User talk:Chris Columbo

Welcome!
Hello, Chris Columbo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Neutralitytalk 04:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I undid your edit here because the source (an op-ed by Hans von Spakovsky on a somewhat obscure blog) is not sufficient to make a claim, especially in Wikipedia's own voice. We try to rely on high-quality journalistic or scholarly sources for descriptions or statements of fact. Also, please avoid deleting text that is supported reliable sources. It would be helpful to take a few moments to read Identifying reliable sources and Neutral point of view. Neutralitytalk 04:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice regarding articles relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Neutralitytalk 04:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to be alarmed at this notice - it's a standard alert given to most editors who edit in the topic area. Neutralitytalk 04:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Merrick Garland
Re your latest edits at Merrick Garland:
 * 1) "Remove opinions" is not an justification for removing content that is well-cited and attributed in text. In many cases, an encyclopedia article will convey an opinion, attributing it to its holder. See, e.g., WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
 * 2) Your edit also removed non-opinion material, such as the date the nomination expired and the fact that the  refusal to consider the nomination was unprecedented.
 * Please also see WP:CONSENSUS, avoiding making large-scale removals of content where your edits have been challenged on Wikipedia policy grounds.

Thanks, Neutralitytalk 16:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Second warning
Please don't re-introduce similar material where your previous edits have been challenged; see WP:EW. Neutralitytalk 01:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone deleted my previous edit and I put in something that presented a more balanced preservation of the facts of the facts with no opinions ````


 * You need to obtain consensus before making the change. Neutralitytalk 01:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The current section is highly biased in its presentation. There is in fact no obligation of the Senate to take up any nomination per the US Constitution. Nor in fact was it in fact unprecedented not to take up a judicial nomination, it happens all the time. To say the nomination was "stolen" is an emotional opinion and in now way reflects the facts at play. The Senate has no obligation to take up the nomination. So my compromise is to say there are differences of opinions between Republicans and Democrats as to how the nomination was handled. Which is a true statement of fact. Set forth below is a source from a publication describing the applicable section of the constitution.


 * (1) The article does not state "stolen" as a fact; rather, it states a prominent opinion at the center of an enormously important public controversy and clearly attributes it. That's part of what an encyclopedia article does.
 * (2) The article does not say or imply that the Senate has an obligation, so that point is irrelevant.
 * (3) The refusal to even consider a president's nominee or to give him a hearing is indeed unprecedented, as the cited sources say.
 * Neutralitytalk 02:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The article should present both points of view. The fact that the Senate has no obligation to act is glossed over in the language of the text. To say that is irrelevant is to dismiss the alternate viewpoint.

Hence, both sides of the argument should have representation. If one side wants to allege the nomination was "stolen" I think it is responsible for the article to acknowledge that the other side was fully within their rights. In fact the previous article I submitted ( which someone deleted laid out several instances of the opposing party taking an identical stance when the circumstances where reversed.

The "controversy" is purely political in nature.

I am proposing a non political solution that allows readers to make their own judgement, rather than be led to a judgement, as the current presentation clearly does.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/18/garland-nomination-dont-do-as-say-or-do.html

````