User talk:P3Y229

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, P3Y229, 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 talk 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 on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Were you the IP Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The contributions made under the IP were mine. Why do you ask? --P3Y229 21:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Because I am a nosy bugger Face-smile.svg Thanks for letting me know. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. --P3Y229 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Try keeping to past tense when you contribute to history articles. lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting articles[edit]

In future, when splitting pages (as you did with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provisions from Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), make sure to follow the right procedure in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure explains how to do this. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi there, I noticed you've been helpful on the NDAA 2012 page. I had only enough time to update it today with the most recent filing and appeal regarding Judge Forrest's block. I added it to the Intro, but don;t have the time to expand it in the article. Just in case you do, I thought I'd drop this note off to you. Otherwise, I will get to it when I can. Thanks for he help there! petrarchan47tc 22:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, There is another update, the White House requested a stay of Forrest's block, followed immediately by her denial. I left sources at my talk page, if you feel you have the time to get to it before me, please feel free! petrarchan47tc 23:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will update the new article once current health issues on my end clear up (should be soon). petrarchan47tc 16:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Round four. New updates on my talk page, where I am leaving essentially a to-do list for myself (but feel free as usual). petrarchan47tc 20:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It will still be another 1-2 weeks before I can get back to Wikipedia in any serious way. I apologize I can be of little help right now. I wanted you to see this interview with Plaintiff's Attorney who says all media got it wrong regarding the Sept 28 hearing, which is not to go over the merits of the case, but only the stay: video. How to work in this information that is only available by video is a question I have yet to answer. petrarchan47tc 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the vid. I don't know how to incorporate the information from the video, but i was able to to incorporate the information from other sources. See Hedges v. Obama --> Second Circuit Proceedings --> 2012-09-17 Emergency stay order --> "The Lohier order basically a.) temporarily stayed Judge Forrest's 2012-09-12 ruling[1] b.) puts the whole matter on hold[2] and c.) means that the interim stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, 2012 when a three judge panel of the Second Circuit is expected to begin addressing the issue of a longer-term stay.[3][4] The appeal of the permanent injunction date is not yet set.[4]" --P3Y229 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Perfect! petrarchan47tc 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left some updates at the talk page for Hedges vs Obama. petrarchan47tc 19:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest on Hedges case[edit]

Court extends stop on order blocking indefinite detention law // Court order petrarchan47tc 22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say thanks, you're a peach. petrarchan47tc 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Trial is tomorrow; update: Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution" petrarchan47tc 05:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Help desk talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svgHello, P3Y229. You have new messages at the Help desk. –– Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Want to opt-out of talkback messages? Use Template:User notification preference.

Also, could you please make your signature clickable to make it easier to get to your user/talk page? –– Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To edit your signature, follow these steps:
  1. Open your preferences (the link at the top – "My preferences").
  2. Find the section that says "Signature"
  3. In the text field that says "Signature", type in something like this (this is my signature adapted to your username):

[[User:P3Y229|P3Y229]] ([[User talk:P3Y229|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/P3Y229|contribs]])

  1. Make sure the checkbox that says "Treat the above as wiki markup" is checked Green tickY
  2. Click the Save button at the bottom

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. Also, see this Wikipedia guide for more advanced techniques for signatures.

Removal of comments[edit]

Hello, please don't remove resolved comments, like you did at the help desk; especially don't do it there because it's a repository of questions from Wikipedia users. Instead, mark resolved messages with {{resolved}}. Graham87 06:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations on Hollingsworth v. Perry[edit]

Hi there. I'm Francophonie&Androphilie. I reverted 10 edits you recently made to Hollingsworth v. Perry, as several of them appeared to be copied from copyrighted material (specifically this LA Times article and this CNN piece, and possibly others). There was some material that did not appear to be in copyright violation, but there were also portions of your edits that struck me as lending undue weight to the pro-gay marriage movement, as they contained substantial amounts of text serving no purpose other than to reiterate the arguments for same-sex marriage. (I am, myself, gay, so you don't have to worry about me trying to skew things in an anti-gay light.) Obviously you should not repeat the copyright violations - you might want to read WP:COPYVIO - but don't let that stop you from editing constructively. Be bold: If you can rephrase some of the non-copyvio material from your edits, I'm sure it would be a welcome addition to the article. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

U.S. v. Windsor[edit]

