User talk:Postdlf/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Talk page archives

Contents

[edit] Fair use for Alessandra Mussolini cover

Thank you very much for your edit there. Formal and yet readable. I shall try to imitate it in similar image cases. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox change; WP:SCOTUS Project Collaboration Article

Postdlf, what's your judgment about changing over infoboxes of old cases? The only advantages I can see is a slight reduction in server load and that people will see and use the new and proper template should they copy it from another case. In any event, I thought it would be something we could put up on WP:SCOTUS (you know, in case anyone was bored and wanted something tedious to do :P ).--Kchase02 T 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Should have been more specific. I was referring to changing over infoboxes where they have been subst'd. I think MZM and ASawyer have already gotten to all the included ones.--Kchase02 T 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to that, as long as the end result looks the same. Postdlf 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I listed it as a low priority. How do you feel about closing Clinton v. NYC and moving on to a new project collaboration article? You mentioned something about signing statements, so I figured I'd ask you before closing.--Kchase02 T 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've actually had work to do at work, so I haven't gotten around to that...go ahead and close it out, and I'll come back to the issue later. Postdlf 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "legally enshrined"

Is this sentence true:

The phrase "legally enshrined" (as well, "enshrined into law") is commonly used to refer to the instance of making a part of, or codifying, a behavior, practice, group, or individual into the legal system. KarenAnn 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that's how I've always heard it used. Postdlf 20:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Moss Calvin Klein

Hello, Postdlf. Thanks for adding the FU rationale to Image:Kate_Moss_Calvin_Klein.jpg. I believe it's sound. I should have paid more attention to the Kate Moss article contents before removing the image. I apologize for that. --Abu Badali 06:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. If you're concerned about the fair use of an image on an article you're not familiar with, it might be better for you to post a note on the article talk page, or to the uploader's talk page to raise your concerns first. There's no need to rush, particularly since fair use is entirely context-driven, and so requires case-by-case consideration. Cheers, Postdlf 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Romjin-StamosFF.jpg

Hello again, Postdlf. You said that Image:Romjin-StamosFF.jpg is a cropped version of a movie poster. I believe we can make derivative works of free images only, not the ones used under Fair Use (like movie posters). We may substitute that image for on of the whole movie poster or delete it for once. Regards, --Abu Badali 06:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I only added the source; I had no comment as to its fair use. Now that you've raised the issue, however, I agree with your conclusion. I think that once you crop out all the identifying tags of a movie poster (or magazine cover, or book cover) you've stepped outside of permissible use. There is a complete scan of the poster in the article on the film, btw. Postdlf 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I will mark it for deletion, so. Thanks for all! --Abu Badali 06:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images in cats

Sorry about that. I didn't know. I'll fix them. Asarelah 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC) --Charhally 08:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About My Wake Forest articles

Both Lilting Banshees and Four Years at Wake Forest are my own creations. I am a Wake Forest studetn and a former student advisor. I wrote them based on knowledge over my years and experience at Wake Forest. Any connection to any official "published account" is purely coincidental. Also I give an honest view, and at times give the potnetial cons about Wake Forest, as noted in many commetns in Four Years at Wake Forest.

I copy and pasted the "fight songs" for Wake Forest after viewing it done on the Rutgers University artile, and since I'm pretty sure (though not completely) that the songs are "copyrighted" since they are about 100 years old. I believe it should be fine. Also, I am trying to create a comprehensive guide about Wake Forest via Wikipedia. I started with putting lots of information so that I could eventually connect it via an informaiton directory templete (as I am doing right now, as you can see, the Wake Forest article has been decreasing in size as I redirect subtopics). --Charhally 05:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn that your attempts at character assasinat on wikipedia are unethical. I am well aware that you are well accomplished being a New York lawyer (based on your profile). That however does not give you the right to commit to out of hand comments on wikipedia to defame me when I only have the best of intentions. Some humble pie needs to be eaten. --Charhally 08:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet concluded you don't have good intentions, but you've created quite a mess by plowing ahead full steam without understanding Wikipedia policies, and have responded to concerns and warnings with an unjustified "back off, I know what I'm doing" mentality. You've had our policies on original research and verifiability pointed out to you and yet asserted that there is no problem with articles you've based on nothing but your own personal experience. And you've been blocked on Wikimedia Commons for uploading images without any source information and yet asserted that you "fixed" them, not by actually adding source info but by applying a tag for a license that on its face only applies to software... The problem is not a lack of patience on our part, but a lack of patience on yours to actually take the time to understand Wikipedia and Wikimedia policies, and to read what people have been telling you. Postdlf 13:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Annette O'Toole.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Annette O'Toole.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 21:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look more closely; the source of the image as a WB promotional photo for Smallville is given. Postdlf 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Returning to the image source, a) the linked page has no such photo b) please provide one so it can be verified as a promotional photo. Sorry to bother You again, feydey 22:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigh...it looks like they changed the code somewhat so the original URL didn't send you directly there, but it's still on the website in the cast section for Smallville on the WB website.[1] All you had to do was click a couple links from the page you got sent to. Postdlf 22:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for looking that up! Since the {{Promophoto}} license says: This tag should only be used for images of a person ... from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media - so do You think that the WB cast bio page falls under that criteria? Thanks in advance. feydey 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Am I really going to surprise you by answering "yes"? The cast bio photos posted on a public website that only exists to promote the appearance of that cast in a television show are promotional and a "similar source," and I believe their use in an article about that person that discusses their role in that show qualifies as fair use. Please don't bother me about this image any further. If you still think you have a legitimate problem with it that cannot be solved within 10 seconds, please post the issue on the talk page of the article so its regular contributors can either address it (likely again in 10 seconds) or be alerted to the need to find another image to replace it. Postdlf 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:YaR GnitS on WP:ANI

