User talk:Postdlf/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Oro Valley in Tucson, Arizona category

Hi and thanks for your help on Wikipedia. I see Oro Valley has been restored to the Tucson, Arizona category, but I wanted to make a case for why it should remain in the category. In the western U.S. cities and towns are generally much more isolated than on the east coast and thus have a stronger interdependency with nearby municipalities. Oro Valley is culturally, politically, and sentimentally linked to Tucson. Despite a 6 mile separation, the entire area including OV is referred to as greater Tucson and is included in the Tucson metropolitan area. Oro Valley shares congressional districts, legislative districts, and school districts with parts of Tucson. In fact Oro Valley public schools are administered from north Tucson. I hope this puts this into more perspective and let me know if you have questions or comments. Thanks for the time and input. Mxpc05 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Category is populated

Category:United States Supreme Court cases without an infobox is now chock full of cases meeting that description. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ace Young

Sorry about that. Paris, Taylor, Chris, and Elliott are my favorites. Lisa, Katharine, and Ayla are pretty good too. Va girl2468 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Elliott's definitely one of the better ones. As with Ace, I'm sure we'll be giving him back his own article once he makes it to the finals. I was surprised that David Radford wasn't voted off...his performance was terrible. Postdlf 02:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


How come you didn't put a redirect link for all of the current semi-finalists? You didn't do that for Lisa Tucker. Va girl2468 04:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Because being an Idol semi-finalist isn't her only claim to fame...she was also a Star Search finalist and had a role in the LA production of the Lion King musical. The combination of those three merit her an article. Postdlf 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katharine McPhee

I think that Katharine McPhee article, it will revert if she'll be in the final 12. - ApprenticeFan - 11:39 GMT 02/25/2006

Yes, absolutely. The final 12 always get an article of their own. I'm fairly confident she'll be one of them too...but until that happens, she has guaranteed herself no more place in history than Season 5 trivia. Postdlf 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Idol (Season 5)

Why are you redirect semi-final articles in AI5? I will restore it and why did you delete anyway? because I was changed my mind to restore them.

Because semi-finalists don't merit their own articles. Give them articles only once they reach the finals. None of the previous season's semi-finalists have their own articles unless they've accomplished something in addition to being an Idol contestant. There's simply nothing to say about them beyond including them in the list on the season article. Every time this has been put to a vote in the past, the result has been to redirect, if not to delete outright. Postdlf 22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Several of the (currently deleted) articles have links to news items or further information on semifinalists which is useful during the semifinals. These contestants are being viewed by millions three times a week, and however voting has gone in the past, the consensus so far this year seems to be that the semifinalists deserve article pages at this point in time. Maybe when the semifinals are over we can ditch the people who didn't make it, but in the meantime, more people are complaining about the redirects than asking for them. Wikipedia has changed since last year, and I don't think that we should necessarily be married to decisions made on the subject a year ago. Furthermore, since nulling whole articles and turning them into redirects is fairly major, there is discussion on the AI season five talk page. Please participate in the discussion before making major changes. As a final note, I don't feel your editing comments present a neutral POV, which concerns me. Please try to maintain a neutral POV. --Emperial 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've left my views on the Idol season 5 talk page. But I'm very confused about your POV comments. Could you further explain what you mean by my POV "editing comments"? Do you somehow mean my edit summaries? Postdlf 00:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I very much do mean the summaries. Even if no one aside from other editors will see them, I personally found the comments mean-spirited and sometimes derogatory, and thus they call into question the neutrality of the edits. It would be like if I edited an article on Nazis and made the summary "Nazis are pigs" on my edit. Who would trust someone who makes a comment like that to be able to make neutral edits? (I admit that's an hyperbole.) Take for example your comment on Stevie Scott, calling her "honey" and implying she's unworthy compared to Lisa Tucker. Maybe she's not as worthy to have a Wikipedia article in your opinion, but in my opinion, someone like KaDee Strickland doesn't deserve to have an article. My opinion, however, is not grounds for an edit. Therefore I refrain from editing KaDee's page since some other people want that page to exist. --Emperial 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who Strickland is, but that might be because I've only seen one of the movies listed in her filmography...also, achieving FA status means that plenty of Wikipedians have already considered her sufficiently notable for an article. I think I see where you're coming from regarding the edit summaries, but our POV policy covers content, and my occasional flippancy helps keep me entertained. Regarding the worthiness of Stevie Scott and Lisa Tucker, um...Scott was one of the first two semifinalists eliminated, while Tucker is still on the show, so on that measure alone... Additionally, Tucker was previously a finalist on Star Search, and had a role in the Lion King, while Scott has done what else? Yeah, I'd say there's a difference in worthiness there, and it's not POV for me to say so because the difference in accomplishment can be easily documented. I even consider Tucker herself to be borderline notable, so Scott certainly isn't going to pass the standard. Again on the issue of POV, I'm not even a Tucker fan; I thought her performance was rather pitchy/screechy and kinda boring. On the other hand, I'm quite fond of Katherine McPhee, yet I readily redirected her meager article. But who're you gonna believe... Postdlf 01:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Judging by my experience, you'll believe you and I'll believe me. ;) Oh well! Agree to disagree? (And if you check poor Miss Strickland's talk page, you'd see she sparked a major debate on her lack of noteworthiness, particularly with regards to her having been featured. Next time, they should feature someone important like Froda instead.) --Emperial 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd want FAs to be limited only to the most important topics, but I do wonder why anyone would care to invest so much time on someone like Strickland. BTW, you might be interested to take a look at how inclined towards deletion or redirection past discussions have been involving finalists, to get an idea of how little chance semifinalists would have of independent existence: EJay Day (who?), Mario Vasquez, Constantine (ignore the misspelling in the discussion) and, yes, even Carrie Underwood when she was just a wee finalist. These were all less than a year ago. The deletion discussion for Kimberly Caldwell was more favorable, but mainly based on the fact that she's had a post-Idol career.
Also, regarding those who were "notably" bad, or otherwise cut prior to even the semifinals, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonetta Johnson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hoover, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Wells, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Roach. Postdlf 01:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ace Young