Windsor is a case about the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act. If the appellate decision is upheld, section 3 of the act, which defines "marriage" for purposes of federal statute, will be invalid. That will not have an effect on whether anyone can get married. It will mean that same-sex marriages performed in a state where such marriages are legal will be recognized by the federal government for things like tax law, employment benefits, retirement benefits, retirement accounts (which are regulated by federal statute), etc. It is possible the question of foreign marriages for purposes of immigration (or the like) will be left open. If the prior decision is reversed, it will mean that the statute stands. If the court decides that it doesn't have jurisdiction, the lower court decision will stand. That would mean it would still apply in its geographical region. The court would then likely make the same decision for the 1st and 9th Circuit cases that are also pending. It would mean that the 3rd, 4th, or 8th Circuit would have to decide for DOMA, allowing the a party (the gay couple or the government) to oppose the decision, giving the Court jurisdiction. If it determines BLAG doesn't have standing, it is unclear what the result would be. In the end, the BBC (or any source using the word "judgement" instead of "judgment") should not be relied on. (Incidentally, it is weird that the BBC and Guardian use "judgement" when "judgment" is the correct spelling for a legal decision in England & Wales as well.) -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hollingsworth v. Perry[edit]

You might be interested in this discussion of some of the possible outcomes for Perry and Windsor in the Supreme Court. And this is just scratching the surface. HERE . Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
for your contributions on the excellent article Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under the Muslim Brotherhood Lockley (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
So glad you're back - and keeping them honest. I wish you good health all ways. petrarchan47tc 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy[edit]

Saying a passage is "noteworthy" is original research and based on opinion. WP:LONGQUOTE says "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section." Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

13th and 14th amendments[edit]

Just wanted to drop you a courtesy note that I'm working with another editor to try to bring the 13th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution up to GA status. Your edits there and elsewhere made me think this is a project you'd be interested in. If you're interested in dropping by, I'd be glad to have your input. Thanks for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Death of Osama bin Laden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Press|date=Sept 27, 2011}}{{Dead link|date=May 2012}}</ref> The [Abbottabad Commission Report]] of the Pakistani [[Abbottabad commission]] was released by [[Al Jazeera]] on July 8, 2013.<ref
  • Bergen, Peter "'Zero Dark Thirty': Did torture really net bin Laden?"] CNN, December 11, 2012]</ref> Later in 2003, [[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]], the alleged operational chief of al-Qaeda,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics and Landmark cases[edit]

Apologies for removing it without looking into it too closely. I had only seem some brief media coverage on it and assumed that the case was more along the lines of Salinas v. Texas (2013): one of the more important cases of the term, but probably not really all that monumental in the long run. I'll be happy to let it stand, though I think we might need to revisit and prune that article in a decade. It seems to be suffering from a bit of recency bias. NW (Talk) 13:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

McDonald and Justice Thomas[edit]

I have reverted your addition of McDonald v. Chicago to the list of Privileges or Immunities Clause cases. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion is not the controlling opinion of the case. The controlling opinion is that of Justice Alito. Under Marks v. United States, the opinion that agrees with the holding on the narrowest grounds is treated as the majority opinion. Justice Alito's opinion is narrower than that of Justice Thomas, because Alito's opinion does not require any decisions to be overruled; Thomas's opinion would have overruled multiple decisions (e.g., Slaughter-House Cases). SMP0328. (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


Hey P3Y229, I hate to get on anybody's back about copyediting, but I notice that with most of the constitutional law additions you make, I have to come along behind you and fix some basic errors. If you'd be willing to start checking your contributions before uploading them, it'd be a big help. Thanks the contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

copyright issue[edit]

I notice you added some closely paraphrased material to the Fourth Amendment article for the second time. This was previously removed from the article because it is paraphrased closely and obviously from this source, in some cases using the source's exact wording: You can see WP:PARAPHRASE for how you can rework and combine other texts to avoid this issue in the future.

