User talk:Postdlf/Archive9

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] List of X Y

You might be interested in contributing to the discussions now on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 4. It seems these things are never over. Hasdrubal 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would be grateful if you could reconsider your vote on Jewish mathematicians. Category:Jews would be much too large and uninteresting a category without subdivisions, and occupation is probably a more interesting subdivision than any other Arniep 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the size of a category is relevant to whether one can or should find meaningful subdivisions within the topic, and if the subdivision is not meaningful, then it is trivial or random. Unless someone can explain to me how being Jewishness is categorically and significantly interrelated with being a mathematician, I cannot support that category. Postdlf 17:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judges

  • Excellent suggestion, I will keep it in mind...thanks! P.S. if you ever hear of a WP meetup around New York let me know Paul 18:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. There's a meetup scheduled for June 12 in Manhattan; see Wikipedia:Meetup for details. Postdlf 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent! I hope to be there. Regarding the category, I think it should be kept at Category:(State) judges, since it is for people who have held judgeships within a given state, but not necessarily judges of state-level courts. I realize that this could potentially be a bit confusing, but mentioning the difference in the category page should avoid most problems. Of course, if consensus says otherwise, then I will not protest a change of the categories. Paul 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Erroneous removal of underscores

Hi Postdlf,

oops! My apologies, it's quite clearly a mistake, and thanks for pointing it out.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The World of Kong and copyright

Although I question the encyclopedic value of this material, I do not see a copyright concern. While copyright does extend to characters (there is a famous case where a screenwriter's proposed treatment for Rocky IV was deemed an infringement of the character created by Stallone), that only applies to use of characters in the context of competing works of fiction. Here, the author of these articles is basically trying to relate factual descriptions of these fictional creatures, not to create stories featuring them as characters. That's the short answer. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no "facts" here when there were no prior depictions of the creatures. In Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, for example, the writers were making an informational work that drew its facts from the portrayals of the characters, albeit with greater precision than the stories ever depicted. In The World of Kong, the creatures were (presumably) invented in that book, so there is no such prior referent from which such "facts" could have been derived. It's total fiction rather than information about fiction, just as The Onion should be viewed, for copyright purposes, as pure fiction rather than informative news about fictional events. Postdlf 00:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I see what you are saying - the authors of The World of Kong invented their facts out of whole cloth, not out of anything shown in the movies or previously discussed elsewhere. Nevertheless, their descriptions of the things they invent can be described again by others, so long as the secondhand descriptions do copy the originals too closely. Let's I write a book about a fictional planet called (er...) Zeist, and carefully describe how:
"...it's giant ice mountains and twin seas of methane border on a fantastic glass and bronze castle jutting out on a penisula and guarded by black knights who ride giant dragon-like insects"
Well, anyone else could quite rightfully say that
"BD2412 wrote about a planet called Zeist with features such as ice mountains, methane seas. Abramson descried the planet as having "a fantastic glass and bronze castle" on a peninsula, and wrote of the guardians of the castle being "black knights who ride giant dragon-like insects."
There, I have no copyright cause of action because the speaker is merely describing my work, even though it is a totally new invention at the time of my writing. The describer need only attribute the invention to me, and either describe what I have invented in their own words or keep it to small chunks of the whole, and in quotes. What another writer can not do it write their own book on a planet called, say Geist which happens to have...
"giant ice mountains and twin seas of methane bordering on a fantastic glass and bronze castle that jutts out on a penisula, guarded by black knights who ride giant dragon-like insects".
Despite fine differences, the similarities are enough to give rise to an infringement suit. Similarly, another can not copy a few pages of my description into a Wikipedia article on what Planet Zeist looks like, although they are in the clear to write an article on Planet Zeist just as they may on Planet Hoth, or any other invention of Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, etc., even if it has appeared neither in book nor film, but only in a fictional reference book describing fictional creatures as seen in the film. The question, then, is whether the World of Kong entries are copies or paraphrases; whether all attibute their source; and whether they are notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 04:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, BDAbrahamson. As for your final question- these are paraphrases of the info in the book, but each article has an intro specifying the source, and some additionally refer to the pages in which the creature in question is described. As for how noteable they are, if they're not they could be moved to the World of Kong page, with the more noteable ones retaining their seperate pages. The question is: wouldn't this make the World of Kong page much too big? On a side note, the creatures from Pokémon (over twice as much as the ones from The World of Kong) also have their own pages. Jerkov 09:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The creatures from Pokemon don't exist only in a single book, but across a whole industry of various media. Are we correct in saying that the creatures described in the World of Kong only exist in that book, and not in other works of fiction? If that is true, there is absolutely no value in documenting all of them, any more than for an article on a novel to give a page-by-page description of its contents.
And so that addresses the issue of notability and encyclopedic value... As for them being "paraphrases", I think BD and I will agree, even if we're conceptualizing this problem differently, that if all you copied the structure of the original material and only swapped some words for their synonyms, you've probably committed copyright infringement. Where BD and I seem to diverge is whether the World of Kong book sufficiently consists of uncopyrightable ideas or facts, such that to describe its contents in the manner and scope you have done is not copyright infringement. Postdlf 14:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No Pokemon should have its own page if it was not at least featured on TV. The World of Kong creatures that did not appear in other media should indeed be merged into the article on the book, and stripped down to the minumim necessary to express what they are. Anyone who needs to know more can buy the book. As to copyright, I can give no opinion as to whether the current presentation of material infringes without comparing it to the original, and would echo Postdlf's caution against a mere swapping of synonyms. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BD, did you read the Seinfeld trivia book case in copyright class? I just dug it up, it's probably the case that most made me think this was an infringement issue. "Unlike the facts in a phone book, which do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, each ‘fact’ tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. The SAT does not quiz such true facts as the identity of the actors in Seinfeld, the number of days it takes to shoot an episode, the biographies of the actors, the location of the Seinfeld set, etc. Rather, The SAT tests whether the reader knows that the character Jerry places a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital, that Kramer enjoys going to the airport because he's hypnotized by the baggage carousels, and that Jerry, opining on how to identify a virgin, said ‘It's not like spotting a toupee.’ Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors, The SAT plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression." Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publ'g Group, 150 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal marks and citations omitted). The court also went into a lengthy fair use discussion and found that the book was not transformative of the protected expression. Postdlf 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This requires a prolonged "hmmmmm" and further investigation on my part. The case is available here, and would make a nifty article as well. BD2412 T 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treble damages

