User talk:Postdlf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.
contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
This user is licensed to practice law in the State of New York.
JD This user has a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree.
BFA This user has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree.
en This user is a native speaker of English.
de-1 Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse.
This user lives in
New York City.
This user is interested in the Supreme Court of the United States.
This user is a member of the Comics Wikiproject.
This user thinks okapis are the coolest animal ever.

Who am I? I'm a law boy nee art boy who should probably be working, sleeping, or eating right now rather than contributing here. But what can you do.

My main projects on here have been articles on U.S. law, as well as history, art, and local interest topics in Washington, DC, New York City, and Columbus, Ohio. Oh yeah, and comic books. I've also been quite active in trying to shape a sensible category structure.

Please note that I am active on here much less frequently than I used to be, much to the dismay of all except my employer.

If you are here to leave a boilerplate message about some image I uploaded years ago lacking a boilerplate "fair use rationale," leaving a message on the talk pages of the articles that use the image would be far more constructive.


Archive
Archives
  1. 01/30/04 - 09/30/04
  2. 10/04/04 - 12/16/04
  3. 12/24/04 - 04/13/05
  4. 04/14/05 - 06/20/05
  5. 06/22/05 - 09/03/05
  6. 09/04/05 - 11/12/05
  7. 11/13/05 - 02/21/06
  8. 02/23/06 - 05/06/06
  9. 05/08/06 - 06/16/06
  10. 06/21/06 - 08/22/06
  11. 08/29/06 - 01/03/07
  12. 01/06/07 - 04/08/07
  13. 04/14/07 - 01/08/08


CLICK HERE to add a new message.

Contents

[edit] Could you plz have a look at IRCSET

I have started working on this article. Could you please have a look here. It would be really nice if I receive some suggestions and guideline regarding this issue. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another List of Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion

There is a discussion going on here. I though you might be interested in commenting due to your previous comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] requesting source for 2 year old edit

Hi. A user has requested a citation for this edit. Any chance of that happening?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I probably got the U.S. District Court judge status from the Political Graveyard, which identifies Stainback as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. However, I now find that he was actually a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Territory of Hawaii. Though the territorial courts were federal, territorial judges do not appear be to included in the Federal Judicial Center biography database. But an indirect source, if nothing else, proves it: the opinion for Leung v. Territory of Hawaii, 132 F.2d 374 (9th Cir. 1942) lists the case as an "Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Territory of Hawaii; Ingram M. Stainback, Judge." Category:Hawaii Territory Judges should also be created and added to Category:United States territorial judges. If you could please make the proper changes... Postdlf (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. But maybe they should just be included in Judges of the District Court for the District of Hawaii. I'm not a history-buff but I suspect that there were several States that had Federal Judges in their "territory" prior to becomign officialy a State. If Judges in Hawaii are going to be distinguised in this way, it might lead to more technicaly-correct-but pointless-and-complicating subdivisions in other Districts. What do you think?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We're not using "territory" in an informal sense; it's a legally distinct form of political organization. Territorial courts are furthermore Article I courts, not Article III courts like the U.S. district courts. That distinction is a matter of accuracy, which is never pointless. Postdlf (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. Should Category:Hawaii Territory Judges be a subcat of Category:United States District Court judges? On one hand they aren't Article III judges and - from what I under stand - "U.S. District Court judges" refers to Article III judges. But on the other hand, in the opinion you quoted above, the court seems to refer to his court as a "District Court of the United States." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there was also a territorial supreme court—the analog of a state supreme court—so the Hawaii Territory judges category wouldn't only include territorial "district court" judges. Beyond that, what's in a name? We should keep the territorial "district courts" categorized separately from the proper Article III District Courts, though perhaps a more substantive discussion on that should be had somewhere. Postdlf (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
From United States district court: "District courts in three insular areas - the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands -'exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts.' Despite their name, these courts are technically not 'District Courts of the United States.' Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article Three of the Constitution, and serve terms of ten years rather than for life." So I would keep the categories separate despite the shared name. Postdlf (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain blurb

Is there a particular reason you felt the need to add Party to the McCain blurb. I think it is grammatically incorrect, but at the very least I don't think it sounds right. If you could let me know I'd appreciate it because there is a debate about it on WP:ERRORS. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To provide context or clarification, basically. "Republican" has other meanings, and non-U.S. readers may not necessarily know that it's the name of a political party. If the grammarians are complaining for whatever reason about "Republican Party nomination", why not just change it to "nomination of the Republican Party"? I honestly don't feel strongly about it. Postdlf (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I first saw the Kristen ad---

in a forum post (uploaded by Advanced Member "Cosmo") on the NY/NJ-home-based "escorts' reviews" site Best GFE. I've updated the image page accordingly (since I hadn't surfed to the NYPost to upload it from there. Incidentally, the Post uploaded it first.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] botnet edit on lead

