Per our earlier discussion, I've deleted the entire discussion including the image tagging notice, and also replaced the non-free image on the main page with a link. That image shouldn't have been on the main page to begin with per WP:NFCC, which limits non-free images to mainspace. I figured that deletion of a random image someone added is not the concern of the Village Pump. Feel free to restore as much or little as you like, but it didn't seem like something worth keeping in the record there. Cheers. - Wikidemo (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to reliable sourcing.

I view your edit[1] as a personal attack, and as a declaration of your intent to push your personal point of view into the 2A article. Could you please avoid personal attacks and could you please use reliable sourcing instead of your personal views when making your edits. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

You have been 2008 granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP

Regarding this edit, why did you describe it as a "registry hack"? I'm aware of its colloquial use, but your source doesn't use this term, and it's an especially odd choice considering that this is a Microsoft-sanctioned settings change. -/- Warren 06:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans

The selection you quoted refers to the ultimate sovereignty as superior to all legislatures! How could it possibly be referring to the States if the ultimate sovereignty is superior to all legislatures? What else is superior to all courts and all legislatures except "We the People"? As I originally wrote it, the parenthetical said "(the people, speaking through the amendment process)". You eliminated the clause that followed, which I wasn't going to fight you on, but the very portion that you quoted to me demonstrates your position is wrong. The quoted portion of Hans is expressly invoking some authority higher than the States, which is this notion that the Constitution comes from "the People." MrArticleOne (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution was written by a Convention that met in Philadelphia; it was not drafted by "We the People," yet purports to speak in their name. It was not submitted to a referendum of the People, either nationally or in each State, but was instead ratified by special conventions for that purpose. Those ratifying conventions excluded enormous fractions of society that were considered part of "the People" (women, people without land). The ratifying conventions met in each State and ratified it as a unit by each State, notwithstanding that the Preamble purports to speak of "the People" as an undifferentiated whole. None of that is offered as proof of my parenthetical; it is, however, disproof of your position that it is some kind of "interpretation" on my part that the allusion in Hans is to the People because the ratification process proceeds through the State Legislatures. What else does the allusion in Hans refer to? It specifically excludes legislatures and courts, and the thrust of the article is that Supreme Court doctrine is that sovereignty is not derived from the States as separate sovereign political units that ceded it to the federal government, but from the People directly. It is particularly ludicrous that you would say that "if the Hans court was referring to the People, then such a reference was in error." Who are you to say that? The article is about the Supreme Court's position on the meaning of the Preamble. You offer that the Supreme Court may have been "referring to the State Legislatures' role within Article V, which is superior to any single legislature," but the Court in the quotation you offered specifically refers to "the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures . . . ." Your own quotation refutes your position! I really am unclear on how you can possibly think that what you're saying is consistent with the other cases that are cited to and quoted from in note 10 of the article on the Preamble. Your position that the allusion in Hans could refer to the State Legislatures collectively is specifically refuted by the quotations from Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and M'Culloch v. Maryland. In the absence of those quotes, which specifically reject a notion that the federal government's sovereignty proceeds from the State Governments, you would be right: it would be inconclusive what the Supreme Court in Hans is talking about. But by the time Hans was decided, the Supreme Court had already specifically rejected the alternative you're proposing. EDIT: In a sense, you're right that it's POV, but it's the POV of the Supreme Court that the parenthetical expresses, and the whole article is devoted to explicating the Supreme Court's point of view on these matters. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest alternative makes no more sense than the last. "The Court could have meant the Constitution, specifically Article V." But the Constitution doesn't act for itself (it's an inanimate object!). The quote in the article on the Preamble says that "the highest authority of this country [(i.e., the people)] was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the court." You're suggesting it could be reworded to say "the highest authority of this country [(i.e., the Constitution)] was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the court," or that "the highest authority of this country [(i.e., the States)] was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the court", and that because there are these competing plausible interpretations, we shouldn't put anything there. But as I noted, the opinions in M'Culloch and Martin specifically refute the latter alternative (the States), and it just doesn't make any sense that the Constitution can disagree with the Supreme Court, it has no will of its own. The Supreme Court in Hans speaks of something having acted; if we know it isn't the States, how is there any alternative except that it is the "We the People" that the Preamble speaks of in the first person as having ordained and established the document? MrArticleOne (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for why the Supreme Court didn't say it expressly, I can only speculate on that; I can only offer my point of view! My best guess is that they were going for the sort of poetic understatement that was once fashionable in legal writing. Judges once said things like "Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is . . . the standard of behavior [for trustees]. . . . Conduct subject to that reproach does not receive from equity a healing benediction." Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545 (N.Y. 1928). I am extremely confident that my parenthetical objectively expresses what the Court is talking about. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Dear SMP0328: I reverted your addition of the citation to the "family guardian" website in this article. The textual statement is certainly correct, but the website in question ("famguardian") is a tax protester website that is in the process of being closed down by court order. Much of the material in that web site is fraudulent. I realize that your addition of that source was made in good faith, and in fact I have seen the many good edits you have been making to various tax-related articles.

