User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2011

Message
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 sent you a type of automated welcome. Part of any of those welcoming messages for new editors is to sign comments made on talk pages. SMP0328. (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Second amendment
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)


 * Well (smiling), if your bolding was in response to my comment, it's not what I meant. Bolding is worse (in my opinion). I meant bolding the differences, not the entire sentences.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Continuing this one-person "conversation", I made the changes myself. Frankly, I think this is much ado about very little, but see what you think. At this point, short of not doing it at all, I'd prefer to keep the latest version, but with italics rather than bold.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Succession Act
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)
 * Your attempt at compromise works perfectly. I'm going to research it and find a definitive answer one way or the other. I'm suddenly not as sure of the rightness of my position and the wrongness of yours as I thought I was. JTRH (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A Congressional Research Service document states that under the Act of 1792, there would be a special election unless the vacancy occurred "late in the last full year of the incumbent's term of office." The vote on removing Johnson occurred in May 1868, while his term expired in March 1869. That's not "late in the last full year." So you may well be right and I may well be wrong. I haven't found anything specific to the Johnson-Wade case, though. I'm still looking. JTRH (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

19th Amendment
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 feel I am part of that effort. Please look at my counterproposal. SMP0328. (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You definitely are. I apologize if I implied otherwise. I think your proposed wording looks pretty good but I made a few minor changes below it. I also think we need to keep the last sentence about the Supreme court determination. --Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the decision is that important. There never was a real chance of the Supreme Court going the other way. Today, the Court simply would have denied cert. SMP0328. (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I don't agree about its importance but I do agree its true that today the SCOTUS would have passed on it but there was a lot of fuss by several states after they ratified it for quite some time. Tennessee and several others tried to vote it right back out as soon as it got approved but didn't succeed and a few had to basically be forced into compliance. I think its kinda like Gay rights these days...people put up a lot of fuss on both sides of the fence but in the end the spirit of the constitution implies that everyone should get equal rights regardless of color, gender, age, sexual preference, etc. Its easy to argue the point either way for a variety of reasons just as it was then but in the end the right thing to do is read the constitution and follow the intent. The paper says it all. Thanks again for the help. The article is already looking miles better and I am confident by the end of the month it will be at least GA. --Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hispanic and Latino American Politics
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)

Improper Use of Cquote
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)

Firefox 4
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)
 * It's better now, but make sure to make a restore point before you upgrade. SMP0328. (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have you noticed any significant improvement with version 4?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Firefox 4 seems to work faster than Firefox 3.x. Of course, results with your computer may vary. Contact your doctor in case you have trouble sleeping after updating. SMP0328. (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have trouble sleeping, and my doctor is useless. Perhaps I should upgrade to a new doctor. Firefox 4 is touted as being faster, so it's good to hear some confirmation of that claim. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden
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)
 * If the soufflé is to prove that, you must provide context. Otherwise, it seems as relevant as mentioning what color shirt he was wearing at the time. SMP0328. (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please request citation before reverting good faith edit
I have reverted your revert to the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because you did not add a 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)

Corwin Amendment
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)