I like that. Good one! Lawrence § t/e 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo request

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. For spite house, please photograph the Freeport Spite House, which I believe is on a triangular plot at the corner of Lena Avenue and Wilson Place in Freeport, New York.[1] GregManninLB (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I never have occasion to head out there and that's about an hour away from me. I'd be happy to do anything in Manhattan. Postdlf (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Postdlf, I have another one. Can you maybe help us out with this request or do you know anybody, who can? Thanks, --Flominator (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] requesting your input

here:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 19#Category:Justices of the New York Supreme Court. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Clear Channel television stations

Category:Clear Channel television stations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Doonagore Castle.jpg

Your photo of Doonagore Castle has been posted to Flickr as her own work by this account holder http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/508026088/ in contravention of Flickr's own guidelines.

To complain about this copyright infringement please see http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Matthews

Back in 2004, you seem to have changed the article on Supreme Court justice Stanley Matthews to indicate that his full name was "Thomas Stanley Matthews." I can find no evidence of his having the given name "Thomas" in any sources - the Supreme Court's own list, the Congressional Biographical Directory, and American National Biography all call him simply "Stanley Matthews." My intention is to move the article (although I'm not sure where, as Stanley Matthews is taken up by a soccer player). Do you have any idea why you added "Thomas"? john k (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically (possibly A People's History of the Supreme Court, of which I no longer own a copy), but googling "Thomas Stanley Matthews" provides some sources outside of Wikipedia, perhaps most relevantly, http://www.oyez.org/justices/stanley_matthews/ this]. This source indicates that as an adult he just went by his middle name. Typically articles should be titled by commonly used names, but at least here the birth name of "Thomas" allows for disambiguation. I'm sure you and the regular editors of this article will make the right decision. Postdlf (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: "Repetitive" categories

Agreed, that in certain circumstances the cats won't be repetitive but at this time all the cases in Category:United States free speech case law involve the First Amendment. So it doen't make sense to have both cats on each free speech case.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That the contents of the categories happen to coincide now doesn't mean that they will always, or that they do as a matter of definition. Free speech case law does not necessarily invoke the First Amendment, and the First Amendment does not necessarily involve free speech. So we're going to keep both categories. Postdlf (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing that any of the cats be eliminated. I was only proposing that Category:United States church-state separation case law, Category:United States free speech case law, and Category:United States religious freedom case law be subcategories of Category:United States First Amendment case law. I understand that on very rare occasions Category:United States First Amendment case law won't be the parent cat of the subcats, but simplicity and brevity should outweigh rare technicalities. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
These aren't "rare technicalities." For example, there have been a number of recent notable court decisions, including by SCOTUS, involving purely statutory interpretations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. These would go under the religious freedom case law and/or the church-state separation categories, but they are NOT First Amendment cases if the issues did not go beyond the statute. Accuracy should never be set aside for simplicity, particularly since you're complaining about a difference of only one category, the inclusion of which hardly sacrifices simplicity or brevity. It's a completely sensible and simple system to include a case law article in categories for both the broad area of law (i.e., the right at issue)—and the specific law applied (i.e., a constitutional amendment)—when those do not overlap entirely in either direction. Postdlf (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I guess you're right :-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Court cases litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union

Category:Court cases litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –

Since the the original creator is "deceased", as it were, I thought you might like to take on the role of "adoptive parent" of this category. Cgingold (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected edit

Hello --

regarding this edit you made yesterday to a protected article:

I respectfully request that you self-revert that change, for two reasons.

Your edit changed the meaning of the statement. The word "unacceptable" is the word that appears in the reference:

  • Jenkins, Philip. Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 78: "Pedophile implies coercion, exploitation, and even violence, so that to show any tolerance or sympathy for the condition is socially unacceptable." (emphasis in original)

Also - the page was protected due to an extremely difficult ongoing situation with a long history, and related to ArbCom concerns regarding pedophile activism. Even a seemingly small change to the page without clear consensus on the talk page can undermine the process of sorting out the disputes through the use of the {{editprotected}} process, that requires overt expression of consensus.