Thank you for pointing that out. --Revolución hablar ver 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD

A category you recently commented on (Category:Wikipedians that poop) has been listed for deletion. Please see it's discussion here. Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mars confectionery products

This template has been nominated for deletion by an anonymous IP who has continually vandalized the template (constantly adding links to a Doctor Who Website) and who calls himself "Hartnell on WHEELS!" (as seen through his vandalism and his comment on TfD). Being that I am still a few months new here and you are an admin, could you please suggest the best thing for me to do? --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The "on wheels" reference is an old one, a recurring vandal (or his copycats) known as "Willy on Wheels" who is always blocked on sight. However, anon IPs are tricky, because you never know who's using them; the IP that nominated the template on TFD has no other edits, and the anon that vandalized the template has an unrelated IP that is an AOL proxy, and vandalized too many hours ago for me to block now. I did put a warning on the talk page of the one registered user who vandalized the template. It really comes down to a game of Whack-A-Mole. I'll put the template on my watchlist. In the future, you can always put a notice on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress if you notice that a particular article is getting repeatedly hit. Postdlf 05:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the compliment you wrote on the category wikipedians that poop saying that you are quite a fan of the cheap laugh it provided, and I agree with you that that should have been deleted it was quite useless.

[edit] Fancruft discussion

At Wikipedia talk:Fancruft, I reposted the comment you made at the Village Pump about the right and wrong way to wikify fictional universes. I thought it was perhaps the most useful observation I've read in my short time here at WP. I've gotten a couple of seconds for the idea of codifying this distinction. Nareek 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been trying to urge policy on this for awhile...I'm glad you agree. I'll take a look at the fancruft discussion when I have more time... I also recently posted something on the fancruft of canon that you might find relevant. Postdlf 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Bridie

Well spotted on noticing this article. I have done some preliminary cleanup work on the article but it still needs more work which I hope to do over the weekend. Nevertheless, I believe that the article now establishes his notability against WP:Music and I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mea culpa.

Good day,

The remark removed from the G.A.M.O.W article was done because the note about the redirect is no longer true. Feel free to verify that the Gamow link actually goes to a disambiguation page.

It had crossed my mind to send you this note before your reversion, but was concerned it might be perceived as Wikispam. In hindsight — considering the unintended appearance of unbecoming conduct — the courtesy note would have been apropos. Better late than never, methinks.

At any rate, please pardon my uncouthly revert.

