User talk:MrArticleOne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MrArticleOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the above is our standard intro. With respect to Pollack in the article on Article One, I went to that level of detail because we are occasionally beset by tax protesters who argue the summarized position. A reading of the case shows that the Court clearly felt that income could be taxed, but that taxing income from land was too close to taxing the value of land itself, which would need to be apportioned. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Preamble

How did Morgan overrule Texas v. White? BTW, don't put pairs of brackets around a word, phrase, or name unless it's to link to a Wikipedia article. --SMP0328. (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessarily proscribed. It is fine to create redlinks for something that ought to be an article. bd2412 T 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article One Comment

It's been... six days. Give it another day? At the very least, we'll see a reaction from the community. I originally did agree with you, I just wanted to bring it up with the Wikipedia community, but it appears no one has any objections they are willing to voice. NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to put this on your Discussion page. And also, I suppose it is fine to delete now. No one put up any objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Edits

Instead of making multiple edits to an article, have you considered going over the article and then making all of your edits in one shot? That would seem to be a time saver. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J.B. Holmes

I was following WP:NCP that required a space after periods but that has disappeared (1-28-08) and there is quite a discussion on what the standard should or should not be - see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Initials. I agree the "no space" is what is used by the PGA Tour and "looks" better too.Tewapack (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hans & the People

Hans v. Louisiana was talking about the sovereign immunity of the States. So in that quoted passage it could be speaking of the States. The Court said:

“ That decision was made in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, and created such a shock of surprise throughout the country that, at the first meeting of congress thereafter, the eleventh amendment to the constitution was almost unanimously proposed, and was in due course adopted by the legislatures of the states. This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the supreme court. ”

The People had no direct say in the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. The States were outraged by the Chisholm decision and so demanded that the Constitution be amended to overrule it. So the quoted material could be referring to the States alone. It's also reasonable to read the quoted material could be referring to the People and the State Legislatures collectively. The quoted material could be referring to the People alone, but it doesn't have to mean that. That's why I'm again making the edit you reverted. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "We the People" are the ultimate sovereigns of this land, but the People had no say in the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. The States advocated for such an amendment. If the Hans court was referring to the People, then such a reference was in error. It's also possible that the Hans court was referring to the State Legislatures' role within Article V, which is superior to any single legislature. I'm not saying that the Hans court wasn't referring to the People; only that it may have been referring to something else. So putting "[i.e. the people]" in that footnote is a POV, because it's an interpretation of quoted material that is subject to alternate and reasonable interpretations. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You are proving my point. Your desire to include "[i.e. the people]" is based on your POV of what the Hans court meant. If it meant that, why didn't it simply say "the people"? The Court could have meant the Constitution (certainly superior to any legislature), specifically Article V. You are wrong when you claim that the Hans court could only have been referring to "the people." --SMP0328. (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Field Size in Golf Tournament Infobox?

I see you removed the changes I made to the PGA Tour home page regarding the field size of the event. No problem, I'm new to Wiki and see there is a Golf Project monitoring these pages. I also created an account for myself so I have my own Talk page now (to which you can post your answer if you want). If there is a better way to communicate user to user, let me know...

What do you think of modifying the Golf Tournament Infobox to include a Field Size field say under the Purse field? I agree, better to put that on each tournament's page vs. on the tour "home" page where I had put it (and later removed).

My motivation is that I have a friend who is on the PGA Tour and recently got "reshuffled" down on the list of Nationwide Tour and Q-School grads. It appears he'll only have a shot at getting into 156+ man events from this point forward, so I wanted to see which events had a field that size. I could not find a list of PGA Tour events that included the field size, even the individual event web pages seemed not to let you know, they said you had to contact the tournament organizer! Good grief!

So, Wiki came to mind since I use it for other things. If can't find the info, make it yourself! LOL

My intent is after each event starts I'll just go to pgatour.com and check the leader board during the tournament to see exactly how many people are in the tournament. Normally, it's around 120 for an invitational, 132 for a small field regular event, 144 for a mid-sized regular event, and 156 for a large sized regular event. I saw the AT&T at Pebble had 180 players due to the number of courses they played.