Just started an article on this... any idea why it's "treble" as opposed to double or quintuple or whatnot? BD2412 T 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. It might just have been one of those arbitrary decisions somewhere in misty legal history that just happened to catch on...I'll keep an eye out for information on this. I think RICO actions also provide for treble damages, btw. Postdlf 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You would be correct, sir![1] BD2412 T 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I'm in an edit war on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell and The People vs. Larry Flynt with someone who wants to push a POV he read in an essay that criticizes the SCOTUS decision. He finally wrote a NPOV version (though poorly) in the case article, but still keeps adding it to the movie article, where it just doesn't belong. Could you help me manage this issue? Postdlf 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Holmes v. South Carolina, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Postdlf 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added an important article...

about the very important U.S. Supreme Court case of Cooper v. Aaron. If you have time, please make any comments/revisions you can. I appreciate your feedback. --Eastlaw 04:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PUI

Can you help answer to my posting here? Evrik still doesn't get it *sigh* --Jiang 06:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of Oz on DRV

My apologies for the bulk-nature of this message, but as someone who had participated in the CFD for the "X Gang of Oz" categories recently I felt that you should be notified that they were up for review here. This is not a solicitation of a specific response there (all users who participated were notified), but if you feel you have some insight I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infobox help request

Hey, when you get a chance, can you fix the infobox at Mobile v. Bolden? The bottom two blue sections don't have the proper black lines surrounding them. It's a minor point, but if you can tell me what I did wrong, I'll do it right in the future. Thanks, Postdlf. --Kchase02 (T) 19:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't know, because I never work with the template versions; I find it much easier just to copy and paste the table code directly into an article. See Holmes v. South Carolina for a recent example. Postdlf 20:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
lol. Oh man, this is exactly what Dread Lord complained about recently. Oh well, I tend to agree that the table coding is easier to workwith than the templates themselves.
Yeah, he and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. Plus the more we have un-subst:'d templates, the more wiki-servers are taxed. It's minimal for the SCOTUS templates as compared to, say, Template:Test, but still, it counts. Postdlf 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent pirate

Please could you have a look at patent pirate and give us your opinion as to whether we should make it a disambig or redirect to patent infringement or not. See the discussion on Talk:patent pirate. Nowa thinks we should keep the article. I do not concur. Thanks --Edcolins 07:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually unfamiliar with patent law (copyright and trademark are as far as I dip into IP), but I'll pass the issue on to someone who knows more. Postdlf 14:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License plates