Cheers. Folajimi 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, just remember that explanations on talk pages are never considered spam. I went ahead and just removed the reference to George Gamow, as that is not appropriate unless people would actually be coming to the first article looking for the second, particularly because of a redirect. Postdlf 19:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Censorship

As you're online it might be good if you did some last minute copyediting to the policy. Gerard Foley 02:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of SCOTUS clerks

Thanks. I hope to be able to fill it out quite a bit. Many law clerks became SCOTUS members, other jurists, or other famous legal minds in their own rights. All I have up right now are a handful of upcoming and future clerks, but it will come along. Perhaps you can fix my goof here, while getting the initial page ready, must have hit Save rather than preview one of the times before I thought about the WP:Naming conventions. Let me know if you have any suggestions. I stole the organization from one of the SCOTUS lists, perhaps there is a better way? Phil 22:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I already redirected the miscapitalized title to the proper one, so that's fixed. My only thought so far is that it might be better to have separate list articles for at least the longer serving justices, but that's something that can be split off later as needed. Postdlf 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mc hammer

in response to your edit summary "revert removals of unflattering facts--I'll block anyone who does it again".....that's highly inappropriate. Admins are not supposed to use their powers on entries they are involved with. Please see [1] ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This was not a content dispute, as you seem to have assumed; I've never previously edited that article, so I was not "involved with" any "edits." I was reverting obvious blanking vandalism, after someone had posted a notice on the Village pump that the article had been subject to repeated deletions that only removed information that was unflattering to the subject. You've overreacted and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Postdlf 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that your reversion IS involvment in of itself. I've been watching the article, and the "obvious blanking vandalism" isn't obvious at all...I've never heard of the information, and on the surface it appears pretty highly suspect. Is it verified, cited?⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is a fair presumption when an IP removes large chunks of text without explanation, even if that text turns out to be in whole or in part unreliable after further discussion. If you have specific content concerns, take them up with the regular editors of that article on the talk page; it's a topic in which I have no interest. Postdlf 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
that may be true, but responding with "And I'll ban anyone who deletes it" isn't the best way to go about it whatsoever, especially if as yous ay, you have no interest in the topic.

Secondarily, I apologize for the way the AN/I post came out, it wasn't meant to be an accusation, it was meant to be a question as to whether it was appropriate. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Burren

Keeping one pic as the lead sounds good to me and it solves the problem I was having after I adjusted that image for brightness and contrast but in the gallery it still looked dark and dull. Maybe you noticed that when you moved the pic out of the gallery. Cheers ww2censor 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Tina Louise as Ginger.gif

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tina Louise as Ginger.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.Rossrs 13:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion review

Hi, I've requested your deletion of Category:Roman Catholic actors be reviewed. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. Gentgeen 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Verizon Center

I'll take a look at it, see what i can come up with. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the only real thing i could come up with, was putting " then know as MCI Center", after when it mentions Verizon center. It would be nice if we could get at least one different image though, considering that both are of the same side of the Verizon Center, just taaken at different times. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My User Page

Thanks for doing vandal patrol on my user page.--MikeJ9919 05:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming D.C. Nat'l Memorial category

I have been slowing working to improve and standardize national memorial articles. I have had a feeling for awhile that Category:National memorials in Washington, DC (created by you on June 25, 2004), should be renamed something like Category:Memorials in Washington, D.C.. My reasons are two-fold:

  1. The "DC" vs. "D.C." is a simple matter of category naming convetion.
  2. While the federal designation is admittedly a bit vague, I think there are many public memorials in the District that would never be properly labeled as "National Memorials". For example, the James A. Garfield Monument and the Taft Memorial on the grounds of the Capitol[2] or the Navy-Marine Memorial on Columbia Island. Also, by my count (including proposed, etc.), there are only about 40-45 proper "National Memorials" in the entire U.S., so I don't think the Category:National Memorials of the United States needs subdividing.

Pleasee let me know if you have any thoughts on the matter, before I propose a CfR. — Eoghanacht talk 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Something to consider, however, is that there is not a Category:Memorials in the United States to serve as a parent to your proposed DC category. Perhaps one should be created? Postdlf 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

CfR Notice: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:National memorials in Washington, DC to Category:Memorials in Washington, D.C. -- Your input is welcome. I also created the category you suggested. — Eoghanacht talk 15:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .co.nr

thank you for deleting. see also, Co.nr by the same moron. Thx. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, never mind then. :) - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Lichte

Thank you for undeleting Arthur Lichte. It was the first article I started from scratch.Dolive21 16:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My First Cult

Since you prodded it, I thought you might want to weigh in at its AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My First Cult NickelShoe (Talk) 03:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer Bats

