I have made several changes to both Template:US Constitution and Template:US Constitution article series. I'd be much obliged if you would please look them over for form, content and user-friendliness and then let me know if there any glaring omissions, unnecessary inclusions or general errors in what I've done. Thanks in advance.Drdpw (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings:

Your revert on the promulgation of the 14th Amendment restores wording that misquotes the Amendment XIV-GPO and Killian sources that I (accurately) quoted in my edit (and I have a third scholarly source stating pretty much the same details). Please consider undoing your revert. Thank you.Drdpw (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare your edit with my reversion. Your edit has no sourcing, while my reversion restored sourced material. If you want to restore your edit, please include reliable sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being vague in summarizing my most recent 13th Amendment edit. The section I edited was already about prior proposed Thirteenth Amendments rather than the one adopted. My edit was an attempt to tighten the connection between that section and the article as a whole. That is why I specifically stated the length of time that elapsed between adoption of the Twelfth and Thirteenth amendments and that during this period were 2 proposals sent to the states officially named Article XIII in the Joint Resolution proposing them. That is why I also changed the section title, as Prior Amendment Thirteen proposals is more succinct and clearly informs the reader why the two amendment proposals mentioned there are being mentioned at all in an article about the adopted XIII Amendment. Additionally, because it seemed to me to be an extraneous comment, I cut the sentence about Lincoln giving the Corwin Amendment the "thumbs up" in his Inaugural Address.

When thinking about editing the section I also thought about deleting it altogether and relocating material germane to the article elsewhere. That seemed to me to be too bold, but in hindsight maybe not, with a clear explanation of why, which is —Section pertains only indirectly to the adopted 13th Amendment; pertinent information relocated within article.

Two thoughts come to mind about this option.
First, the following could be added to the 1st paragraph of the introduction – The Thirteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution 61 years, 5 months and 21 days^[1] after the Twelfth Amendment (June 15, 1804–December 6, 1865), the longest interval of time between constitutional amendments in United States history.^[2] – If done, the 2nd paragraph sentence "Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, more than..." would need to be cut. (Regarding the above time span, it could be noted simply as sixty-one years.)
Second, a parenthetical note could be put into the sentence about James Buchanan having signed Corwin Amendment – (also titled Article XIII when proposed by Congress).
Doing this should preserve germane content. What do you think? Drdpw (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the time between, I would say "61 years" or "61 ½ years". When referring to the TONA and Corwin Amendment together, use "prior proposed Thirteenth Amendments". Nobody refers to any amendment or proposed amendment by using roman numerals, other than the Congress in the proposing joint resolution. As for moving the material, any such move would require condensing this material. Without condensing, this material would be too detailed for any section. SMP0328. (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the edit again. No implications were made, and all hard data is contained in my footnote, which cites to the American Bar Association (ABA), Section on Legal Education, which is responsible for gathering relevant data from law schools in furtherance of the ABA's accreditation functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.54.152 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Amendment to the United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed your recent change to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution page. I think the same sentence in the first paragraph of section "Freedom of the press" uses the wrong verb. It should be "afford" not "accord":

Is: .... Supreme Court consistently refusing to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media ...

Should be:

.... Supreme Court consistently refusing to afford greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media ...

I'm reluctant because I find it confusing. Stephanwehner (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the word "accord", but I will look for better wording for that sentence. SMP0328. (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This edit is not "per Talk". What you did simply repeated what I complained about on Talk (though without other things I also complained about), as you left intact a number of instances of the abbreviation "TONA" while removing the antecedent in the Intro. Please either finish the job or revert it. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the talk page was regarding the Introduction. If a similar consensus is established for the whole article, I will be happy to remove all uses of "TONA" from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the sense in that. Leave it in or take it out, but be consistent. And I don't know how you can say there is consensus to remove it from the Intro, when no one has responded to my objections. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:US_Constitutional_Tax_Law Thanks. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMP0328, Your good suggestion for a one line sentence on Barack Obama health care is being supported by two editors, and there seems to be one single person opposing. That makes three of us for it. With three days already past and no new voices joining in, your edit would be supported by two other editors. My support would be for your placing the edit if you remain comfortable with it. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMP0328, Short follow-up from last week. Your one sentence version now has 5 editors supporting it and I have posted the shortened one-sentence edit this morning. The single opposing editor does not want to take your comment of moving closer to consensus and has called the comment unneeded and redundant. Could you take a glance. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my contribution at George W. Bush / Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmission (talk • contribs) 02:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add school's logo:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-baKKtDeqG5o/U_OIieKu0QI/AAAAAAAAAVo/4Rkbx-JWXlk/s250-no/g%2B.png

from https://plus.google.com/+cooleylawschool/posts

Hello how ya doing.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.141.59 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. SMP0328. (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created a talk page section, and I'd appreciate your feedback. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you reverted my WP:WikiProject Firearms rating for Second Amendment to the United States Constitution with no explanation. As I explained in my edit summary, I re-rated it to be compliant with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms/Assessment#Importance_scale, which says that laws are to be rated at 'low' importance. Even if one were to argue that a nation's constitutional provisions should automatically be of greater importance than its laws, I can't see any justification for rating that article as 'high' since it's only of importance to one country. Also, since it wasn't vandalism you really should have left an edit summary. Does that seem reasonable? Rezin (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not leaving an edit summary. I recently bought a new laptop that has Windows 8.1 (my previous laptop had Windows 7). When I clicked my Twinkle link to revert, a separate smaller window to add summary did not open. With W7 such a window always opened. With that said, my reason for reverting is that the Second Amendment's protection allows people to possess firearms that are covered by the high rating. My guess is that was why the high rating was originally given for this article's talk page. Perhaps this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms. SMP0328. (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considerate reply. Windows 8 - say no more! Anyway, in response to your edit I started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Importance_rankings. Your input would be helpful. Rezin (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• provide for what should occur if either the House of Representatives must elect the President]] and one of the candidates from whom it may choose dies, or the Senate must elect the Vice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]