Hm, seems to me the anon is pretty specifically removing pretty specific images -- all of them, I think, added by User:WashingtonWillie a couple months ago -- he might indeed be doing the right thing in the wrong way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. He has failed to identify the website, and I furthermore doubt these would be independently copyrightable anyway as the plates are so flat that these are ultimately just 2-D scans (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). Until he stops to actually discuss this, I think we should continue reverting the removals. Postdlf 15:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, except at least one is not, unless he's totally lying -- at least, the Pennsylvania flat one was a complete fabrication -- a hypothetical, created with PhotoShop. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a little confusing, but it seems from the edit summaries that he's claiming someone Photoshopped it from an original image taken from his website. I think he's saying it's fake as altered. Postdlf 16:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank You! The PA is completely made up, based on the 06 PA on my web site (www.15q.net/pa.html.) Check the serial on the 2006 stickers (blurry, but readable). How do I get rid of these images?

Well, wait a second. In what way does this constitute a copyright violation? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I also doubt you can claim copyright over these, the PA plate in particular. I'm also trying to figure out your claim that it was "made up";it seems that at the most, this was altered to be an accurate representation of the test plate numbering, which doesn't make it "made up" in the sense of being inaccurate. The changes made to it would furthermore sufficiently transform the original image so as to remove what little claim you had to copyright over it.
If you can list for me all of the images you claim to own along with the URLs where they can be found, and explain how you made the images in the first place, I'll post them in the right place for you for wider consideration. Just please stop removing them for now. Postdlf 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Sorry for any confusion, on the Wikipedia copyright page it makes mention of simily deleting copyrighted material yourself. As to copyright, I have a clear copyright notice on my web site at www.15q.net/disc.html. My main objection to WashingtonWillie's Photoshop work is that the end result is an inaccurate representation of the plates in question. As to the Pennsylvania plate, the flat plates referenced in the text do not exist. It's not that he used my image to create a representation, it's that he made something up out of whole cloth and posted it as fact. Same with the Massachusetts plate on the US License Plates page that he claims was made by Waldale, Ltd. In fact, the image is of my 2003 Massachusetts with characters from my 2000 Arkansas pasted on. An observer of the page would leave with the inaccurate impressions that A) Massachusetts uses a ABC-12D serial format, and B) Waldale ever made their plates, neither of which is accurate.

In any case, the images that are definitely Photoshops of pictures from my site are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CT02ZZ-4710.jpg

(modified number, original image at http://www.15q.net/us1/ct02.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2003_Massachusetts_license_plate.jpg

(modified from my 03 Mass at http://www.15q.net/us3/ma03a.jpg coupled with serial at http://www.15q.net/us1/ar00.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NV02ARA-599.jpg

(modified number, original image at http://www.15q.net/us3/nv02.jpg)

Note that the images on my web site are of plates that I personally own from my collection and have created images of myself via scanner.

Ok, I'll leave it up to you to deal with the inaccurate ones, along with the other contributors to those respective articles. Just make sure you put an explanation in your edit summaries, and a fuller explanation on the talk page of the article might also be a good idea.
Regarding the other images, I hope we can take another approach because we have a common goal here. Based on your website, you're obviously very interested in sharing information on the history of license plate designs. This also has been one of a multitude of topics to be documented on Wikipedia, and your images and knowledge could be very valuable to this project. With your permission, I'd be happy to change the description pages for every image so that you are credited as the author, your website's URL is given, and the images are licensed by you under the GFDL. We welcome any further contributions you would like to make to our site, as people with specific passions such as yours are really what has made this project great. Postdlf 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd settle for getting the Pennsylvania fake off there for now, as that caused a minor uproar in the plate collecting community recently until someone made the connection between the Wikipedia image and the original stolen from my site. Again, I probably wouldn't raise an issue at all if the images weren't being modified to the point of inaccuracy.
As for image credits, the subsequent modifications to my original images put me in an odd position. I'd compare it to my taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty and posting it online, then having someone steal the image, Photoshop two extra heads on it, then post it to Wikipedia claiming it was unveiled last month as the new, improved statue. I'd be annoyed that the image was stolen, but also wouldn't want credit for the revised version. Right now, I'd really just like to see WashigtonWillie's Photoshop work removed due to inaccuracy on top of copyright questions.
One solution would be for you to register a username, and then upload the correct images from your website to the same name as WashingtonWillie's images; this will replace the incorrect versions, and you can then clearly set forth your attribution as author. Postdlf 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that may be the best path. The system won't let me overwrite the old files, but I was able to upload the correct Massachusetts image, then edit the entry to point to the new file, explaining what I was doing in the Edit Summary. Hopefully this method will work and not run afowl of any policies regarding edits.
Great, thanks! One more tip: you can sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end: ~~~~ Postdlf 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Aw, c'mon, I just figure out the "colons at the beginning to offset your reply" thing and now I need to learn how to sign, too?!? Lots to take in on a Friday... Thanks for all the help, I appreciate it. 15qdotnet 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Peace Offering
Can we set aside our difference and work together? --evrik 19:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC).
Sure, but that will require you to actually respond directly to our points instead of yelling past us. Please see the most recent comments on this issue at PUI; you're probably going to get the result you want (and I want—I never wanted these images to be removed), but we need to do it properly by establishing that Template:CopyrightedFreeUse applies, rather than incorrectly asserting that the images are in the public domain. Allowing unrestricted public usage and lacking the right to restrict public usage are two different things. Postdlf 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh pulleze. I responded to all the points. All the images are in the public domain. Did you see Jarth's set of explanation about the pictures? --evrik 20:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • None of the images Jarth mentioned were the commissioned paintings at issue; some were gov't staff photos which were public domain as works of government employees (not commissioned), and another was an 1828 image for which the copyright had expired. At this point, I don't think you even understand what "public domain" means. You're wasting everyone's time by continuing to quibble about that losing issue rather than trying to help establish and document what license each painting may be released under. Postdlf 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Howard Thomas Markey, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Scotus case project