On a related note, I'd also argue that your creation of this section unnecessarily unbalances the article; I don't see any reason to discuss a single blog post at such length compared to exceptions that have decades of famous case law and reams written about them. I think the paragraph of summary is sufficient to cover the subject, but I'll be glad to discuss on the talk page if you disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit hasty with the above comment. I see now that you removed some of the more obviously plagiarized material from your earlier draft, which I appreciate; this is not nearly as bad. I still think it's undue weight for this blog post, but I apologize for not double-checking before I posted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)^
Thanks for notyfing me. I will add a new section on the Fourth Amendment talk page. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address[edit]

Begging your pardon, but I think your addition to the article really belongs in the section above called "Contemporary sources and reaction". Also, the name of the London newspaper is The Times, so please take out "british" and italicize "The Times" (it's wrong in Smithsonian). Thanks. -- (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Done with this edit. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 13:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
P3, I had to make some changes to your addition to make it fit. Some of it duplicated a line or two that was already in the article. Hope you don't mind too much. -- (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
No. Quite the opposite. I appreciate your edits. Thank you very much! --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Equal Protection[edit]

Thanks for visiting and editing the article about the Equal Protection Clause. However, you have continued to edit without participating at the article talk page. It is explained there that the article is written pretty much in a chronological format, and it seems that you are not editing in a way that preserves that chronological format. Please start using the article talk page. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notfying me. I readded the deleted material Meaning of "person" and "within its jurisdiction" in the "Gilded Age interpretation and the Plessy decision" section respectively as a footnote in that section in order to preserve the chronological style of the article. Hope that the way I did it is okay for you. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I started a section on the article talk page, and I hope you can join in. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Of interest?[edit]

Thought you might enjoy this AJ doc about the NSA leaks. petrarchan47tc 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but the video was removed. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 18:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you go . It's quite good journalism, worth a watch. If it comes down again, just enter the title of the video into youtube's search bar. petrarchan47tc 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the new link. I found the broadcast very informative and exciting. As you correctly observed it's quite good journalism and worth a watch. I added the link at the external links section of global Global surveillance disclosure page. Thanks again for sharing. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You're most welcome. And more: in this, Binney reveals the 'secret interpretation' of the Patriot Act that allows for mass surveillance. They interpret "terrorist" as "potential terrorist". And that means everyone. This part is around 35:00. Hopefully media will report on this revelation. Pending that, it is questionable whether this can be added to the encyclopedia. And, a couple more interviews with Binney are here. Enjoy, petrarchan47tc 23:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Accidental paste into U.S. v. Windsor[edit]

It looks like you might have accidentally pasted, into United States v. Windsor, text you were still working on for a different article about a different court case, so I removed it. The sections removed were called "NSA phone data ruling" and "Warrant". I hope this is OK. If you still need a copy of the text, you can find it in the page history. --Closeapple (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's OK for me. I really didn't notice that I accidentally pasted material from my sandbox into United States v. Windsor until you made me aware of the fact. So thank you very much for your edit at the Windsor page.

March 2014[edit]

Stop icon Your addition to Law Enforcement Information Exchange has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. GabrielF (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

NDAA update[edit]

Funny to see you at my talk page, as I've been meaning to drop by for the past few days: The Barack Obama administration, determined to thwart the attempt by other plaintiffs and myself to have the courts void a law that permits the military to arrest U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and indefinitely detain them, has filed a detailed brief with the Supreme Court asking the justices to refuse to accept our petition to hear our appeal. Hedges petrarchan47tc 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I added it to the Hedges v. Obama article. Wishing yoi well! --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Same to you!! petrarchan47tc 22:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

Hello, thanks for your edits to Korematsu v. United States. However, please try to use the American date format (i.e. month before day) in articles about US topics. I appreciate that the built-in reference toolbars can make this difficult. Graham87 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ban on domestic propaganda overturned / reverted to 2012 version[edit]

Hiya, take a look at the NDAA 2013, would you? I think I removed a lot of your work today, so wanted to check in with you about it. Trying to stop an edit war, but obviously feel free to revert. petrarchan47tc 06:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I just ran into a few articles today that make me wonder whether our presentation is as straightforward as it should be. NDAA legalizes propaganda and (not RS)
"The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987"
The WP article looks as if the SM Act was added, rather than the opposite. But I have to admit, I haven't given this my full attention and may be misreading or misunderstanding the issue, which is why I keep coming to you. It's also, unsurprisingly, not being discussed in media which only adds to the difficulty for us. petrarchan47tc 21:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I added your your sources and rewrote the article to state that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 amends certain passages of Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. Wether this amendments negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987 or not is a matter of interpretation. This matter of interpretation can be clearly deduced by reading the first two paragraphs in the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 section in the NDAA 2013 article.

