You sent my IP address a message about signing my name or what not. what exactly were you talking about? 99.138.8.75 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't revert your italics because I don't like reverting you period. But quotes aren't supposed to be italicized. Did you want to emphasize the differences in the two sentences? If so, is there another way to do it? I dunno, maybe bolding the differences or something. Merely italicizing them both doesn't really communicate that - if that's your objective. Personally, I don't think it's needed, but I'm open to suggestions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your reversion of one of my edits. I don't mean to provoke an edit war. To clarify my point, Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868, which was the last year of his term and a presidential election year already, so there would have been no special election to fill out the term. If Johnson had been convicted by the Senate, Benjamin Wade would have been Acting President until March 4, 1869. If you find a source contradicting this, change it back by all means, but that's my reading of it. JTRH (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I appreciate your zeal and that you have an interest in law but we are trying to develop this article for the Collaboration of the month. I also encourage you to pitch in and help to develop this article but if you are going to revert or cause discussions about every edit made its only going to slow down the process and hinder the development of the article. This article is likely to be in a state of flux for the next couple weeks while we try and get it promoted to at least GA class so there is no need to get too defensive about 1 or 2 minor edits just yet. Let the article develop a little and then we can solicit all opinions and comments at one time so we don't have ten people stepping on each others edits and engaging into revert wars. I would like to see about getting this article to at least GA by the end of the month and maybe even FA. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am a new Wikipedian and just added to the page Hispanic and Latino American politics. I would appreciate any comments, tips, and edits to make this page better. Thank you for your help! Thisonewins (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
First off let me link cquote. Please note the example being used is the miranda rights. I disagree with your claim of improper use of Cquote and I willing to bet after discussion and further NPOV inout from the community they will agree. Please do not revert my cquote until discussion. "Pull-quotes work best when used with short quotes, and at the start or end of a section, to help emphasize the content of the section." Again I don't see a misuse of cquote and therefore came here to discuss. 0pen$0urce (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, SMP, I noticed this post of yours at the Pump from back in March, and I wondered what has happened since. Are you still using Firefox 4 with Wikipedia? Any problems? I've seen a few scattered posts about problems with Wikipedia and Firefox 4, because of which I have not yet upgraded (I'm still on the latest version of Firefox 3). --Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Bush spent almost 7.5 years searching for bin Laden. Don't you feel it is important include his being informed by Obama of bin Laden's death? I think his eating a soufflé at a french restaurant in Dallas shows he not the uncivilized jerk many think he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksk2875 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your revert to the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because you did not add a [citation needed] to the disputed edit as it was NOT original research. I added the citation you should have requested. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia: How is this disruptive? Think about it... if the Corwin Amendment is passed, it would repeal the 13th amendment, just like the 21st repeals the 18th, the 12th and 17th repeal/alter the original constitution. Its a logical conclusion that is unlikely to be verified simply because it is logical and unobjectionable. After all, no ones writes an article explaining that water is wet and if you touch it you get wet as well. Its simply logical and no one with any reason objects to it. Please repost my changes as they are not disruptive. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia: A follow up I found elsewhere that more articulately advances my point, especially at the end: "It is straining to pretend that for every aspect of everysubject there is a non-encyclopedic source for every useful bit of information. In articles on topics of importance (where here I'll suggest that "importance" implies that there are refereed journals that are devoted to the topic, although I'd not push this to the limit - it's more of a notion) it ought to be completely obvious that such journals are written at a high level, to be read and understood by those already competent in the field (there are guidelines for authors that say exactly this.) these are persons for which exposition and clarification is unnecessary - because, as experts, they already know. The mandated (by extremists) reference for the results of a synthesis that is sometimes adamantly insisted on simply may not exist - and the nonexistence is most likely for a synthesis that is obvious and non-controversial. The synthesis may, however, be something that provides useful clarification or insight to the non-expert reader (as you'd anticipate most Wikipedia readers would be.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia: How strange you can undo edits so fast without any discussion beyond some vague link to an evener vaguer policy that doesn't seem to fit my edits, yet be so long in offering even a form letter reply to my request for an explanation of my edits. I don't speak Wikipedia-ish. 71.139.156.8 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia. My edit is not a fringe theory. I am not for the return of slavery. I'm not neo-nazi or anything. Read what I wrote. The Corwin Amendment , IF passed (0% chance of it happening) would logically be an indirect repeal of the 13th amendment.
Consider:: Say a town has an ordinance that the 700 block of main street is a one-way street from east to west already on the books. However, before it was adopted some had proposed making ALL of main street one way in the opposite direction. Eventually, IF the council passes this proposed-but-previously-unadopted ordinance, it is reasonable to conclude that the ordinance about the 700 block is repealed. No one would object to it, and no article would be published to verify it. And it would not be a fringe theory.