At BD2412 encouragement, I'm attempting to revive the case project. Any input you can provide would be welcome. I've listed some specific concerns on the talk page, though BD seems to be on a wikibreak, so we may have to wait a few days to get his input.--Kchase02 (T) 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] articles

You seem to be focused on pissing off individual contributors rather than improving articles. I think you know what i'm talking about - please think about the greater good of wikipedia when editing and stop being so short sighted. THE KING 08:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know what you're talking about, unless you're talking about my removal on several occasions of your unverified OR POV student vanity from the Monash dorm articles.[2],[3],[4],[5]. Do you think you have a valid argument as to how it improves Wikipedia to add claims about the nightly drinking and fornicating habits of dorm residents, or such statements as "Damien Barnett is an absolute hero, who single handedly manages Farrer Halls extensive equipment inventory. However it is also rumored that his recent room relocation occured because he is a communist."[6] Postdlf 14:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that damian barnett did any of that, i dont even know who he is. I was reverting your malicious deletion of a large body of good text on that page. If you have a problem with damian barnett being a communist you should have removed the offending statement.
    • Take that last revert for example. Why did you also have to de-wikify the links? Wouldn't it have been better to simply remove the offending statement like a normal editor, rather than going on a personal vendetta by reverting the entire edit? You have done this on many other occasions as well. THE KING 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court cases

I appologize if I have offended you by leaving the article the way it was. You are right, it should not have been left the way it was. Glad to see the effort put into the article. However, I do have a bone to pick with you regarding the Infobox. Is there some reason you didn't use the {{SCOTUSRecentCase}} Infobox? In the past you have used it, so I hope you did not switch to the manual version out of spite. --Assawyer 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually have never used the templates. The infobox was actually my creation originally, which I have always applied through direct copy and pasting of the table code. Other editors subsequently developed a template system for it. I never use the templates because I think the sheer number required makes any supposed benefit minimal, and even with the degree of modularity it achieves, the inherent inflexibility of templates can still be a problem, as with Garcetti v. Ceballos which requires an extra argument date. So I personally find it easier to just copy and paste the table text directly and modify as needed from case to case, but feel free to use the templates yourself as long as you achieve the same functionality in the end.
As for starting articles, don't even worry about the infobox if you can't fill the info in; it doesn't benefit us any more to have an empty infobox on an article than none at all, and it looks worse. Always start an article by writing its introductory paragraph in a few sentences, which establishes the context and all the relevant basics of the topic. Don't save the article until you have at least that much done. Nothing is gained by just posting what are effectively empty title placeholders, and the infobox and further details can come later. Postdlf 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question. I agree the templates do make things more modular and tedious at times, but in the end it achieves a more streamlined article that in my opinion is easier to edit. But I'm not going to loose sleep over trying to convert you to using the Templates exclusively. In regards to the reargue date, all you have to do is without adding "|" at the end of "ArgueYear=2006" you hit enter, write the line and then place "|" after the reargued date.
As to starting the article and leaving it unfinished, I already appologized for starting the article and not adding the information:

I appologize if I have offended you by leaving the article the way it was. You are right, it should not have been left the way it was.

