User talk:Hoofin

Hi, I notice you undid my edit refusal/reversion at Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Please note that the notice at the head of its talk page specifically states that "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

I have started a discussion at Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017#Article title which you might want to contribute to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please see the commentary there. There is no "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" as federal law. There was only a bill by that reference, and that name was removed from the final enactment.Hoofin (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem you have with your reasoning to change something that has been properly in the Wikipedia for over SIX years now, is that the Short Title, "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" was deliberately removed by Senator Sanders before the bill was passed. The law may only properly be referred to by its long title, or as Public Law 115-97. Better lawyers do it this way, in fact. The example you cite in contrast, "Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024” is in fact a passed Short Title that appears in the final law. The bill that passed contained several divisions that had Short Titles.

There is no Short Title in Public Law 115-97. Scan it. It isn't there. Hoofin (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hoofin! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've added to that page as well, then. It is frustrating to keep abreast of Wikipedia rules when I really only engage specific topics that relate to my professional tax practice. Sorry. Hoofin (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I would advise that you stop reverting other editors who undo your changes regarding the titles of US legislation (and you have done this at least six times so far on the article Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the month of July alone). I understand your concerns, but please try not to revive dead debates. Other editors are more likely to discount your arguments and contributions if you repeatedly override their edits, and they are likely to accuse you of edit warring and refusal to "get the point" (and some have already raised those concerns on your talk page). Your edits are not vandalism, but they are still potentially disruptive.

Instead of repeatedly reverting, I would advise you to continue discussing on article talk pages on how to improve the articles. You agreed that the sentence added to the article One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which mentioned how the official short title of the legislation was removed before passage, was an improvement; I would continue discussion like that. When you do so, you, other editors (myself included) can continue building towards a new consensus and improve the encyclopedia. Thank you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your good advice. The individual who keeps reverting my work is not dialoguing on the issue at all. I left a message. My point is that these laws have actual names that aren't Short Titles. It's OK for Wikipedia, in my opinion, to refer to what "everyone" calls the thing. But what they call the thing is not the same as the actual name. I don't understand why the other individual has a problem with distinguishing the "the such-and-such law", which we all do, from "this is the actual name of the law". Hoofin (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the Public Law 115-97 (commonly "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act") was fine from 2018 to this July. Over six years. No one touched the issue until InvadingInvader decided it was "wrong". Hoofin (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your formatting for the first sentence of laws with unofficial short titles; it makes sense and improves clarity. I made an edit request to the article One Big Beautiful Bill Act to make the formatting match up. I have also made a redirect to the page at Public Law 119-21. Regardless of what the common name is, I agree with you that the most unambiguous way to refer to US federal legislation is by two numbers: the session of Congress that passed it and its order in the list for that Congress. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and stop reverting changes to the lead of the article Tax Cuts and Jobs Act without discussion. We don't need to return the article to "how it was for six years" because consensus can change. Irruptive Creditor pointed out (quoting my own observation, actually) that the {{USPL}} template already adds the words "Public Law 115-97" to the visible article text, and "it is rather silly to open the article by stating the same thing twice" (their words). If you have been advocating for the same change to the same article for six years, I highly suggest that you broaden your scope and try editing a wider variety of articles. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem this month has been that there has been no discussion. Bills passed without at Short Title are being referred to by popularized nicknames, and it degrades Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is misrepresenting what the law is actually named. Not how it got marketed.

Thank you for pointing out that Public Law 117-169 is also an issue. In the tax practitioner community, we have struggled to distinguish the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act" (acronym "IRA") from the Individual Retirement Account (acronym also "IRA").

Wikipedia should make the clear distinction between Short Titles and nicknames. @Irruptive Creditor simply advocates that if the nickname achieves a high marketing level or notoriety, then Wikipedia should pretend that it's the same as if the law with passed with Short Title.

It seems to matter enough to someone in Congress, that in the next Congress (the 118th), a representative put forth a bill to add a different Short Title to Public Law 117-169 (commonly, "Inflation Reduction Act" or "IRA") to name it "Lied about Inflation and Energy Dependence Act of 2022" or the "LIED Act of 2022". Hoofin (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)