The same is true for my post. So please undo you change and let mine stand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree that the view of its illegality is a fringe theory now and possibly it is not so well-known to deserve a separate article, but isn't it notable enough to be mentioned in "14th amendment", if 100 years after the amendment it was supported by a legislature of a state and a US Rep.? Satiksme (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If cquote is improper for a text section, you might want to correct the other US constitutional amendment articles where it's used: at least in Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and perhaps others; I didn't check them all. Teemu Leisti (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Reverted your edit. If you go to Amazon and preview the book, you can read page 5 for yourself. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's more for you, since linking you to the book is not enough:
While revolutionary leaders dealt with the problems of constitutionalism in the states, the necessity of conducting the war against England led them to create a continental union that received definite form in the Articles of Confederation. Although the Declaration of Independence stated that the colonies were free and independent states, it also described them as "the united States of America," and referred to Americans as "one people." The Articles of Confederation accordingly reflected the idea that in joining together for the purpose of achieving their independence as individual sovereigns, the states created a new political unit which expressed the nascent sense of American nationality. It is also true that the Confederation in many respects acted like a government in coordinating the states' united effort against England. Nevertheless, the Confederation was not in any systematic or comprehensive sense an authentic government possessing the sanction of law and the power of command; it was at best a quasi-government. Moreover, the spirit of nationality it embodied was expressed constitutionally in the dispersal of power that the establishment of state governments signified, rather than in any provision for unitary sovereignty such as is usually identified with the modern nation-state.
The Articles of Confederation are often described as the first constitution of the United States. Insofar as they set forth a plan of federal organization that divided sovereignty between the states and a central authority, thus anticipating the Constitution of 1787, the description is apt. Yet, recalling the republican spirit of '76, it cannot be said that the Articles were truly or primarily an attempt to implement revolutionary constitutionalism. In a broad political sense the United States may have been a republic from 1776 to 1787, condisering that public opinion and sectional and interest-group pressures influenced the actions of Congress. In a legal and constitutional sense, however, the Confederation did not possess a republican form of government—that is, a government based on the people as constituent power and organized and conducted according to principles of the revolutionary constitutionalism. The Article were concerned with relations among states rather than with the proper balance between liberty and power in the constitutional structure.
The proximate origins of the Confederation lay in the formation of the First Continental Congress in 1774. The ambivalence concerning the true nature of the Confederation that characterized it throughout its fifteen-year history—its status as quasi-government—was evident at the outset of the revolutionary crisis. Congress exercised real political power but, carefully respecting the fact that it represented autonomous colonies or states, it left to them the performance of authentic acts of sovereignty in relation to individual citizens. Congress clearly directed military and diplomatic efforts pointing to independence, for example, and in May 1776, declaring British authority at an end, instructed the colonies to form regular constitutional governments. But it did all of this as a kind of superintending advisory body communicating the consensus of patriotic opinion and recommending governmental action. It was left for the states to enact laws punishing treason, exacting loyalty oaths, levying taxes, regulating trade, and so on.
Kelly, Alfred H.; Harbison, Winfred A.; Belz, Herman (1991). The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development. Vol. I (7th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co. pp. 76–77. ISBN 0393960560. [Emphases mine.]
-- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to discuss why you believe there is no need for a new cite when straying from what a cite supports here. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've implemented the changes we've discussed on the Neurotically Yours page. Since you were the only person who commented on the subject, could I have you review the edits, and let me know what you think of them? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I hate to bother you again, but have added another section to the aforementioned page. The section deals with the post reboot response, and how it's being addressed. I figured we had enough to go on based upon Facebook responses, an official statement from JIM, a Foamy rant on the subject, and a cartoon to use. None the less, I would like your opinion on the subject, and for you to look it over when you have the chance. Any feedback you are capable of providing would be welcomed. Thanks! -Poodle of Doom (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to be one of those super annoying people, but I noticed you removed my external links section, which is completely fine with me. Would you be bothered if I readded it, possibly with the youtube channel, Facebook page link, and Twitter link, as well as the home page link? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.
I was thinking about rewriting the intro to the page as well. I'm hoping for feedback on a possible new introduction I have written:
Neurotically Yours is a webtoon created by Jonathan Ian Mathers, depicting a squirrel named Foamy, who is the neurotic pet of a young lady named Germaine. Having lived a hard knock life full of self discovery, Germaine's character has gone through many life changes, essentially going from angst ridden youth, to a somewhat enlightened young adult. Foamy, himself, is central to the story line, being portrayed as a bit of an antagonist, who becomes irritated with various aspects of the human condition. Over the years, this aspect of Foamy's character has made his topical rants rather popular. Episodes are mainly located at iLL WiLL PreSS,[1] in addition to numerous external websites.[2][3][4] To date, there are over 200 official episodes of Neurotically Yours, containing over 38 topical rants expressing Foamy's opinion on various subjects. A new episode of Neurotically Yours is posted approximately once every two weeks.[5]
Thoughts? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks your last edits are welcome, concise and on point. Asa Gordon (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Asa
I've responded to your reversion here on the article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Since you've been helping me on the Neurotically Yours article, I'd like to invite you to join in on a new conversation on the talk page. It's been inferred that I may of relied a little to heavily on the actual Neurotically Yours content. One person has even listed the article as being potentially bias. I'm not familiar with wiki policy, being relatively new here. I could use a hand with this article, if you're still up for helping me. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You removed my contribution, stating:
It serves no purpose to include Article V's text in the Second Amendment article. Every amendment to the Constitution was adopted that way, but that doesn't explain anything about any amendment. It is sufficient to note in the article when the amendment was proposed and when it was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
However, you fail to consider the fact that most amendments do not vary textually between the version passed by congress and that ratified by the state. That characteristic is distinct to this amendment, and its consequences are crucial to understanding the historical and current status of the page's topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:173.71.49.43 (talk • contribs)