I dont know how to talk to you so I'll do it this way. I made the Cancer Bats page. They are a band from Toronto that in past few weeks have recieved signifigant airtime on MuchMusic. The introduction I used is taken directly from their myspace. Please let me keep this page, since when they release their cd and become ultra famous I want my name on their page first.Avenged Evanfold 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the way to talk to me. Wanting to be first to document them is not a very good reason for an article. Have they signed with a recognized label, or is this CD going to be self-released? They only had 273 unique google hits, which is rather insignificant for a band in this day and age. They don't have a listing on All Music Guide, which also doesn't bode well. Do you have anything else for me? Postdlf 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Even though I'm convinced it won't survive, I listed your last repost for a longer deletion discussion instead of deleting it on sight again (maybe because you said "please"). Leave your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Bats, but expect a skeptical crowd. Postdlf 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up after that/those vandal(s) on my user page! --MJ(☎|@|C) 17:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Censorship

I just wanted to know if you will release your additions to this policy page to the public domain. I still think they are very good, even if others don't agree. Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Gerard Foley 23:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I plan to use it on my own wiki in the future. These censorship debates seem to be getting worse on Wikipedia. It's probably due to the fact that WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not censored and no guidelines are available to say what type of images can and can not be used. This can give people (I was one of them) the wrong idea about the "taboo" subjects. Oh, well... Gerard Foley 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for starting SCOTUS cases

I've added the following template: Template:SCOTUS-case - to start a new U.S. Supreme Court case article, just type {{subst:SCOTUS-case|name of case|reporter volume|reporter page|year}} (example: {{subst:SCOTUS-case|Muskrat v. United States|219|346|1911}}). This will automatically create the external link to Findlaw, and year-in-law category. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops...

Sorry about having the categories on my user subpage. I forgot to edit them out when I copied the article at Youngstown, Ohio for sandboxing. Thanks for catching that! -- SwissCelt 04:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glaswegians

I'm a proud Glaswegian, but you may have a point that these localised references are not obvious and would be better put as information on more obviously named categories. Trouble is, you've stepped on a hotbed of Scottish feeling. If you want to persue this, I'd suggest you open a centralised discusion on 'people from cities naming conventions', and cite examples from various countries and continents. You'll get a better debate that way. --Doc ask? 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean to pick on Glasgow or Scots; it just happened to be a category that I noticed (and that took me a minute to figure out what it meant before I clicked on it), and I hate local demonym forms in category names generally. Maybe I'll start a centralized discussion one of these days... Postdlf 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] don't vandalise

i realise you are an administrator, but you still shouldn't vandalize my user page. when the cops break law, where can you turn? --Ghetteaux 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I deactivated the category tag you applied to your user page; that's not vandalism. Don't apply categories that were made to contain articles to your user page. Postdlf 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I put the policy up on my wiki. I'm still very impressed by how well it's written. Thanks, Gerard Foley 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Steven Seagal

When I saw your comment, I looked back at the debate, and I still saw only 3 delete vs 2 keep. But you said it was 4 delete, so I kept looking and looking, and finally I spotted the Delete from Her Pegship. For some stupid reason I just was not seeing that one. You are right. 3-2 is not a delete, but 4-2, especially with one of the 2 being weak as you pointed out, is. I'll change the result right away. It may still be a while for it to be removed. The Working page for CFD is horridly backlogged with the CFD bot down. - TexasAndroid 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Postdlf 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New case law category?

Hi, Postdlf, I noticed that you created a new category of U.S. Case Law: Category:United States securities case law. I took a course in Securities Regulation last term in law school, so if you want to collaborate on this (for example, by making a list of important cases to be added to this category), I would be quite happy to help. Think it over, and then get back to me and let me know what you think.

I thank you in advance for your input.

--Eastlaw 21:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of my work involves securities fraud defense, but I never took the class; you probably have a more comprehensive picture than I do of what the leading cases are. Right now I'm just focusing on recent SCOTUS cases. Postdlf 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gogafax's images

Hello, Postdlf. I tagged them with the no source tag because no source for the images is listed (only Gogafax can know where s/he got the images). While the works of art may be in the public domain, is it clear that any reproduction of them is, also? If you are happy to take the responsibility on yourself of tagging them with {{PD-art}} then by all means go ahead. In fact, if you are willing, why not be really public spirited and upload them to commons while you're about it? Very best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Usage

Postdlf,

Will you grant permission to use your Pike Place Market photo in conjunction with the release of a DVD about Historic preservation of the Market? The movie was created in the 1970's and has been converted to digital format for posterity and will be shown in conjunction of the upcoming 100th Anniversary of the market. I don't know if this is the proper method to get in touch, but I could find no other way to contact you.