 * Your theory as to the effect of adopting the Corwin Amendment is speculation. The Corwin Amendment's adoption might not mean the Thirteenth Amendment's repeal. The Twenty-first Amendment expressly repealed the Eighteenth, while you are suggesting an implicit repeal. The Corwin Amendment could be interpreted to mean only that no future amendments could interfere with the "domestic institutions" of the States. What effect the Corwin Amendment would have on the Constitution if the amendment was adopted is unknowable without first adopting the Corwin Amendment. If you want to add this material to the Corwin Amendment article, state it as an opinion, provide a reliable source (a blog is not one) and be clear that there can be other reasonable interpretations. SMP0328. (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedia. Thank you for an answer finally. But I do not understand why this is a fringe theory as you said. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedia. Why is this website shown to me? If does not address the issue of a fringe theory. Please answer my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is meant to show you that your belief as to what would happen if the Corwin Amendment was adopted is not necessarily correct and so should not be shown as fact. BTW, I do not speak for all of Wikipedia. I am only one editor, but I am happy to help you. SMP0328. (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedia. Obviously you want things written in an exact Way. I am trying to say that if passed now, slavery could now be possible. So in a sense, the 13th amendment could be repealed indirectly, not expressly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not a fringe theory, just a fact. Kinda like saying oranges are never rainbow colored is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, why do you accuse me of vandalism Mr./Mrs. Wikipedia Editor? I am trying to make a contribution but I don't understand wikipedia-ish. I am not a criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of the Corwin Amendment is not a fact, it is an opinion. Wikipedia articles are for stating facts, not the opinions of editors. SMP0328. (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr./Mrs. Editor. If the Corwin Amendment is now passed, it does allow for Slavery to be reestablished within the states. "which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof" Therefore, a state could on its own chose to allow for slavery again. It'd sort of be a reverse entrenchment clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't the Corwin Amendment only repeal Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment (which gives the Congress the authority to enforce slavery's abolition)? Section 1 of that amendment does not give the Congress any authority. So maybe the Corwin Amendment would only repeal the part of the Thirteenth Amendment referring to the Congress. SMP0328. (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you begin to understand my point. If section 2 is repealed, there is no means to enforce section one. It is similar to Andrew Jackson telling SCOTUS "you made your decision, now enforce it" with regards to the trail of tears. Not a perfection explanation, but you see what I mean. I will have to figure out how to reword my post so it is not vandalism or fringe theory or or or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand my point. We now have three interpretations of the Corwin Amendment: no effect on 13A (only future amendments), repeal only Section 2 of 13A (slavery abolished, but only judicial enforcement), complete repeal of 13A. Your interpretation (complete repeal) is not the only interpretation and so should not be put in the article as a fact. It is only a belief you, and maybe others, follow. Since, as you said earlier, there is no chance the Corwin Amendment will be adopted, we will never know what would be the effect if it was adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are a bit slow, I think, so I'll debate no more. I've only had once view the whole time, if poorly articulated - you created others in your own mind that I do not see how you came upon. You must do well in law school though, as lawyers are good at making things from almost nothing. Maybe that is why you are a big editor - you like to argue over things that are not there or are unimportant and don;t make sense to normal people like me. No wonder news stories everywhere say Wikipedia is a poor place for info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.156.8 (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

14th amendment
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 anything the opposite is true. For example, claims that the Sixteenth Amendment was not validly ratified are located in Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments; they are not allowed in the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did those claims enjoy the same level of support as in the case of 14th? If not, the analogy is out of place.Satiksme (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

cquote vs. quote
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)

POTUS
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.

[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)

Neurotically Yours
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)


 * That section was redundant, because that link is already provided in the article's Introduction. A Facebook or Twitter link would likely be considered spam and would certainly not be reliable sources. Such a link would definitely be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason why I'm interested in creating the section is because many other similar topics have one. This would seem standard for most articles of a similar class. Having just browsed similar topics, I've noted that in all of them the site is used as it is currently on the Neurotically Yours page, and still listed as an external link. The main difference between this section on other pages, and here, is that they also include places like amazon.com, newgrounds, and the like. Now, I could provide shop links, newground links, and various similar official sites (or semi official depending on how you look at it). Not to mention, pages that are directly controlled by JIM. I think these pages are definitely worth mentioning. But I digress,... If you think they aren't worth mentioning, I'll leave them out. I simply think there's enough credible, and fairly official pages to link to. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having cut my thoughts short, I'd also like to point out that the youtube channel has been used as a reference, and that reference had been made to the Facebook page (though it wasn't cited). -Poodle of Doom (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The link is also provided in the Infobox. An "External link" section is not required, so there's no need to add one just for the sake of having one. SMP0328. (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the youtube channel, facebook, twitter, and official newgrounds pages (all of which host official Neurotically Yours content) are not linked to in the infobox at all. The only thing referenced there was the illwillpress site. Again, I refer to the fact that there are several sites hosting official Neurotically Yours content that could be linked to, and used as an official source of establishing information in the article at a future date if need be. These sites seem relative to the articles development. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this. This is why I believe using Facebook or Twitter as a source would likely be disallowed. SMP0328. (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I quote:
 * "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."


 * Since the information contained there in is published by the individual who's content the article is about, and through use of the information you have cited, I'd believe that this kind of information could be used in this article (though I personally wouldn't). That said, I'm not looking to use these as source material, but to create an external link section. It seems even more appropriate now. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
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, in addition to numerous external websites. 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."

Thoughts? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph is fine. The first paragraph needs to be more concise. Most details should be left to the body of the article. Read this. SMP0328. (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Electoral College - Fourteenth Amendment edits
Thanks your last edits are welcome, concise and on point. Asa Gordon (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Asa
 * Your welcome. SMP0328. (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion on Electoral College (United States)
I've responded to your reversion here on the article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Care to jump in?
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)
 * Let's wait for the ratings. I'm curious as to what will be said of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

2nd Amendment
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)
 * I did not remove your edit. I simply explained why others did. SMP0328. (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)