User talk:Postdlf/Archive7

ethnicity instead of nationality in bio headers

Hi, thanks for your support on this, there are a large number of bios that need to be cleaned up re:ethnicity in the header, it is just making WP look like a trash bio atm. Arniep 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Either a trash bio, or an identity politics convention. Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:African-Italian-Americans as well for another way to address this issue... Postdlf 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I think the ethnicity-nationality categories are problematic as they are labels with which that person may not identify. Either extra categories should be made Americans of xxx descent (per Willmcw's comment on cfd) for people who don't identify as xxx or the whole lot just listified as they are then will not be as visible and cause less arguments. Could you advise what I should do about this User:Doctor01 who has gone round reverting all my edits again, replacing American with Italian American (Special:Contributions/Doctor01). Is there anything I can or should do about this? I think basically there should be no mention of ethnicity or religion in the header unless it is fundemental to why that person has an encyclopedia entry, as is the case in Britannica or other print encyclopedias. Arniep 18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Washington D. C. mess

I am in the process of renaming the "American geography by state" categories per the cfd, I am however a little confused with all the Washington D.C. business, you seemed to know what you were talking about, perhaps you could tell me what needs to be renamed and merged with what. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#November_7. thanks Martin 17:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and rename Category:Washington, D.C. geography to Category:Geography of Washington, D.C. and Category:District of Columbia geography to Category:Geography of the District of Columbia; the merge issue is separate and will hopefully be resolved soon. Postdlf 18:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your ammendment on the east village page. much better picture then that gentrified image. (The one with the flowers and red building on 8th and a.)

Jodie_Foster.jpg

G'day there. Would you be able to source & tag Image:Jodie_Foster.jpg, an image you've uploaded? Cheers. Agnte 20:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really, it's been too long since I uploaded it. I found it through a google image search, and whatever site I found it on had it listed as a publicity photo (which it also looks like). I'm sure with some searching you could find it.

However...judging from the other images on her article, I'd say go ahead and just delete it because it doesn't add any informational content to the article as to what she looks like that those images from her films don't. The image from Silence of the Lambs would make a nice lead photo. Postdlf 21:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting frivolous Jewish categories

Hi Postdlf: Kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25#Sub-Categories of Jewish people. This area needs some cut-backs again. IZAK 03:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Goodridge

On your change to Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, you write: "reverting from redirect to do move properly--don't just copy and paste." For future reference, what did I do wrong, and what should I do in the future? I don't understand, but I don't want to repeat my mistake. Respecfully, Hydriotaphia 06:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

KTVX

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Baker v. Nelson

Hey Postdlf, can you swing by this article and look over its history? I found it posted as a SCOTUS case, but in fact it was a 1971 Minnesota Supreme Court which was granted cert. in the U.S. Supreme Court, but then dismissed for want of a federal question. The article creator (208.11.188.26 contribs) had originally claimed that this constituted a decision on the merits by the Supreme Court [1] on the point that state prohibition of same-sex marriage does not offend the Constitution. I narrowed it to an article on the Minnesotta decision,[2] but the author restored a chunk of argumentative legalese text which just doesn't sound right - like it cobbles together things taken out of context.[3] Truth is, I'm not sure what precedential value dismissals for want of jurisdiction have on the merits of the case, and I don't want to tangle with the article poster over it until I have a second opinion from a legal mind. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--Note new "admin gold" sig :-D}

I agree that much of the current text of the article is inappropriately argumentative; the author is advancing his own interpretations of the legal issues rather than describing the positions others have taken. The Supreme Court decision itself has no more content than the words "appeal dismissed," but there is something to the notion that this nonetheless has precedential value.

If you have LEXIS access, check out In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004), which was footnoted in the D. Fla. case as disagreeing with the amount of precedent to give Baker. Kandu states that summary decisions should be narrowly construed and not extended beyond their facts, so that Baker would only apply when someone challenged under the 9th and 14th amends. a state's decision not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, but not to a challenge of the constitutionality of a federal statute such as DOMA.

Shepardizing Baker shows only 43 cites, six of which were federal court decisions, and only three of those were issued in the past twenty years. For a case decided over thirty years ago, it's had very limited impact in other words. By contrast, Lawrence v. Texas, decided only two years ago, shows 1535 cites when Shepardized. The article should be trimmed to describe simply what the Supreme Court did, and to summarize why and to what extent a few recent federal court decisions have considered it binding precedent.