I will try to locate a source for the statement in the article. Again, thanks for your help. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush term end

I don't see the need for the article header to mention the precise time at which his term ends, let alone to provide a reference for it. That level of detail is unnecessary. -- Zsero (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

I understand your concerns about protection locking out other editors. My initial reaction was to warn and block the edit warriors (see here, here and here) but when a third editor became involved, thus, I didn't have many options. I would like to be able to lift the protection early, as I stated on the talk page, and your request that it be shortened adds extra impetus to that. However, too short a period of time has elapsed for me to decide whether to shorten the protection. Thus, I have watchlisted the article and will continue to follow matters on the talk page and will review the length of protection after the article has been protected for 48-72 hours. Most of all I am concerned to prevent future edit warring and as an interested editor of this article, you could perhaps try to expedite a resolution by mediating between the disputants. CIreland (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

You changed the caption if the image in the Netscape Navigator 9 article. But the image is still the same! That is really serious, false information is something to avoid. Was this vandalism or did you just don't care about it? Please, why did you do this? If you do something like that again, I will tell an administrator. Helpsloose 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to come down. I wasn't vandalizing the Netscape Navigator 9 article. That browser was recently upgraded to version 9.0.0.6, so I decided to update that caption. I meant no harm. SMP0328. (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. Helpsloose 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Your participation is requested for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Preamble "Clarification"

I am not certain that your clarification to the Preamble article is accurate, strictly speaking. A dissolution of the Union leaves nothing left; each State would be an independent country. Secession from the Union suggests that 1 or more States purport to withdraw, but that the remaining States are united. Your re-wording makes it sound like secession is a form of dissolution, but it doesn't strike me that this is the case. It seems to me at best it is a sort of "poetic" dissolution, but a less than totally natural use of the word. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is captured by the word "secession." The word "dissolution," unqualified by your phrase "and the remaining states," refers to the total dissolution of the Union; that is, there would be no Union at all. The way it was originally worded captured this distinction, by making it clear that in this context, "secession" and "dissolution" mean different things. I don't dispute that what you say is true, but there is also the concept of total dissolution, and that concept is ably set up by the prior wording, which recognizes a distinction between secession and dissolution. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different unions that are being spoken of. There is the indissoluable union between any given State (or subgroup of States) and the overarching, independently existing Union. Dissolving that union is called "secession." There is also "the Union," that is, the concept of the states bound together as a greater cohesive whole (the "United States of America"). Speaking simply of dissolution of "the Union" would refer to the death of that larger political entity (the destruction of the United States of America). In the Civil War, for example, the United States of America was not dissolved and would not have been even if the C.S.A. had won; the Union would still have existed as between the non-seceding States. Your edit muddles the distinction between these two concepts. My point in wording it as it was worded initially is that the Courts have interpreted the Preamble to mean two things: (1) that the United States of America is intended to exist indefinitely and (2) that no single State or group of States may legally withdraw from that larger, overarching Union. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states

Hi, please comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

modifying other's comments

generally speaking, it's best not to modify another user's comments on a talk page, even to correct typos. from WP:TALK: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting". Anastrophe (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being a nice person. I doubt SaltyBoatr or Yaf object. I know you don't like it, so I never correct any spelling error made by you on a talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay. of coarse, i nevr mak speling errers in my commints, so yuve nevr had teh operatunity to ficks them. ;^). Anastrophe (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U R hilarious. :) SMP0328. (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously, you really aren't supposed to correct people's spelling errors in the talk pages. It's just really frowned upon. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a kind act. People make spelling errors. What's wrong with someone correcting that on a Talk page, so that person's comments look better? I never change the substance of what someone is saying. Only Anastrophe has told me not to correct his spelling, so I don't. Nobody else has had a problem with what I do. SMP0328. (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Editor

The above anon has made a minor edit to the article.[1] I think that edit should not be reverted. Anons that make good faith edits that don't make an article less accurate, should not be left with the impression that they are not welcome. This anon's edit should be left in place, because it does not undermine the quality of the article and because the anon would hopefully then feel that his efforts at making good faith contributions to Wikipedia are welcome. SMP0328. (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about anonymous edits that make the article less well-written? Personally, I think edits like this ought to be disfavored; it is mere change for change's sake. However, since it isn't wrong, I have no intention of making a fuss over it; there are a few other, more substantive additions I would like to make to the article. Perhaps sweep a revert under the rug by quietly amending it back in a few weeks? Or just leave it alone, I am not terribly passionate about it either way. I definitely wouldn't write it in this more casual-sounding fashion. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if any edit lessens the quality of the article, that edit should be reverted. I have no objection to changing it back later. My point is simply that an anon who makes an edit that doesn't lessen the quality of the article, shouldn't have that edit reverted as if it were vandalism. Such anons should be encouraged to contribute, not discouraged as if they are unwelcome intruders. SMP0328. (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The anon's edit.