Afghan war[edit]

To qualify as a political haven precisely means that it is a safe place for the people using it; adding 'safe' (whether or not it features in source) is mere verbiage giving the reader more to absorb than necessary. There can be no such thing as an "unsafe haven"; sources do not have to be quoted verbatim, and what's more, it is equally common not to use the pleonasm 'safe', here is an example:[1]. Please do not restore the word 'safe'. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored safe because denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Afghanistan was/is an U.S. military goal for the War in Afghanistan. See this source in this edit. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't get what I'm saying do you. "Safe" is superfluous, what is the difference between a 'haven' and a 'safe haven', and how do you define an 'unsafe' haven? --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I got what you were saying, but I restored the word because denying al-Qaida a safe haven in Afghanistan was/is an official U.S. military goal for the war in Afghanistan. There is no difference between a 'haven' and a 'safe haven', because the word safe haven is a pleonasm, but I know this pleonasm only as a set expression/set phrase and that's why it's common for me to use it. And because I'm not a native english speaker it is uncommon for me not to use the pleonasm 'safe'. For a definition of unsafe haven please see my answer at the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) talk page.
All right, the discussion is best continued at the talk page. --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello again. Thanks for this good effort here[2]. I find myself laughing, not in a way that aims to ridicule anyone, but in that humorous respect because the whole reason I removed 'safe' was to make the passage shorter without removing vital information. What you have done is make it longer! Now if you revert to 'safe haven', it will reduce again. It doesn't matter though. It can stay as you're happy with it. If we edit-warred over that issue, we'd both end up blocked because it would be seen as WP:LAME! So, here's to the "safe basis"! --ΜΑΧΙΜυΜ ΗΟΤ (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I will let stand the words as they are. They are a bit long long, but clear, precise and not ambiguous. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 13:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Iron Man 2[edit]

Hi, P3Y229. Three different editors have now removed the inappropriate/unnecessary content added to Iron Man 2. Per WP:BRD, please discontinue edit-warring and discuss your issues on the article talk page. Thanks.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolute Support Mission[edit]

Thankyou for adding the full references to this page !! Also, you may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Afg War 2001-14 about the periods of the conflict. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State (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) 09:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, P3Y229. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please don't push POV[edit]

I saw your bad-faith edits to American_Health_Care_Act_of_2017 and 2017_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act_replacement_proposals, so I removed them. Please don't reinsert that material, thanks. Ethanbas (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging relevant editor User:DrFleischman. Ethanbas (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they weren't bad faith; regardless, I don't think statements along the line of "Obama one day noted blah blah blah" could be made appropriate for these articles. Ethanbas (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no intention on my side to push a certain point of view. I merely wanted to add the statement by former President Obama because I thought it was an interesting one. Interesting in the sense what are the plus points of the law seven years after becoming it the law of land in the USA. I reworded the content to make the language more neutral at the Affordable Care Act page, the 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals page and American Health Care Act of 2017 page.
Whatever; I don't think I'm going to do anything further. Ethanbas (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It didn't seem to fit where it was in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, so I reverted it again. While I think your contribution has a place in that article, I can't find where that would be.
I merely reworded it in American Health Care Act of 2017 and 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals. There seems to be more of a case for it there— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs anywhere in the article. We can't possibly include a sentence for every time Obama has said something in support of the ACA. Not to mention all of the other highly notable folks who have weighed in about the law. (I'm not watching this page. If we're going to continue this discussion I suggest we do so at Talk:PPACA.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there are three articles. My feeling is that it should be regarded as a one-time comment, even if he has said it many times.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit at American Health Care Act of 2017 and edits at 2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals. I readded my contentious sentence and reworded ia as an introduction for the impact section, because that's the right place in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Steigenwald, Lucy (18 September 2012). "Indefinite Detainment is Back On: Second Circuit Judge Stays Anti-NDAA Ruling Until Decision". Retrieved 20 September 2012. 
  2. ^ "NDAA fight - Executive takes on judiciary". Worchester Telegram & Gazette. 19 September 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2012. 
  3. ^ "Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA". Russia Today. 18 September 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2012. 
  4. ^ a b "Stop the NDAA! - News section". Retrieved 20 September 2012. A longer-term stay will be decided by a three judge court on or near September 28. The appeal of the permanent injunction date is not yet set.