Thank you for your attention to the YaR GnitS situation re: Gay ICP etc. I have logged a full complaint against him at WP:ANI: [2] Feel free to add any details I've overlooked, and thanks again. Kasreyn 07:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RobotG

Hello. You're not the first to point this out. I apologise, as I was not aware of the existence of these HTML comments before I started the bot off renaming the categories (and I still don't understand what value the comments add). The robot is now stopped, and I have left it to another bot to carry on with the rename in due course. Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a way to program around that? I'm only aware of this being an issue with award categories, so it's really an infrequent issue compared to the scope of the work your bot normally performs. Postdlf 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Just saw the update. Good deal. Can I give you a ring if I need a lawyer? --Kbdank71 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you need one in NY... New Jersey is a little territorial when it comes to out-of-state lawyers; I'd have to take the NJ bar to get admitted there, rather than waiving in by virtue of my NY admission, and pro hac vice admission is more of a hurdle too. Just remember, if you're going to get arrested, get arrested in New York. Postdlf 18:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't plan on getting arrested at all, but considering I work in NYC, if anything does happen I'll keep you in mind. --Kbdank71 19:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fair use

Well I'm not law student, so I'm in a little over my head when it comes to such things. Is a description copyrighted? I guess we'll assume for argument's sake that is is, so here goes:

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
I'm not making anything off of including the descriptions in articles, and plus it's on wikipedia, which is nonprofit as far as I know
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
This one I'm kinda lost on... perhaps you could explain it to me. Does it count that the descriptions are freely available?
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
I've seen nothing in fair use that states exactly how much you can or cannot use, though if, say, we're talking about the description on Boba Fett: Overkill, the publisher writes up a description for the issue. Including the description with the issue, it's a negligible amount. Or do you look at the description as stand-alone? But here are two sources for the description [3] and [4] (StarWars.com and DarkHorse.com respectively)
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I would imagine the use of the descriptions would not negatively affect the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, or else the publisher would not broadcast it so openly for the masses to see for free.

Oh, and I've deleted all of the "Inside Front Cover" stuff. Let me know if I missed any. —Skope (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything you write is copyrighted as soon as you write it, even if you give copies of it away without charging. My quick analysis:

  1. The nature of the copied work is whether the copied work was creative or informative—a novel is going to get more protection than a newspaper article, because one is entirely fanciful while the other is factual. This element goes against you, but this isn't a dispositive factor; any fair use of any comic book material or images is going to be a use of a creative work.
  2. The purpose and character of your use was to provide a factual description of a comic book issue. However, you used another author's creative description of that book just to avoid having to write a summary yourself, so your use was not tailored towards this purpose or reasonably necessary to further it. The character of your use was not transformative, because you didn't provide the text of the publisher's description in order to comment on that description or to otherwise adapt it. That this was not-for-profit in your case does not fix that, especially considering how many Wikipedia mirrors use paid advertising.
  3. There isn't any firm rule to the amount copied; sometimes the whole work is acceptable, sometimes very little. It's a function of your purpose, and you unnecessarily used another author's complete description to describe a work that you could have described yourself, so this factor would go against you.
  4. You're right that there wouldn't be any effect on the potential market, because there is no commercial market for promotional text.

The last element is really the only one in your favor, but this only goes so far; if lack of a market was alone dispositive, then you'd be free to reuse any promotional material for any purpose, and no court is going to rule that way.