Vandals

The answer is that, unfortunately, there is never a low supply of idiots. SMP0328. (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get that, but what is leading them to the article on the Preamble? If I was going to vandalize something, I don't think it'd be that. Then again, I suppose all the high-profile vandalism targets are protected. Even so, I don't get the steady stream. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about what you said. My guess is that at least of some of those vandals are anti-American and see vandalizing the Preamble article as a way (stupidity notwithstanding) to express how they feel. SMP0328. (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess was bored high school civics students. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a combination of both. SMP0328. (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Governors

Hello SMP0328. I seen you comment & edits at Joseph Bruno. Could or would you explain to me why Jim Guy Tucker became Governor (instead of Acting Governor) in December 1992 & Mike Huckabee became Governor (instead of Acting Governor) in July 1996. Where's Bob C. Riley only became Acting Governor in 1975. When did Arkansas changes its gubernatorial succession act? I've asked Wikipedia: WikiProject US Governors, as well as 'two' other editors this question; nobody has yet answered. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gubernatorial succession in Arkansas is governed by its State laws and State constitution. My changes to the Bruno article are based on the New York State Constitution. It certainly permissible for gubernatorial succession in Arkansas to function differently from how it functions in New York. SMP0328. (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with the New York Governors & Lieutenant Governors. I'm just curious about the Arkansas Governors & Lieutenant Governors. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know; has an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution (concerning gubernatorial succession) been adopted since 1975? GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to look up the applicable Arkansas State constitutional provisions? SMP0328. (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, would you look it up? GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to Article 6, Section 5 (as amended) of the Arkansas State constitution.[2] It's similar to what is required by the New York State constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've peeked at Article 6, section 4 (as well). According to that section? Tucker was Acting Governor from Bill Clinton's resignation in December 1992 'til his (Tucker's) inauguration as Governor in January 1995. Mike Huckabee was 'Acting Governor' from Tucker's resignation in July 1996 'til his (Huckabee's) inauguration as Governor in January 1999. Something doesn't add up here. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Arkansas Constitution makes the Lt. Gov. Acting Governor when the Governor fails to finish his term, but says that the Acting Governor serves "for the residue of the term." This means that the Lt. Gov. becomes the de facto Governor. So technically those men were Acting Governors, but in reality they were Governors. The word "Acting" should only be used when (1) the powers of an office, but not the office, are bestowed upon a person, and (2) that person is not supposed to serve for the remainder of the term of that office. For example, the two occasions that Dick Cheney was Acting President he was not President, because he did not occupy the office of President and did not have the authority to possess the Presidential powers for the remainder of the current Presidential term. SMP0328. (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Riley completed a gubernatorial term (the same way Tucker & Huckabee did) yet he (and others before him) is called Acting Governor. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the terminology used in Arkansas. All I know is that, in Arkansas when a Governor can't finish his term, a Lieutenant Governor becomes Acting Governor, but is really simply the Governor, because he is to finish his predecessor's term. SMP0328. (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is confusing. Huckabee was elected Lt Gov under Tucker before Tucker was elected Governor and Rockefeller was elected Lt Gov under Huckabee before Huckabee was elected Governor. In those scenarios Tucker & Huckabee were 'never' Acting Governor. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figuring things out further. Purcell, Riley, Tucker & Huckabee were Lt Gov succeeding to the Governorship. The office of Lieutenant Governor didn't exist during the previous 'gubernatorial successions' (in those cases, the Senate President assumed the gov powers & duties as [correctly] Acting Governor). Therefore the inconsistency problems pertains only to Purcell and Riley. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, Huckabee was elected Lt Gov in 1993 (in a special election) under Tucker & Rockefeller was elected Lt Gov in 1996 (in a special election) under Huckabee. This gives the impression that Tucker & Huckabee became Governor in 1992 & 1996 respectively (not just Acting Governor). GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one explanation, I can think of (concerning Riley & Purcell). In Arkansas the Lieutenant Governor succeeding to the Governorship is not automatic; but requires the taking of the gubernatorial oath. Seeing as Governors Bumpers & Pryor resigned with mere days left in their respective terms? Perhaps their Lt Gov's chose not to take the gubernatorial oath & therefore did not become Governors. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you look up the Arkansas Supreme Court decision in Bryant v. English, 311 Ark. 187 (1992), which dealt with gubernatorial succession. SMP0328. (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a copy anywhere (on the internet). GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't either. The Arkansas Supreme Court's on-line records don't go back that far. SMP0328. (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even better. Lt Gov Harvey Parnell 'apparently' became Governor upon his predecessor's resignation (in the same manner as Jim Guy Tucker & Mike Huckabee). But (again), Lt Govs Riley & Purcell don't succeed. Very inconsistent. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bruno

As per Article IV §6 of the NYS constitution: "In case of vacancy in the office of lieutenant-governor alone, or if the lieutenant-governor shall be impeached, absent from the state or otherwise unable to discharge the duties of office, the temporary president of the senate shall perform all the duties of lieutenant governor during such vacancy or inability."