Many Thanks,

-ejg

I might be interested—please give me more details, preferably by clicking on the link to the right that says "e-mail this user." Postdlf 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperbole???

Calling Apprendi a landmark case is HYPERBOLE???

How in the world can Apprendi not be considered a landmark case? Its major bright-line statement regarding the jury trial has had a huge impact on the criminal justice system. When I came upon the article, I was shocked that landmark hadn't already been applied. Thanks to Apprendi and its progeny (Blakely, Booker, etc), the entire federal sentencing guidelines system is now advisory. Tens of thousands of criminal sentences were thrown into jeopardy. If you are still unconvinced, ask any criminal law professor about Apprendi and see what he/she says. (Or, for that matter, any federal judge.)

As just one example, let's use the Google test. Do a Google search for "Apprendi v. New Jersey" (Make sure you leave it in quotes so it searches for it as a phrase.) You'll find 128,000 matches. Now do a search for "Mapp v. Ohio" (again, with the quotes). You'll find 104,000 matches.

If you're still not convinced, do a Lexis or Westlaw search and note how many cases refer to Apprendi. (Not to mention Blakely, Booker, or the rest of the post-Apprendi right to jury trial cases.)

A good analogy might be that Apprendi is to Blakely what Griswold was to Roe. And no one claims that Griswold wasn't a landmark decision. YellowPigNowNow 00:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Apprendi gets more google hits than Mapp is because of the web's bias towards recent events—Apprendi is cited to in two very recent SCOTUS cases, and is itself a rather recent decision. I'd personally reserve the label "landmark" for cases whose impact has been assessed over time (as with Mapp, Griswold, Roe, the youngest of which is still over thirty years old), if such a vague and unverifiable descriptive is to be used at all, but I'm not going to fight with you if you stick it back in. Just consider it a difference of opinion. Postdlf 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking 216.254.126.222

here is your statement on Talk:Lou Dobbs

Nonsense. First, you've requested arbitration (which I'm not even sure an anonymous IP can do). Second, you're ignoring consensus on this talk page by removing the links. Do it again and I'll block you for vandalism. Cheers, Postdlf 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, yes an anon can request arbitration. As per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests.

Secondly I really don't like the tone in which you addressed this user... seems to me to be a vauge threat to use your admin powers... If this user needs to be blocked, I would suggest that you get another admin to do the blocking.

Thats just my two cents , I came across this while watching for vandals.Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that threat was vague—I thought it was pretty clear. Postdlf 15:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Garofala

You are wrong to have deleted this page. The basis of the information was the Barnard page but the material was rewritten and reformatted. Skywriter 04:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring formatting changes such as bullet points and line breaks, the first paragraph of your post (up until "...The Times Literary Supplement") was taken verbatim from the third paragraph at http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/newnews/news050205b.html. The second paragraph "Garofala has guest curated..." is identical to the fourth paragraph on Barnard's site, except for where you substituted "these exhibitions" for "two upcoming exhibitions." The final paragraph was taken from the fifth Barnard paragraph, which you changed only by dropping two words and adding the sentence about her husband. This was nowhere near enough rewriting to keep this from being a clear copyright infringement. Postdlf 04:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Further this is NOT copyrighted material. It is a news release and I rewrote it, using only facts. Facts are NOT copyrightable, only the way they are presented. When universities issue press releases, they expect the information to be copied and re-used. You have overstepped.

What are the options to appeal this decision?

Thanks. Skywriter 04:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For what is and is not copyrightable, see The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook: A Step-By-Step Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers by Lloyd J. Jassin and Steven C. Schechter. Skywriter 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually a lawyer, but thanks for the reference anyway. Your post didn't merely use facts; it copied the exact wording and order of how those facts were presented with very little change. The Barnard page in question has a clear copyright notice at the bottom, with no suggestion that the text has been released for use in any way beyond display on their own website. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place to appeal deletions, but I think your time would be better spent actually rewriting the article in your own words. Postdlf 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the advice on how you think my time is better spent. I think your time would be better spent talking to volunteers before destroying their work, suggesting changes you think can be made, rather than summarily killing pages.

