User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2017

Stop edit warring over well supported addition, please
"So one of the most esoteric features of the Constitution made its own contribution to popular culture—and deservedly so.

Sanford V. Levinson is the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School and Professor of Government, University of Texas."

A scholar of the constitution says that it is well deserved contribution to popular culture and cultural references are a natural part of Wikipedia. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read this policy. Not all factual information is suitable for inclusion in an article. The 12A article is about what that amendment does and why it was adopted. It being mentioned in a TV show is not relevant to the purpose of this article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
You reverted my addition of the party affiliation saying it was irrelevant? Why do you say that? And why is that grounds for reverting someone else's work?

Help:Reverting says, "reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing. ... Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the actions of another editor. In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. In cases of blatant vandalism or uncontroversially disruptive changes, the amount of explanation needed is minimal. But in the event of a content dispute, a convincing politely-worded explanation gains much importance and avoids unnecessary disputes."

It's appropriate to revert edits that are wrong or not supported by a credible source -- and the independence of Wikipedia depends on reverting potential copyright violations. My changes fall in none of these categories.

Moreover, your reason for the reversion was NOT on the article's talk page and did NOT include a "convincing politely-worded explanation".

I thought it was important enough to spend the time required to determine the party affiliations of both Keating and Kefauver. Having done that, I thought others might similarly be interested, which is why I added those 6 additional characters. For more on my concerns, see Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As I note there, I plan to revert your reversion. Before you revert that, I hope you will explain why your belief (that the party affiliation is irrelevant) should dominate mine (that party affiliation is relevant). Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

1RR vio
. That's a 1RR violation. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm, actually, with this that's a double 1RR violation. Sorry, going to have to report this unless you self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, I really don't want to do this. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What happened to 3RR? SMP0328. (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On articles related to current American politics, it's 1RR. Discretionary sanctions, arbitration committee. I know you probably weren't aware, which is why I'm asking you to self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also somebody should probably give you the DS notice. It's given to all editors who come into disagreement on these articles, and doesn't necessarily imply any wrong doing. I'm just too lazy to look up the relevant template right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Self-reverting would give the impression that I think the material is appropriate. You may revert me and won't revert back. SMP0328. (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The section was challenged by revert, it should not of been reinserted until consensus was reached in the first place. Second since its just an attack section that is poorly written and sourced anyone can remove it on sight without violating 1RR because its a BLP violation. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation
You just made ANOTHER 1RR violation at the presidency article:,.

This time you have no excuse that you didn't know about the restriction so this is your last warning. Next time it's AN/3RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That material belongs in the body of the article, not in the Introduction. An article's Introduction is for summarizing what is in the body of that article. Where in the body of the article was that material? Nowhere, so I removed it from the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant to whether you violated 1RR or not. You shouldn't edit war even if you're "right".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Presidency of Trump pending changes
FYI, I objected to the edit here. Cheers.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, do you know why my edit was held for review, when I am marked as an "extended confirmed" user? I am apparently not a "pending changes reviewer, but according to Pending changes that shouldn't matter as "pending changes level 1", the ones that applies just to new and unregistered users. There was a "level 2" it says but that was supposed to be deprecated.
 * Man, wiki-markup itself is not hard to learn, but this project's rules are extremely arcane in places. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Shortly before that happened to you, I had a similar difficulty, and ended up approving my own edit. It's probably a software glitch.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Potus talk page
If you paid more attention, instead of rushing over to template me, you might have noticed that the comment was not mine. My understanding is that off-topic talk page posts are to be collapsed and marked as such. I was attempted to do just that, but what caught in an edit conflict (also noted). Perhaps of you has bothered to look a little deeper into the hostories of those invovled, you'd have the actual picture of what is going on, and then you wouldn't be making such mistakes and wasting people's time. - the WOLF  child  21:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC) So apparently you didn't read the section of TPO I cited, BRD means nothing to you and you have no problem edit-warring and wp:battling to have your way. Nice job. Great attitude. - the WOLF  child  •
 * still at it.
 * The practice I've used, and that I've seen other editors used, is to delete thread-starting comments that are not germane to improving the article related to the talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SMP038 is correct. Collapsing is appropriate when an on-topic thread goes off-topic and needs to be put out of its misery. (WP:TPO: "If a discussion goes off-topic... editors may hide it...") But as it goes on to say, "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above." The phrase "as described above" refers to removing things like "personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism". TJRC (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)