Postdlf 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Just so you know, I was never offended in the least. Just confused I guess. I'd read over the fair use article multiple times in the past trying to get a grasp on things. I guess I still don't have a complete hold of it, just a slightly better grip. It would take a lawyer to get me to this point.  ;) Okay, so would the written summaries that show up on most of the pages still be in the clear? And if (big word, that) I ever got an affirmative response from Dark Horse that it was okay to use them (which may or may not ever come to pass, but one can hope), would it be okay then? —Skope (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and thanks. —Skope (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is a difficult concept, even to us attorneys. Thanks for listening and for working with me to address the issues. As for your questions, written summaries of fiction are ok as long as they are written from an out-of-universe perspective, because that factual description transforms the original. However, if you summarize too much fiction from within the perspective of the fiction (such as one would see in a Star Wars fan encyclopedia), you've merely created an abridgement, a Reader's Digest derivative of the original fiction that is not a fair use, but a competing product to the official fan guides. As for trying to get permission for the text from Dark Horse, I don't see it being worth the trouble because the text won't improve the article, and it's rather difficult to get permission in this manner that will comply with our copyright policies and needs. Postdlf 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think my intent for the descriptions was a spoiler-free gist of the plot, but I guess it really doesn't matter that much. Plus, the whole "spoiler" concept is under heated debate as we speak. —Skope (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiRoo

Someone has speedy-deleted the talk page of WikiRoo (they guy who wanted everyone bammed), even though it was filled with evidence of policy violations, warnings, and administrative action against the user, and there was an active RfC filed against that user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiRoo. In his request for a speedy deletion, WikiRoo said he plans to create a new account and continue to make edits here. This seems like an odd page to get approval for a speedy deletion. --Gary Will 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message about this on the deleting admin's talk page. Postdlf 23:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, feel free to restore the page -- but I did permablock him, so (unless somebody wants to ban him), the RfC is kinda moot. He did express a desire to start fresh in his U1 CSD/permaban request, and he does have a right to vanish unless ArbCom bans him outright or assumes jurisdiction. At least, that's my understanding, but I have been known to be an idiot! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick follow-up. I'll take the discussion to Xoloz's page. I think WikiRoo's talk page should be restored, since he says he plans to continue making edits and there should be a record of what's happened. --Gary Will 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Charhally

Hi! Thanks for your message. Yes, I have been following this user due to his uploading images to the commons without giving a source (or, in many cases, a believable licence). In his strange message on my talk page he claims newbieness but I have tried to explain what is required on two occasions ([5] & [6]), and I don't know how I could explain this any more clearly. I usually try to be fairly timely in deleting images that I have tagged as unsourced or unlicenced after 7 days, but in this case, as that would have come whilst he was still blocked, I held off. Perhaps however some deletions will get the message through where blocking has not. Thanks for your help, JeremyA 03:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD notification

You brought up the category at the SCOTUS wikiproject talk, so I thought you'd like to know about this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35. Someone messaged MZMcBride a few minutes ago, but no sign of him yet, so I figured you might be able to offer the list some defense. Cheers!--Kchase T 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Postdlf 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the strong and prompt defense. I'm confused about why you posted it to the wikiproject's talk page, though. I thought that was considered vote-stacking. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just confused.--Kchase T 03:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's typical for AFDs to be listed on relevant Wikiprojects, just to draw attention from those knowledgeable with the subject matter. In our case, it isn't like the project has an established defense for such lists, or even established support (your own response to these was rather luke-warm), such that I would be calling to arms a clone army of supporters who "vote" by linking to pre-written pages. I would just think that any AFD where the nom obviously does not understand the subject would benefit from those who do. Postdlf 04:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Opinions by justice

Wow, those are some impressive articles, and nice use of color coding. Very well done. NoSeptember 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur! --Assawyer 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, glad you like them! Postdlf 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bluebook Form for Maryland Court of Special Appeals citations in Maryland v. Craig

I don't want to start an edit war over something so minor as proper citation, but the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, as an entity, is abbreviated as you have done, sic "Md. Ct. Spec. App.", HOWEVER, the citation to the Maryland Appellate Reports is "Md. App.". As the info block is obviously a citation to the reporter in which the case can be found, the proper Bluebook format is "Vol Md. App. Page". Please see T.1 (p. 207) of the 17th edition of the Bluebook.Caelarch 23:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're mistaken, because that's not a Maryland Appellate Reports citation (which is 76 Md. App. 250, btw) in the infobox, so that's not the abbreviation we're trying for. The citation that is given in the infobox is 544 A.2d 784 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1988), where "Md. Ct. Spec. App." within the parenthetical does refer to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals as the issuing court, and A.2d is the reporter for the citation used. Postdlf 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
O, damn. You're absolutly right. Egg on my face. My apologies.Caelarch 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, no harm done. Postdlf 14:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting SCOTUS templates