I read through the page and do not find it easy to understand how to go about requesting a review. I find what you did discouraging. I saved that page once, and went back to put the source on it, and it was gone. That was within seconds of its creation. This was heavy-handed on your part and I protest. If you had a concern, you had the option to tag the page, talk to me on my talk page, not to delete it. Your personal policy of killing this page makes me feel I should not be giving my time to Wikipedia. Why should I rewrite the page when you could as easily have reversed what you wrongfully did and suggest ways to modify it to meet objections?

From what I read of the sole Jimbo policy on immediate deletions, this one did not qualify.

If you are a lawyer, you seem not to have a clear grasp of the purpose of public affairs pages is to disseminate facts and in the case of public affairs at a university to disseminate facts about faculty. This is a public affairs page.

You also appear ignorant of this: facts are not copyrightable. Her book titles, her awards, her professional activities. Those are all facts, not copyrightable. That was what was on that page and it was formatted differently from what was on the Barnard page, and most of it was worded slightly differently. Because it was a recitation of facts, the choice of alternate wording was limited.

I protest the heavyhandedness, do not know enough about the Wikipedia appeals processes to challenge this, and I lack the time to do so. I will take it no further because it is not easy to figure out how to appeal.

Count what you did tonight as a contributing factor in chasing a prolific contributor from Wikipedia. I feel the work I do here has been disrespected. Skywriter 07:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet alert, please come help

User 68.161.222.151 User Goddessy

Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.161.222.151

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY


All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User 68.161.222.151 signs her comments with GODDESSY

I don't know if this is just user 68.161.222.151 accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule.

Both 68.161.222.151 and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams )

Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules.


JuliannaRoseMauriello 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer Bats Are Back

I just thought that you should know that the Cancer Bats will be playing a show on MTV Canada and their debut release will be coming out on 06/06/06. I am hoping these are valid reasons to bring back my article. I saved it, so as soon as you will allow me, I will bring it back. I brought this to you becuase you originally deleted it and because I decided to follow the rules and modify the archived talk page. If you still wont allow the page to be put up I'll just be back to badger you after they win an award. Avenged Evanfold 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Um just to add, heres the bulletin they put up on myspace.com: [TEXT OF BULLETIN REDACTED BY POSTDLF DUE TO COPYRIGHT CONCERNS] Avenged Evanfold 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste text you find elsewhere into this site. Even something as short as that bulletin is protected by copyright. If you want to challenge the deletion based on new information, deletion review is the process for doing that; I won't unilaterally undo the deletion. My advice is to just wait until after that album is released, and then post information about it (such as media coverage, a link to its allmusic.com review) on deletion review; your chances will be much better then. Postdlf 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

K thanks, I'll hold my horses and keep my pants on. But theres no way that text was copyrighted, it was free information they sent through myspace. It was basically a flyer. Avenged Evanfold 01:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you can view it for free on their website (or even from free physical copies) doesn't mean that you can copy it without infringement. But anyway, yeah, drop me a line after the album's been released and the media's picked up on it, and I'll help you do the deletion review if I think it's warranted. Postdlf 02:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that their interview and live performance on MTV Live is available on MTV.ca right now. I think thats pretty good but If you think I should wait then I'll wait. Avenged Evanfold 17:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Stephanie Adams

Fine by me - I'd just as soon not get into floods upon floods of arguments. I'd like to check in with MarkGallagher (the protecting admin) rather than just breaking his protection, though. FreplySpang (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense; I'll drop him a note. Postdlf 03:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Your block of user GODDESSY was deeply inappropriate given that (a) you have been edit warring with her on that very page and (b) that this is clearly either the subject of the article or her representative. Please just stay away from this page completely and let other people edit it. I am of the opinion that you should lose your sysop rights for this, but I am asking the ArbCom for a second opinion before doing it.--Jimbo Wales 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've acted inappropriately. I feel very strongly about Wikipedia, and I can get rather riled up when I believe someone is acting contrary to its principles, particularly when I think its integrity is being undermined by self-promotion. Given my past involvement with the article, I should have waited for other admins to block that user. I've taken the article off my watchlist, and will leave it up to others to keep an eye on what happens there. Regards, Postdlf 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nativist revert wars

At what point can we say that Hobson's Second Choice and Wigwam are vandals? Every edit they've made or article they've created has either been an unsourced smear, a POV attack, or a revert without explanation. -- FRCP11 00:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've already blocked Wigwam for that conduct; I'll look at Hobson's Second Choice again too. Postdlf 02:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I strongly suspect WP:SOCK, too. Compare their contribution histories and their use of similar phrases in attacking other posters. --FRCP11 02:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)