I realize I could have expounded on my appology and comments regarding my error in leaving the article barely started. Rehashing the comment you left on my Talk page is unneeded. I got it the first time and will adjust my editing accordingly. Thanks. --Assawyer 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to rehash, just trying to be helpful. Postdlf 13:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer Bats

I think the time has come to recreate the Cancer Bats page. My main reason to do it now is because I found out that on Aug 14 they will be playing with NOFX in Halifax. If that isnt enough this summer they will playing with Silverstein and Protest The Hero. Also the CD is coming out on the 6th, or presale show on Friday hosted by a major Toronto radio station The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM). On a side note I found the album on a downloading program and personally I think its going be big in the metal scene. Add all this to the reasons I gave before, with the video and the MuchMusic and MTVCanada apearances I believe they are at the very least "Notable". So please help me with the receation, I have the file saved on Word (with the appropiate updates since the time it was removed) to be put up at a moments notice. Thanks Avenged Evanfold 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I promise I will post the notice myself on WP:DRV if you will just wait until after the album is released. Remind me the very next day, on the 7th, and I will do this for you. Postdlf 23:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Deal. Avenged Evanfold 23:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Its the 7th! Ive got my word document ready and waiting. Avenged Evanfold 20:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what's the name of the album? I'm having trouble verifying it. Amazon.com lists Birthing the Giant with a release date of June 15, 2006. Allmusic.com still does not have an entry for the band. Postdlf 21:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I bought the album from Liam Cormier (the singer) in person but I saw the album on the front shelves of Sunrise Records yesterday (the 6th). This is a record store that has locations throughout Ontario. I havent checked HMV yet. The release date is both on their site and their record label, Distort Entertainment. They also went on the radio (as I mentioned before) and announced the date as 06/06/06 ("because its mad evil")

But I need third-party verification that this is a notable release, something like a magazine review. Local record stores typically sell local artists' records, so that won't help. Postdlf 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[7] hmv amazon says june 6th 2006, maybe you had the american release date or something Avenged Evanfold 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like you're right. And I believe Universal Music Group is a major label, so you might be in business. If you could make a quick list of the other notable facts about the artist that are relevant to WP:MUSIC (just bullet point them below this comment), I'll put it together and post an undeletion request. I'll let you know when I do that so you can vote in it too. Postdlf 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

and sunrise records has almost 30 stores around ontario, its not international but i wouldnt call it local either Avenged Evanfold 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Released a sampler, an EP and an album
  • Album is sold in Sunrise Records and HMV
  • Video recieves rotation on MuchLoud (a show on MuchMusic)
  • Had an interview and played a live show on MTV Canada Live
  • Appeared on The Edge 102.1 (CFNY-FM) and the single was played at least once.
  • Played with bands such as The Bled, Protest The Hero, will play with NOFX and Silverstein this summer
  • Signed to same indie label as The Bled and Alexisonfire, Distort Entertainment
  • Has toured across Canada and is already on tour again with destinations from Moncton NB to Vancouver BC Avenged Evanfold 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You can now show your support for undeletion here. I always try to keep my promises.  ; ) Good luck, Postdlf 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, theres doesnt seem to much of a fight to keep cancer bats deleted... Avenged Evanfold 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. See? Patience wins out.  : ) If you would have jumped the gun and pushed for undeletion before you had more information on your side, you probably would have lost, and then that would've made it even more difficult to try again. Now just wait and see if, when the WP:DRV listing is closed, it is restored free and clear or relisted on AFD; either are possibilities. Postdlf 13:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AHBL / Brian Bruns

Hi Postdlf. I left a response to your concerns at Talk:Brian J. Bruns. --Chakabuh 07:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you'd want to know...

...of the change. Cheers! BD2412 T 08:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the change? A need for pseudonimity? Postdlf 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCOTUS case related stuff

Postdlf, I did a summary for Whitman v. DOT at the 2005 per curiams page. It's kinda long and could use other review anyway. I also changed the second instruction back for starting new cases on the project page. I don't think you can finish the article without saving, b/c when you put in text after the template, it just goes below everything else (including the external link that gets subst'ed). See User:Chaser/sandbox, for example. --Kchase02 (T) 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll take a look at both of those. I haven't had time yet to read Whitman v. DOT. Postdlf 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon vs. Guzek