Someone has asked that you clarify your vote here. Also, the opinions by justice look incredible. Nice work. --MZMcBride 00:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my vote has now been clarified. Thanks for the compliment! Postdlf 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SHBs

You are among the editors who participated in the discussion of relevent fields at Template talk:Superherobox; please add some thoughts to the similar discussions at Template talk:Supersupportingbox and Template talk:Superteambox. More editors means a better actual concensus, and that will help us decide what to do about the fields in question. --Chris Griswold 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Anna Nicole and hubby.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Anna Nicole and hubby.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 01:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Livingtrust

Since I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia administrators are notified of postings, I though I'd let you know that I responded to your inquiry on the Livingtrust Talk Page regarding copyright issues relative to linking to wills of the famous on our website. My apologies if I'm pushing you; I just didn't know if you saw my response, and I'm getting a little anxious to try to get this whole issue resolved. Thanks. Livingtrust 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem at all; I hadn't yet seen your response, but I just added a reply there on your talk page. Postdlf 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia

Hello, could you take a look at article Macedonia. For some unknown reasons, two users revert to a version that is both very blurry, contains redundant info, has the internal links redirecting in wrong places, does not respect WP:SENSE, and it simply causes the reader very much. Thanks!

I'm afraid I really don't know anything about the topic; I compared what I think are the two dueling versions of which you speak, and I can't really tell which one is preferrable. Postdlf 16:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks anyway for your involvement. Sorry if I annoyed you with my request it`s just that you were the first admin which I camed across :D Thanks again! Cheers! 125.244.186.2 16:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, this anon has been reported for 3RR and block is likely pending.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it fabulous how Wikipedia becomes a microcosm for the world? Every ethnic conflict and petty nationalistic uprising eventually finds its voice here in the aggravated editing of anonymous cranks. Whee! Postdlf 01:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd

Thanks for the tip--will tag shortly. --Fang Aili talk 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your name

Sorry about the name misspell. :) --Fang Aili talk 18:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York lawyers

I was going to add some material to the Augustus Hand article from a piece I just read, but it looks like you beat me by two years, so kudos from one New York City lawyer to another. I'm currently in the process of ensuring that every Second Circuit and SDNY judge has a page, so thanks for your pioneering efforts in this area. Let me know if there's anything we might collaborate on sometime. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people associated with Albany County, New York

According to what I have read, alphabetical organization is the default organization pattern in wikipedia, which is why I organized it in that way. It also occurred to me that there could be confusion resulting from people who achieve prominence early rather than late in life being organized in a chronological fashion. However, I clearly have no objections to anyone reorganizing any list I make or contribute to, nor do wikipedia guidelines if those reorganizations follow a consistent pattern, as your proposal does. I can honestly see how a chronological list could be extremely useful in its own right, and welcome any restructuring you might see fit to make. I cannot speak for others, who might try to reorganize it into some other fashion, but will not attempt further reorganization if you do reorganize it as you say, nor will I create sockpuppets for that purpose. I will also attempt to follow the format selected upon in the future, apologizing in advance if I make mistakes based on people's periods of prominence or whatever. However, I personally regret the word "trivia" and such phrases in this context. I think such lists, however organized, can function as being an annotated index of their contents, making it easier to determine which items are relevant to whatever sort of search someone might be engaged in, rather than going item by item through the category to try to find them. Anyway, please proceed as you have proposed. Sorry for the verbosity, by the way.Badbilltucker 15:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that alphabetical is really a default; there are a lot of ways to organize information, including lists of people, and alphabetical is usually the simplest, but it's also the only one that does not inherently show a further relationship among the entries beyond their mere inclusion in the list. Many of the people lists also group entries by field/profession; there is no reason why the lists can't accomplish all these things in separate sections (or separate list articles, if the lists are long enough). See for example the many different ways in which lists of the U.S. states are organized. Anyway... Let me know what you think of my change after I get around to implementing it. Postdlf 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing my comments

Please, aks me before changing my coments like you did in this edition. I was really intending to reply Fastfission's original post, and not your comment on it. Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I misunderstood. I should have at least mentioned in the edit summary that I was trying to fix the formatting on your comment to draw attention to it. Postdlf 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl / Warren / Burger

In response to a comment you made, see the Earl Warren talk page for (hopefully) a smile. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [7]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/s/User_talk%7EPostdlf_Archive10_8c9d.html"