--Kentino (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secession & Dissolution

Secession can be a form of dissolution. In the case of secession, the dissolution would be caused by the separating state. The Southern States that seceded, or attempted to secede, intended to dissolve the union between them and the remaining states. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am the one who put in the word "dissolution." Anyway, the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, used the word "indissoluble" and so the word "dissolution" seems appropriate. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by 68.227.216.191

The above anon has made a minor edit to the article.[1] I think that edit should not be reverted. Anons that make good faith edits that don't make an article less accurate, should not be left with the impression that they are not welcome. This anon's edit should be left in place, because it does not undermine the quality of the article and because the anon would hopefully then feel that his efforts at making good faith contributions to Wikipedia are welcome. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if any edit lessens the quality of the article, that edit should be reverted. I have no objection to changing it back later. My point is simply that an anon who makes an edit that doesn't lessen the quality of the article, shouldn't have that edit reverted as if it were vandalism. Such anons should be encouraged to contribute, not discouraged as if they are unwelcome intruders. --SMP0328. (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ The anon's edit.

[edit] What's with the vandalism?

The answer is that, unfortunately, there is never a low supply of idiots. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about what you said. My guess is that at least of some of those vandals are anti-American and see vandalizing the Preamble article as a way (stupidity notwithstanding) to express how they feel. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably a combination of both. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reflist problem

I've noticed that footnotes no longer function correctly. If you hover over a footnote in an article, instead of seeing the text of the footnote, you see the Introduction of that article. This is what happens when there's no reference section, but now is happening even if there is one. It even happens at the Preamble to the United States Constitution article. I'm wondering if you've had the same problem. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On the George W. Bush article, which has over 200 footnotes, this problem is a big annoyance. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preamble cite check

Adding a footnote that is linked to an example having an alternative view of the Preamble would be a way to back up that sentence. --SMP0328. (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the word "are" to "may be" in the sentence we are discussing. Now the sentence only refers to the possibility of alternative viewpoints about the Preamble, instead of claiming that such viewpoints exist. This makes it a hedge, rather than a statement of fact. With this change, I also removed the cite tag. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: NHL team season template

I could add such information to the template easily, however, the NHL does not recognize either the regular season conference champion, nor the old regular season division champion between 1981-1993. The template currently has banners only for accomplishments that the NHL itself recognizes with banners. Resolute 00:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are banners the Red Wings themselves hung. They aren't NHL awarded banners, and I don't know of any other team that does that. Resolute 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
What a team hangs is up to their discretion. But the Stanley Cup, President's Trophy and Conference titles are recognized by the league via trophies as well. The league also recognizes division champions. For regular season now, but for the playoffs in the 80s/early 90s. I don't really see the point in cluttering the articles with minor things that teams themselves recognize that the rest of the league doesn't. Should I add a line in the template for the "thank you fans" banner the Flames hung, or the retiring of the #1 by Minnesota for their fans? Resolute 01:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Each team designs its own banner, so there is no difficulty at all in Detroit making up banners for regular season finishes that are identical to other ones. As I said, three of the four are recognized via trophies (which regular season conference championships are not), leaving the Division title as the only real question. I can tell you that Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver all display banners in the format I mention - playoff division champions < 1994, and regular season division champions after 1994. The timing of this coincides with the changes in the NHL's playoff format. Before 1981, it was a 1-16 format, and after 1994, it's been conference play, so the Division title cannot be decided in the playoffs. In the time between, the first two rounds were divisional playoffs. Resolute 02:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NHL Bracket

Hello MrArticleOne! That seems like a fairly decent idea. I am working on a few other things here and there on Wikipedia and in my real life, so I will not be able to work on creating a new bracket design, but a redesign definitely has been on my mind. I am looking at producing something more analogous to how the series summary tables have come out. I'm looking to create something that is smoother and lacks the really boxy feel that the current format does. Look forward to something in a month or so. --Sukh17 T • C • E 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standings for teams with different games played

Thank you for your efforts on editing 2008 IIHF World Championship article. Can you explain why SUI is free of the tie-breaker (even having played only 4 games, that is one game less, before game 43), and why it is placed above SWE and CZE? Svmich (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now I see. Thanks. Svmich (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

[1]. Your image also says they won in 1933-34, which is incorrect. If you'll check the article for that season as well as NHL.com you will see that the Leafs were the leaders that season. -- Scorpion0422 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you zoom in on the image, you can clearly make out 34 as the last number, so one would have to assume it means 1933-34. According to multiple sources, the Red Wings did not win the league that year. -- Scorpion0422 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)