Therefore, Joe Bruno is the Acting LG. It has been acknowledged by all and he has moved into the LG's office in the Capitol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanz851 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not "Acting Lieutenant Governor", because no such position exists. The New York State Constitution says that when there's no Lieutenant Governor, the temporary president of the senate "performs his duties." That means he presides over the State Senate. Referring to him as "Acting Lieutenant Governor" leads to the impression that he is like a Lieutenant Governor in all ways. He is not. If Governor Paterson fails to finish the current gubernatorial term, Joseph Bruno would only "act as governor" (be Acting Governor) pending a special election. He would not, like a Lieutenant Governor, become Governor for the remainder of that term. "Acting Lieutenant Governor" is less clear than "temporary president of the senate" and so it is not used in the article. Secondarily, "Acting Lieutenant Governor" is a form of original research. SMP0328. (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite correct. So, please stop the hair-splitting, SMP!. It appears the office is not vacant, Bruno has moved in! (see Wikipedia:POINT "Do not disrupt Wikipedia just to prove a point!") Kraxler (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Senate majority leader — currently Republican Joseph Bruno — will act as lieutenant governor until after the 2010 elections." [1]
• "Were Gov. Eliot Spitzer to resign and Lt. Gov. David Paterson to succeed him, the new acting lieutenant governor would be Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a Republican." [2]
• "Joe Bruno is now the lieutenant governor." [3]
• "And in a serious karmic slap to Spitzer, the governor's arch-nemesis, Joseph Bruno, would become acting Lt. Governor." [4]

I think I have made my point. Kraxler is correct that Bruno has in fact moved into the LG's office in the state capital, I can't find that news report though b/c it was printed a few weeks ago. As someone that used to work for the state and still know people who are currently employed for the state, specifically in the state legislature and Bruno's office itself, Bruno is acting #2.Scanz851 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The media is notorious for incorrectly stating the law. Here's an article that says if David Paterson fails to finish the current gubernatorial term, then Bruno would become "governor until the end of 2010, since the state constitution doesn't call for a special election to pick a new lieutenant governor." That's clearly wrong. Bruno would "act as governor" until a new election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor was held either this year or next year. Many reporters don't read up on the law. We know more about the then they do.

As for Bruno moving into the Lt. Gov.'s office, he may simply like that office. Dick Cheney held an office in the House of Representatives, but that didn't make him a Representative or Speaker. My source is the State Constitution. The Joseph Bruno article clearly states that, as "temporary president of the senate", Bruno performs the Lt. Gov.'s duties. Relevant templates say "vacant" followed by a note that states that Bruno is performing the Lt. Gov.'s duties, because that office is vacant. So right now, the Bruno article, and related templates, have both of what we want. They say the office of Lieutenant Governor is vacant (as I want) and state that Bruno is temporarily performing the duties of that office (as you and Kraxler want), because of that vacancy. I think this is a good compromise. SMP0328. (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://www.governing.com/news/0803paterson.htm
2. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stsucc115609410mar11,0,1010682.story
3. http://dailygotham.com/blog/bouldin/yay_new_york
4. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080311/cm_thenation/4297149

References

When I hover over a footnote call number, nothing happens at all; the pointer changes appropriately and invites me to click on it. I'm using a Mac and Safari 3.1, which may account for the difference. At any rate, I hadn't noticed. My footnotes are long enough that nobody wants to read them in a pop-up hover box anyway. Well, not many people want to read them at all, and nobody wants to read them like that! MrArticleOne (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by an anon

In the article on District of Columbia Voting Rights at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

there was a section (actually two) setting out the Pros and Cons on the subject. User Meelar deleted both sections. I feel this is counterproductive. Certainly both sides' views should be represented equally, but there is nothing preventing either side from adding or augmenting their points of view. Deleting BOTH sides exposition of their points of view, however (particularly prior to any discussion) smacks of censorship, vandalism, or maybe both.

Before getting into a post and delete contest, it would be preferable to DISCUSS the issues.

Preamble Cite check

I see you recently flagged a sentence in the Preamble article for a fact/cite check or whatever it's called. It's my feeling that the sentiment being expressed there doesn't necessarily need a citation, although it perhaps should be reworded to better express that. I think the point is that, to some extent, people understand the Preamble to mean what they want it to mean (that it is something of a constitutional ink blot test). The comment to me only seems to be hedging on declaring that the Preamble must mean one thing, thereby asserting that the Preamble commits the Constitution to one theory of government. The comment to me is only there to "hedge," not to make a specific factual assertion. In this way, it doesn't seem to me to need a citation if the comment is just there out of modesty. Do you feel it could be reworded to better express this? MrArticleOne (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a footnote that is linked to an example having an alternative view of the Preamble would be a way to back up that sentence. SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it just be a hedge, though? Why does it have to be referring to something specific? To me, it isn't making any actual assertion that needs support. And, my point was to come up with a way of wording it that doesn't need a citation at all, not come up with a specific competing theory. Anything that is produced would inevitably be, at the least, un-authoritative. Also, arguably the preceding discussion makes it clear that even the Supreme Court can't quite decide exactly what it means (oscillating between the "citizens" and "anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States" viewpoints). At any rate, I'm trying to come up with a way of wording it that demands no citation at all and I wanted your input on that. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word "are" to "may be" in the sentence we are discussing. Now the sentence only refers to the possibility of alternative viewpoints about the Preamble, instead of claiming that such viewpoints exist. This makes it a hedge, rather than a statement of fact. With this change, I also removed the cite tag. SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry by an anon