So are you saying that you fixed whatever was wrong with it? (It's been a long day.) KarenAnn 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just running through your talk page with the limited energy I have left, you seem lawyerly, so I take it the answer is YES. Very interesting case, to me anyway. KarenAnn 00:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at the page and it looks very good now. Don't you think the expert tag can be removed? Do you think it needs further work or can it be released? KarenAnn 00:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am "lawyerly," : ) but I unfortunately haven't had time to really do more than browse through the opinion. I'll try to take another look at it tomorrow and see if the article needs any changes beyond expansion. Postdlf 04:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You wrote, I've redirected many of the links to the articles on legal topics. In the case of mitigation, this redirected to environmental mitigation, which has a link at the top directing one to the correct legal article on extenuating circumstances.
Could you point out more clearly what you mean? I can't find enviromental mitigation because it immediately redirects to environmental engineering. And nothing at the top of eniromental engineering has a link directing one to the legal article on extenuating circumstances that I can see. KarenAnn 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "mitigation" redirects to emergency management. Postdlf 14:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a "true-life" sentencing option?

KarenAnn 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the Oregon Supreme Court, life in prison without the possibility of parole. I've added this information to the article, and made other corrections to the procedural history. Postdlf 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: US Associate Justice box

All currently-serving Justices of the Supreme Court have both the infobox template and the succession boxes. The same thing is seen on pages for Presidents of the United States. They have both succession boxes and infoboxes. --MZMcBride 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postdlf is right...

Sorry I came late to the party... but in any event "Postdlf is right" is a truism. ;-) BD2412 T 05:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I identified the party in question in my last post on User talk:AKMask. BD2412 T 04:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War!

Can you peek at Martin_Beck_(vaudeville). I am disagreeing with another person on the proper use of ALL CAPS in headlines for the New York Times. I believe they should be reduced to "The Title Case" as the NYT itself does in its transcription project. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] project collaboration article

Postdlf, I'm a little irritated. It's not much of a collaboration when you do everything yourself. I know I just came to the project recently, but my opinion is it'd be helpful for us newbies to collaborate on something that we can take baby steps on.--Kchase02 T 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just trying to be helpful. I think I'm done for the night.  : ( And there's still a lot left to do, anyway. A section in the background on the political context in which the Act was passed would be helpful. Postdlf 02:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
just trying to be helpful I know. I appreciate it any other time. Thanks also for tolerating my greenness as I try to rev up the project.--Kchase02 T 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic book plot summaries and copyright/fair use

So there are quite a few comic book and comic book character articles on Wikipedia with a large number of minute details. In trying to determine what exactly is fair use, I seem to either butt heads with, be totally misunderstood by, or totally misunderstand other editors. There are current articles like List of Ultimates story arcs and Araña that contain arc by arc summaries of plot. Chris Griswold recently shaved down and redirected the Runaways (comics) (story arcs) page to Runaways (comics), but another subpage of Runaways (comics) popped up and Chris' changes were reverted. I assume they're good faith, and more an attempt to expand articles but it seems like a lot of these summaries need to be wholesale deleted or trimmed down harshly to be fair use. This is currently under discussion on the WP:COMICS talk page, but I know you know copyright quite a bit and offered aid in understanding this to me before. Just how much of a summary should be included? The temptation for new comics and ongoing comics is to be detailed, but the more detailed the less likely to be considered fair use. --Newt ΨΦ 16:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul of Template:SCOTUSCase

I wanted to inform you of an overhaul to Template:SCOTUSCase undertaken by User:MZMcBride. The new template, Template:SCOTUSCase3, uses hidden parameters, includes "reargued" fields, as well as having multiple Concurrences/Dissents/Joins, etc. The year of the Court hasn't been fully implemented yet. Also, I am not sure about all of the opinion options. I have added 5 dissents/joins to accommodate "dissents in part." I am sure you could assist with making sure the opinion fields are maximized. I think this template addresses all your previous concerns regarding the rigidness of the former template. Take a look and your comments/suggestions would be most helpful in creating a master case template. --Assawyer 07:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to it to accommodate the possibilities of plurality opinions, concurrence/dissents, justices not participating, and no laws applied (i.e., pure common law decisions). I think I did it all properly.  ; ) Postdlf 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting discussion on Village Pump

[8] might be of interest to you. I hope things are well. I might be in town in a few weeks -- I'll drop you a line if I am so maybe we can get curry or something. --Improv 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I happen to live in a neighborhood with a whole slew of Indian restaurants. Interesting to think that my first trip to this city was in your car. Hope to see you! Postdlf 20:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)