For context regarding the ongoing disputes, here are some pages that may be of interest:

Please revert your edit, for both reasons listed. If you choose not to self-revert, please reply to let me know the reasons for your decision. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit was based purely on what I thought to be proper stylistic language for an encyclopedia article. It didn't change the meaning, merely the point-of-reference as to who or what is making a valuation. For an article to say something is "unaccepted" is to make the observational statement that people find it "unacceptable," of which the references provide representational examples. "Unacceptable" is the valuation itself, which an article cannot assert in its own "voice." This should not have been a controversial change, or at least not in the sense you seem to think; it's really nothing more than a Manual of Style issue. Postdlf (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I35 bridge edit

I liked the phrasing better before. Now the setup is secondary to the result. My opinion, of course. - Denimadept (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think dates are usually less important than the events that occur on them, so the events should come first. That the bridge collapsed is the key fact and central topic of the second paragraph and so should be the opening clause. The date and time are secondary context. Also, closing the sentence with the time of the collapse—evening rush hour—helps lead into the next sentence to suggest a reason for the number of casualties. My opinion, of course.  ; ) Postdlf (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needing a professional eye...

Could you take a look at this assertion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Copyright notices. It looks like it coming for an interested layman (by the 'boxes on his user page) and yells for someone in the profession to look at.

Thanks - J Greb (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The same editor who posted to the project talk just nommed 4 of the templates for deletion. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 4#Comics-trademark-copyright - J Greb (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency

Thanks for weighing in and setting up the standard naming for the Subcommittee (a name I didn't originally establish). What with your legal and comic book fusion it seems like you're ripe to be proselitized to looking into an expansion of the 1954 hearings (either in that article or by itself). I'm still trying to understand the status of the subcommittee; I think there were prior and subsequent investigations beyond comic books so the history of the committee may be one thing, and the specific acitivities another. I find of particular interest the seemingly dry EXHIBIT No. 6B AN EVALUATION OF COMIC BOOKS -- JULY 1953 from the hearing transcripts:

The Committee on Evaluation of Comic Books, P. O. Box 1486, Cincinnati, Ohio, with 84 trained reviewers, has evaluated the 418 comic books available. They are placed in the categories of No Objection, Some Objection, Objectionable, and Very Objectionable. Those in the first two are deemed suitable for use by children and younger teen-agers.

The list of comics is pretty comprehensive, and (I think) in a perverse way would lead the collector to try and get samples in certain categories (to a title, every single Very Objectionable title is on my find list!). I'm still trying to figure out how Batman rated in the Objectionable category! Not the Bats! -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Legal and comic book fusion"...I like that.  : ) Batman, as I recall from Seduction of the Innocent, depicted an inappropriate pederast relationship between Bruce Wayne and his young male ward Dick Grayson. Postdlf (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:United States federal commerce legislation

Category:United States federal commerce legislation has been nominated for merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

I think this CFD would benefit from your input. Cgingold (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Adolph

I am not sure if the sources given in the article are enough to establish notability. Numerous such articles are present in wikipedia. I want a second opinion. Do you think this article meets WP:BIO? Please respond in your talk page. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say probably yes, but I don't have much experience with articles on military officers so I don't know how it meets standard practice. I don't think that every officer in a nation's army merits an article, but serving in wartime and receiving multiple decorations may be enough, particularly since you'd need to document those achievements through secondary sources, the existence of which would prove that the officer has been noticed by military historians. Postdlf (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GV/Riverdale CFD

The Socratic Barnstar
For some of the finest reasoning and argumentation I have ever seen displayed at CFD Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saul Steinberg Image

Thank you for your contribution to the Saul Steinberg image created and posted by me. I acknowlege your comments about derivative works/copyright and have removed the image. However my belief is that the work is clearly an original work of art using photography as an aid. Many artworks are created this way - eg Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can is an example.Can you detail your thoughts more fully? Thanks. Simonfieldhouse (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of what artists do to remake the work of others is justified by fair use, but even artists sometimes get sued for copyright infringement and lose. But we need to separate between what people, whether artists or not, do in practice out in the real world, and what the policies are on Wikipedia, which are more restrictive than what fair use may allow legally. Content posted to Wikipedia generally needs to be freely licensed by its author. In this case, you cannot claim to be the sole author of those drawings, because you took the subject's appearance, pose, composition, etc., of the drawings from the photographs you used as an "aid." As your drawings are derivatives of those photographs, the copyright owners of those photographs therefore have rights over whatever copyrightable elements you used from them in your drawings. And as none of those photographs are freely licensed, to post your derivative drawings on Wikipedia, you need to satisfy the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Non-free content. Really what that amounts to is that we have no more right to use your drawings than we would the underlying photographs, so we gain nothing in that adaptation as far as acquiring freely usable images and only lose accuracy in the translation from photograph to drawing. Also, derivatives cannot be uploaded to Commons. Postdlf (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and explanation for your actions. Of course I respect the policies of Wikipedia and will remove the images. Many thanksSimonfieldhouse (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)