I don't know how this works but I just tried searching George W. Bush and all that came up was a long sentence. The sentence said how Bush swapped brains with hamsters and a bunch of other crazy stuff. The thing is, I was on that page for one minute (the article was how it should be), I linked to another page, went back to the Bush page, and it had changed!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.196.143 (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYStatewideOfficials

Yep, I was seeing an odd bug and then figured out it was coming from the template. If the article already had "{{reflist}}" then the whole list got repeated. If the article had "{{reflist|2}}" then just the one footnote got displayed below the box. Also searching "what links here" from the template page has a sorta bug where "NJStatewideOfficials" matches "NYStatewideOfficials", but that's another issue. -Colfer2 (talk)

George W. Bush

This is a fact Bush the worst president ever It is written by Eric Foner a DeWitt Clinton professor of history at Columbia University. So I am going to revert the edit and add this resource link. Igor Berger (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the clarification, but we should put "historians" not "by two people" Please read the two articles to see that it says so in them. Also I have no POV. Bush is a political figure to me, nothing more and nothing less. It is how hisotrians and the rest of the world sees him. Including America, based on his lowest popularity poll. So no individual opinions here. Igor Berger (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "some historians" as to not to imply "all historians" Igor Berger (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush Discussion

[3]

Please respond as soon as you can. Thanks! --DiamondElusive (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not commit that deletion. SMP0328. (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction

Thanks for the "constitutional" spell corrections :) --MaccabeeY (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Your participation in Arbcom is requested here. Thank you. 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll date my "citation needed" tags from now on

Need I say any more? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I'll try to incorporate it in my future efforts. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It was a double set of opening <ref> tags, created when one opening tag was not closed, which stole all subsequent <ref>s. Fixed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good faith edits

Please do not revert good faith edits without explanation. that section was previously removed with explanation and again removed as such. It was reintroduced without explanation or addressing the issues with that text.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Gladiators Ratings

SMP0328, I recently added the section for deletion banner for the Ratings section of American Gladiators, and it reads "An editor" and after seeing your post to the talk page was going to change it to "Multiple editors". I just wanted to make sure that you are in agreement with this before I go ahead. I think we should give it about a week for other editors to voice their opinion, but if there's nothing substantial, we should remove the section. - zachinthebox _(Talk) 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in. SMP0328. (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

No problem cutting or copying the relevant comments from my talk page to the article talk page. By the way, I'd be happy to merge the 2 Terry sections together, but only when I get around to it – which might be a while, which is why I suggest somebody else do it, so that it gets done sooner. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it took me to write this

you actually completed the merger. All I can say is, nice job. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was mostly a cut and paste job. SMP0328. (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you did it the easy way. Well I guess if the easy way is the best way, who is to complain? (Actually, I did clean it up a little bit after you merged... did you notice?) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. After that I added a one word clarification. SMP0328. (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush again

You made recently a change in wording about Bush's involvement misleading the public for "reasoning into war". I could search and "blame" the original author that put the footnote in without giving one or some page numbers but since you changed the wording I assume you read and found the quoted source and so I would really be appreciated if you would add them in the footnote so me and others don't have to search again. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't fully read the report, because I've had no Internet connection for a week. The report doesn't accuse anyone of lying, but assert that the Bush Administration made mistakes regarding why we needed to invade Iraq. That's why I changed the wording as I did. SMP0328. (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

The original quotations from those "The[ Supreme Court]" looked like this:

"Such are some of the deliverances of the highest judicial tribunal of the Union. They repudiate emphatically the mischievous heresy that the union of the states under the constitution is a mere league or compact, from which a state, or any number of states, may withdraw at pleasure, not only without the consent of the other states, but against their will. They deny the assumption that full and unqualified sovereignty still remains in the states or the people of a state . . . ."

Notice that it says "They repudiate" and "They deny," (the "they" being "the deliverances of the highest judicial tribunal in the Union"). Because I'm turning "They repudiate" into "The Supreme Court repudiated," I have to put the bracket at "The[ Supreme Court] repudiate[d]," because the word in the original quotation isn't "The" but "They." Just so you know why I undid what you did. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. EC

LOL at that guy editing about MN... buuuusted... Foofighter20x (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=208.03 :D[reply]

Welcome to the 2000 primary group

You were one of three other editors that encouraged me to re-write the 2000 Primaries section of the George W. Bush article after I commented that it was a disjointed section about Rove, church, polls and that a more historical and factual summary would be better. So far, there has been no opposition.

