User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2016

I was surprised by this revert [1] per WP:CANVASS, if an article needs more eyes,

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.

That's exactly what I did -- putting notices on the articles of a couple of other national leaders.CometEncke (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask you about this revert; Obama is 44th, so how could the next US president be anything other than the 45th? - ^theWOLFchild 00:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your The edit said the 45th President will take office on January 20, 2017. That assumes President Obama will finish the current Presidential term. It is highly likely that he will, but Wikipedia does not predict future events. If President Obama fails to finish this term, Vice President Biden would become the 45th President and that would be before January 20, 2017. When there is a new President, the POTUS article will be updated to reflect it. Let's not rush history. SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my edit, so I'm not predicting anything, I'm just asking a question. But anyway, instead of reverting, why not add something to the effect of what you have said here? Something like; "Should the current president fulfill his term...", or along those lines? I think the edit was worthwhile and added a useful link, so why not fix it and improve the article instead of just deleting it completely? - ^theWOLFchild 02:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll restore the reference, but only regards to the term. SMP0328. (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? That's not "restoring" anything. Where is the link to the next election? If anything, the previous edit was better as the current does not add anything. The previous edit stated the "45th president is scheduled to be elected", (which is a fact) it didn't say "will be elected", so it didn't violate wp:crystalball at all. If you don't want to craft something better, the article would be better of with the previous edit. IMHO. - ^theWOLFchild 02:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is as far as I will go. SMP0328. (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I added it myself. - ^theWOLFchild 03:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently updated the article "Congressional Apportionment Amendment". I cannot find any reference that would clarify or substantiate your assertion that the amendment being documented is in need of being "adopted". Can you provide some reference or explain your position on the "talk" page of the article.The Trucker (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I believe the edit was meant to sidestep the WP:FRINGE claim that it's already technically been ratified, and merely needs for that ratification to be acknowledged by the National Archivist. I've added a passage about that claim to the article. TJRC (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TJRC, I think he may have been being sensitive to the issue that arose in 1992 regarding the 27th Amendment. At any rate, have to concur with Mikcob, "Ratified" was the correct word for that sentence. "Adopted" is used correctly elsewhere in the introduction. I have restored "ratified" to that sentence. (I also just now moved a few sentences around in the introduction as well.) Drdpw (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you read the footnotes in the district court and court of appeal opinions, you'll see it is perhaps charitable to refer to LaVergne as "a former attorney and pro se litigant". TJRC (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence at issue in the Introduction refers to what would be the amendment's effect if it was part of the Constitution. For it to become part of the Constitution, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the States (i.e., be adopted per Article V). Saying "ratified" sounds like the amendment would be part of the Constitution if it was ratified by a State that had not already done so, rather than from 27 such States. That's why "adopted" is better than "ratified". SMP0328. (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago ...

constitution
... you were recipient no. 796 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits, stating that, "Adding ideological labels is POV."

Fine, we'll keep that off, for now.

However, you're factually incorrect. The Republican Party (United States) is the conservative Party, as of 2016. That is a fact, and it's also an ideological label.

That is why, if you go to the Republican Party (United States) page, it says, "Its current ideology is American conservatism. That contrasts with the Democrats' modern liberalism."

What, are you under the impression that calling the modern GOP "conservative", today, is a POV ideological label?

Sure, it's POV to an extent ... to the extent that it is, in fact, true, and relevant to the politics of the day.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 10:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to today's Republican Party as "conservative" proves the point. The party has nominated Donald Trump as its nominee for President. Trump is described as being a populist. So is the Republican Party conservative? It depends how you look at it. Maybe the party is now populist or perhaps Trump is an aberration. Wikipedia should not answer that question. The ideological leanings of a political party are subjectively determined, not factual. SMP0328. (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the ideology has been defined, then it can (and does) have factual meanings. Yes, the Republican Party has nominated Donald Trump, and yes, they are Conservatives. Donald Trump is a bit less Conservative than most of them, but he's still conservative. Whether that's genuine, or not, is up for debate; however, it's his appeal to Republican conservatism which has launched him into the populist Republican position, as front-runner.

I definitely understand where you're coming from – that ideologies are subjective. However, the ideologies are defined and relevant, as per the era they exist. From my subjective view, the US Democratic Party is "conservative", too. Are they "conservative" in the same way that Republicans are Conservative? No. I'm just far more Leftist and Progressive than Democrats are.

Now, going back to the Republicans and the Democrats, as I initially edited it. The Republican Party used to be the Liberal and Progressive Party (as how the terminology used to be used). Several "Progressive Party"(ies) branched off from them, back then (and their Platforms resembled many Liberal Progressives, today). Progressive Party (United States, 1912); Progressive Party (United States, 1924–34). Also, the Socialists and Communists used to join forces with the northern, liberal Republican Party. With that being the case, how can you not identify the old Republican Party as being the Leftist Party? And how could you not realize that the old Democratic Party used to be the Conservative Party, especially as they were the Party of the Confederates (which modern, conservative Republicans now revere)? ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 05:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that ideologies are subjective and so adding them is POV. Additionally, I do think the ideologies are relevant. What matters is what the parties did, not what ideological labels applied to them at the time. Finally, there's an OR problem. You are the one determining which party, or regional faction thereof, is liberal or conservative. You would need a reliable source for such claims and to refer to the source in the sentence to which the source applies. Ideological labels run into multiple problems and so should be avoided, at least the 14A article. SMP0328. (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there -- I noticed that you recently deleted a comment from the Second Amendment talk page. In your edit summary, you noted that the deleted comment was an editorial and lacked civility. I disagree with commentator's arguments (i.e. that the opening sentence should discuss the prefatory clause), but I don't think it was totally without merit. I could be wrong, but I thought the whole "moronic derpers" bit was in reference to the Supreme Court (and its interpretation of the Second Amendment). I know that the Second Amendment talk page frequently attracts opinionated commentators, but I think perhaps we should give even the most extreme of opinions the opportunity to be heard (per WP:TPO). If there is an inappropriate comment, then why not just collapse the discussion? I'm not asking you to restore the comment, but I wanted to share my perspective. In any event, I certainly appreciate your tireless efforts to keep the Bill of Rights articles free from vandalism; your hard work does not go unnoticed. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the "moronic derpers" reference to be regarding editors and uncivil. There has been plenty of uncivil comments made on the 2A talk page over the years and wanted to prevent the possibility of a flame war breaking out. Also, the comment sounded like an editorial about the Second Amendment with a tangential reference to the 2A article. If the OP wants to restore his comment, he must do so in a civil manner and the comment must be about improving the article. SMP0328. (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; I definitely understand the need keep the flames under control. Thanks for the reply! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page claims that the US has the world's largest nuclear arsenal. This should say "second largest" as Russia as of recently passed the US in this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.155.23 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Not sure if this is the right place to mention this, but I left a message about a recent change that I think you made here Siragitkey (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SMP0328.. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]