If we have a "2000 Primary Group" of us four, perhaps we could propose certain ideas to get a feel of how acceptable they might be to the Wikipedia community? It would just be like first discussing things among friends informally, with no binding decisions, just discussion among rational people (rational, judging from the 2000 Primaries discussion.).

The new question is that there is a "cultural and political image" section in several politicians articles. Some of these are better written than others. However, there's a philosophical problem that hasn't really been addressed much or at all.

viewpoint A:
Should there be such a section at all? After all, it's just someone's opinion but that they have written it as a political commentator for a major news source (so it become sort of "reliable source" in Wikipedia terminology). Is it in the George W. Bush article? No. (retort could be "other crap exists").

If it is there, should all the major cultural and political images be reported, at least the most widely reported ones? (for example, Gerald Ford's image of being clumsy was very widely commented on). If not, isn't this subtle POV?

viewpoint B:
Or should an encyclopedia have none of this subjective rubbish and only facts?

From a practical standpoint, viewpoint B is less contentious because there would be no debate to what is included after it's decided not to have it. On the other hand, viewpoint A would report on commonly reported images (opinions) of the person which does have some historical and biographical value.

Let me know what you think? Chergles (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "viewpoint B". I would remove all references to other people's viewpoints and all polls. To me, these are all subjective and are simply ways to POV push via sourced material. Because such material isn't OR, editor's and admins think it's proper. If you could implement "viewpoint B", I would be grateful. If you do make such an attempt, expect plenty of resistance. SMP0328. (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to make a proposal like B (but be nicer and not call things "rubbish"). I will only do it if we have a united front (of us 3 editors) agreeing to this common belief that such section is not suitable for wikipedia. So that it is not partisan, I was going to pick one Republican and one Democrat to do this. The choice of persons can come later (mutually agreed upon). Will you join me in this suggestion? Chergles (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, just let me put on my bullet-proof vest first. :) BTW, I'm an Independent. SMP0328. (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Why I meant by 1 Dem. and 1 Rep. is the articles we pick). What better articles than John McCain and Barack Obama? One from each party. Both senators. Both running for President. Both with that bad section. Let's do it early next week. Need time to think about the wording. We'll present it as a united consensus which means we'll think of wording that we all support. We'll not call anyone names, we'll be polite, and we'll have a big mountain to climb. If we are successful, WP will look more like an encyclopedia. By consulting each other first, we'll present a stronger front AND we'll benefit from pre-discussion to refine our position before using it. Chergles (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My new suggestion is that I plan to hold off for a few days and discuss possibilities with everyone in our group. If deleting the section is unsuccessful, should we consider making it fair and comprehensive? Or just be stubborn and say "no, no, no section"? I have purposely not looked at it for at least a week so I would not be biased. However, last time I looked, there were major cultural and political images that were missing. Some of these were positive and some negative. So should the backup plan be to figure out what are the 5-6 most common images and to add those and delete the obscure images (opinions, not photographs)? Chergles (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural and political image

So what do you think about suggesting the elimination of the section if/when it meets resistance. Should the less desirable alternative be to make that section a summary of the most common cultural and political images, whether good or bad? What's your opinion? I think flexibility is the key. To be stubborn and say "no such section, my way or the highway" is not very wikipedian. True, our idea is the best but how about an alternative? Chergles (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you be bold by rewriting that section. Complete removal of the section would probably meet resistance. If resistance comes, we'll deal with it then. Don't assume it will come. SMP0328. (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said you were ready to put on your bulletproof jacket and support option B, removal of the section. I think that is a very non-biased approach and also is much less confrontational. If we try to include the most common political and cultural images, then some of them will be negative. After all, isn't the image of a politician partially negative. See how that will play...the supporters will be very angry at the negative images. So why upset them when the better way is to eliminate the unencyclopedic section? Chergles (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I refer to "rewriting" I don't mean the rewritten section has to be anywhere as large as is the current version. In effect, you would delete the section and replace it with a few sentences regarding Bush's image. The result would be a section of three or four sentences. Sorry for any confusion. SMP0328. (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider your suggestion. I'll think of (in the most non-biased way) the cultural and political images of both Obama and McCain. My first thought is that McCain's image (image, not necessarily truth...and that's for both men) is a maverick and an independent or moderate Republican, POW, interested in foreign affairs, admits to know little about economics. Obama is a good speaker, has a Muslim image problem, is perceived to be weak in foreign affairs, is very hip. I will research it more...you see some images are + and some are - . Chergles (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush Razzie

To avoid an edit war, I'm going to talk about it here instead of disrupting Wikipedia.

It's true that the Award is more of an insult, but it is a real award, and other recipients such as Sylvester Stallone include the category on their pages. Since the category exists, and he qualifies for it, shouldn't the category be added? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political insults shouldn't be part of these types of articles. There's nothing notable about insults to President Bush. Many people have insulted Senator Barack Obama. Should those insults be added to his article? Political insults toward politicians do nothing to further any purpose of Wikipedia. As for the Sylvester Stallone article, I would remove from there as well. BTW, I'm glad we could talk this out. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I agree. I think my political preference colored my motives more than my journalistic integrity on this one :) Thanks for being so civil. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

This was a bit hasty, or? Plrk (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought such a large, non-bot related, removal of material was Vandalism. I was wrong, sorry. I made a note in the Village pump's history log expressing my apologies. SMP0328. (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no worries, I was just wondering why you reverted my edit. Keep up the vandal fighting! Plrk (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Election of 1800

My apologies; this is what I get from editing from memory; on the other hand, the fact that it was the original system should be retained, don't you think? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Judges

US District Judge James C. Fox is NOT a tax protester. Why is the following quote not allowed on the IRS page? There is no article discussion as to why a federal judge or upholds our laws isn't allowed on the IRS website. Everytime I add it, it's immediately removed.

US District Judge James C. Fox stated in a 2003 ruling: "If you ... examined [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyRob2 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All references to claim that the Sixteenth Amendment wasn't legitimately adopted go here. Also, the material you added had no source. SMP0328. (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biting User 98.221.247.88?

I have no tolerance for vandals, but inserting a smiley strikes me as the sort of edit that a clueless newbie could make and a deliberate vandal would likely not. Would you consider toning the warning down to Template:uw-test1? Robert A.West (Talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those milder warnings are usually useless. Not all vandals are grandiose in their vandalism. Some blank an article or talk page. Some change the dates in articles. A small form of vandalism is still vandalism. When I revert a newbie who hasn't committed vandalism, I mark his edit as being in "good faith" in my edit summary. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only vandalism if the person was clueful enough to realize that it was inappropriate. I agree that we give too many mild warnings, but I suspect that this person has grown up on social-networking sites and doesn't know the difference, yet. I think that AGF and BITE apply. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for the public, highly informed and not

Thanks for your good revision of my State ERA paragraph in Equal Rights Amendment.

Then, explaining your revision to revert a different revision of mine, you wrote approximately:

Text sections in articles about Constitutional amendment are marked "Text." You ignored my point that "Text" is a very broad word (that applies to the entire Internet except for the illustrations).

We are writing for the general public, not just people familiar with legal-political jargon. A headline with just the word text is confusing to some. Then they have to read further and figure out for themselves that you mean "text of the amendment". It's better just to tell them in the first place, so I'm putting that back, since you gave no justification. Korky Day (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my inquiries on the Presidential Succession pages

Hello. It is unwise for you to "suspect your now reverted edit was really merely a sexist commentary." Please, all you had to do was advise me the proper place to post my inquiry. To opine further only tells me something about you. I would have no problem whatsoever to Palin becoming VP. As a naturally inquisitive person, however, the article I mentioned by Jon Christian Ryter made me wonder if there's any substance to his statements. Forgive me for inquiring on the appropriate talk page, and leave it at that. In the future, I advise you to simply give good advise without adding your unsolicited opinion. 24.247.170.144 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest, or believe, for even a second that women are, or could be, prohibited from being in the Presidential line of succession, is beyond belief. There is no substance to that person's statements. BTW, I will give my opinion when I want to do so, even if it's "unsolicited"; just as you gave your above opinion with my solicitation. SMP0328. (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response sounds as I expected it to. You ignore the possibility that Article II of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a woman from becoming POTUS, which I find to be a sexist commentary. Questions that arise from the very wording of the Constitution are not rare, and there are people who devote their lives to answering those questions legally and unequivocally. If you believe the lack of gender-inspecific pronouns means nothing, then by all means suggest that I am making a sexist commentary. However, be prepared to deal with that same accusation when you denounce the possibility that a woman would be prevented from becoming President through a strict reading of Article II. Strict readings of the Constitution are also not rare. Personally, I am going to pursue clarification on this unclear issue from a more qualified individual than yourself. 24.247.170.144 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please accept this notice to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--LAAFan^sign review 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] {{{1}}}

Could use your support

United States congressional apportionment. Anon editor/Dr*Whatever* is claiming a cited, independent link as original research and his unpublished numbers as the genuine deal. I think he has it backwards. Maybe you can help talk some sense to him. Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble

I am not really "up" on the awards and whatnot but I just wanted to say that over the last several months you have performed what is, in my opinion, an unbelievable service in monitoring and protecting the Preamble article against vandalism. I don't mean to belittle any of your other contributions too, but that is such a tedious task that I thought it was worth particular recognition. Thanks. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for constantly adding valuable information to that article. OMG, I used that word! ;) SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's valuable. At times I wonder whether it is too esoteric for a general interest piece. I sorta fear that I am writing a law review article instead of an encyclopedia entry. But, at the same time, I do think that the material I'm adding is probative and relevant, but I certainly don't get much feedback. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you make sure the wording you use is understandable by the average person, you'll be fine. SMP0328. (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is apparent, you are one of the only other regular readers/editors of the article; I generally expect that if what I'm writing is comprehensible to you, that's at least one layer of review. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else, who isn't a vandal, likely reads it, possibly prints it, and then leaves. Lack of other editors doesn't mean there aren't other readers. SMP0328. (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh...?

Something about this edit summary to George W. Bush doesn't quite jibe. Could it be that you misread the diff? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous edit was summarized as "Even more". I don't know what that summary means, so I reverted the edit and asked for a reason for that edit. SMP0328. (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll just stay out of it. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current NY state officials template

Hi:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACurrent_New_York_statewide_political_officials&diff=244908144&oldid=244758744

(Why not include the Court of Appeals?)

It was a consquence of this discussion which has now moved to the WikiProject talkpages linked at the (current) end of the thread. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush v. Gore

Hi. Would you please explain why you reverted my removal of external links from the article? Do you believe those are good links, or did you think I was vandalizing? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you place your objections, regarding those external links, on Talk:Bush v. Gore, rather than unilaterally removing any of them. SMP0328. (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've placed my objections on the talk page. See you there. Looie496 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

I know you mean well, but I'm asking you and LOTRrules both not to revert further while discussion is ongoing. I'll add my opinion to the discussion shortly. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EC

This CNN article almost reads just like the Wiki page. :) Enjoy! Foofighter20x (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to weigh in on the discussion over the Federalist papers? Foofighter20x (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last favor, I guess... Can you go here and create an image with the final electoral vote? Just remember that the diamond on the East end of NE gets turned blue. Thanks. (I'm not at home right now... At my bro's. Just shows how much of a junky I am.) Foofighter20x (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that KarlFrei has edited he table on the EC talk page, and since I have a reference for it, do you want to use it to revise the Alternative Methods section in the article and post the table in there? Also, I know Karl and I encoded all of it into a wikitable, but now I'm wondering if it would have been better to make an image in power point or something and just have it as an image instead of an editable table. Thoughts? Foofighter20x (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like McCain's going to win Missouri: the provisional ballots left are of a lesser number than McCain's lead. I have an image in the well already showing this McCain win: ElectoralCollege2008.png. If you get the news story first, you'll have the image at the ready. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV NoticeBoard activity

You might want to join in the comments going on here: [4] -- Yaf (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Rights Amendment

So you think my criticism of the Equal Rights Amendment is novel?

Okay, I will rewrite the insert with the legal citations. In the meantime, you may wish to consult the U.S. Supreme Court case of Frontiero v. Richardson, in which a plurality of the Supreme Court, in effect, judicially adopted the Equal Rights Amendment, which was, at that time, still pending for ratification. Is there some reason it needs to short circuit the ratification process like that?

The Supreme Court's penchant for judicial legislation is well known. For example, for nearly 60 years, it held that racial segregation is perfectly constitutional. See Plessy v. Ferguson, Cumming v. County Board of Education, Berea College v. Kentucky, Gong Lum v. Rice, and Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada. At one time, a white-only primary in Texas was fine (Grovey v. Cleveland), and so was the poll tax. In Twining v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to a state criminal proceeding. In Palko v. Connecticut, a man was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. The State took an appeal, obtained a reversal, and upon retrial, the man was convicted and sentenced to death. Perfectly constitutional, said the Supreme Court.

All of these decisions have been overruled by the Supreme Court, but the point is, there was never any change in the relevant text of the Constitution. It should be clear, therefore, that "constitutional law" in the United States is nothing more than whatever a majority of the Justices of the Court, from time to time, say that it is.

In a more recent case, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, outlawing the poll tax in federal elections. The clear implication of such an amendment is that the poll tax is permissible in state elections. Despite the obvious compromise, the Supreme Court, in the Harper case, and contrary to its own precedent, decided that the poll tax violated the Equal Protection Clause.

John Paul Parks (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush infobox

Hey there SMP, regarding this edit, I think that, perhaps, if we space out the in-text note about Bush still being president, it will enhance its' readability and may discourage some from placing Obama's name in the "successor" slot (until January 20th, that is). A similar tactic was used at Sarah Palin for awhile. It's worth a shot. Happyme22 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I don't it will make a difference. That edit isn't continuing to happen because the in-text is hard to see. They simply are impatient. SMP0328. (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Hi SMP0328

The WP:MOS states

"The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun: Hirohito was Emperor of Japan and Louis XVI was King of France... When used generically, such items are in lower case: De Gaulle was a French president and Louis XVI was a French king. Similarly, Three prime ministers attended the conference, but We know that the British Prime Minister is Gordon Brown."

A sentence such as "The President, along with the Vice President, is elected every four years" does not refer to the formal name of an office (president and vice president) and hence these words should not be capitalised. Can you please restore all my fixes in this regard that you have undone?

Thank you, - sYndicate ^talk 20:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"President" and "Vice President" are the formal names of those offices. SMP0328. (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you are correct. Apologies, - sYndicate ^talk 23:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]