Congrats on the admin thing. But you should have accepted long ago...  ; ) Postdlf 19:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks (both for the compliment and for checking the article). BD2412 T 20:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Need fact confirmed

Others and I have been working on Hatshepsut for quite some time with the goal, of making it a featured article. However we have hit a snag in confirming a fact and need your help. The Metropolitan Museum of ARt is suppose to have one of the largest collections of Hatshepsut's statuary. The collection takes up an entire room, the "Hatshepsut Room". However we can't find any online confirmation of this. We remeber it from a documentary and book but have yet to lacate a copy of either. Since you are in Manhattan would you be willing to call the Met and confirm these facts. Thanks. -JCarriker 17:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I might do one better than that and visit the Museum...I've been looking for an excuse. Any photograph requests if I make it there? Postdlf 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A panorama of the Hatshepsut Room and reproduction of the image at right (this statue is supposed to be there). Thanks. -JCarriker 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be wary of using that current image... I doubt the fair use argument holds up for book covers when you've removed everything that identifies them as a book cover—you're just copying someone's photograph at that point. Postdlf 17:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to be pushy, but when do you think you can make the trip? Please respond on my talk. Thanks. -JCarriker 00:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Jack Nicklaus & Ohio State University

Why do you think that Jack Nicklaus is inapplicable for the Ohio State University category. He is an alumnus there. Thanks,

Trademark dilution

Thank you very much for fixing my screw-up in moving those pages -- I read the page on how to move stuff, and I thought it said that it was OK to do a copy-and-pasterooni if you couldn't revert a redirect any other way. Next time I'll ask for help. Bryan 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! signal

The Wow! signal was a strong narrowband radio signal detected by the astrophysicist Jerry R. Ehman on August 15, 1977 while working on a SETI project at the Big Ear radio telescope of The Ohio State University.

I put this in the Ohio State University Category because it is a research discovered at the school. Thus, it is related to the Ohio State University for sure. People who read about Ohio State University may want to check out others interesting topics related to the school and continue browse around and read more. There is a connection from "Wow! signal" to Ohio State University but there is no connection back from Ohio State University to this "Wow! signal" topic. The point that I put in that category is because there is no other subcategory under the Ohio State University category to put this topic into.

There's no subcategory because we don't categorize natural phenomenon by the research institutions that discovered them, nor should we. There's a link to the OSU article from the Wow! signal article, and if you like, you can create a list of scientific discoveries made by faculty of the Ohio State University and put that in the OSU category. But you're really trying to stretch the category structure into something that it is not. Postdlf 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

One more observation: you said "...there is no connection back from Ohio State University to this "Wow! signal" topic." Look to the left of this text, under the section labelled "toolbox." Clicking on "what links here" from an article lists every article that links to the one you just came from: see this list. So there is a connection back to Ohio State University from Wow! signal. Postdlf 18:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert, GE building

Ok, I see the point of showing the lit GE sign, but with three exterior shots and the view from the recently opened ovservation deck now shrunk to a minute icon, the focus is a bit off now. One of the three pics should go. I'd opt for Image:07-21-2004_130_(Large).jpg, second night shot and not much additional info to the other two pics. Also the pano thumbnail should be larger (a lot). I'll wait for some feedback so this is not becoming an editwar ;-).

I think all three of the exterior images are valuable; the image you list above is the only one that shows a street-eye view, and emphasizes the proportionately narrow width of the building in a way that the others don't. The observation deck view, while neat and relevant, is only indirectly informative about the GE Building itself—it shows what can be seen from it, not the thing itself—and so should be minimized. The building itself is the proper focus. If you think there are too many images, then perhaps all but the lead should be placed into a thumbnail gallery format at the bottom (I can do this if you're unfamiliar with the code). But I think the images are fine the way the article is now, because the text is long enough to accommodate them. Postdlf 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought there were too many images for the amount of text. That's why I changed thumbnail size from 250px to 200px at my first edit. Anyway now, with the pano aligned below the three other pics. Thumbs and textlength correspond well. --Dschwen 17:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good—thanks! Postdlf 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Public Domain Enhancement Act

Thanks for reverting the changes to this article. They were done by a student in an intellectual property for engineers class; in the final examination, students were asked to critically assess the Wikipedia coverage of the IP topic on which they gave their presentations. The student in question was wondering if errors really were reverted as quickly as claimed, and decided to engage in a little "research." I expressly told my students that they should NOT do this! Anyway, I just wanted to apologize and assure you that he won't cause any more trouble -- I'm in the middle of reaming him out but good.

On a happier note, I've proposed to EdColins that some of us with interests in IP law get an IP project going... what do you think? Bryan 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm sure User:BD2412 would also be on board; IP is his thing and I know he still spends a lot of time on here post-law school.

So did the student learn his lesson and acknowledge the mad fact-checking and reverting skills we Wikipedians have?  ; ) Postdlf 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see - I just sent him an e-mail informing him that he is receiving an F on this assignment. Were I to give him any credit, I would become a party to his unethical actions. By the way, he argued that Wikipedia is unreliable because he was able to successfully vandalize a page -- this is sort of like arguing that our legal system is a failure because I committed a murder and got away with it! -- and it stayed vandalized for an average of 10 minutes, not 5 "as claimed in the media." (I just noticed that the average for his "experiments" actually IS 5 minutes -- and this guy is supposed to be an engineering student! I'll leave messages for Ed and BD and tell them that you might be interested, too. Best, Bryan 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.73

Just to let you know, I unblocked User:64.12.116.73 since users were reporting collateral damage (it's an AOL one). Rob Church ^Talk 22:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Actors who have played the same character in three or more different series

Okay, you can delete it. Besides, I was gonna add other actors like Leonard Nimoy and Robert Vaughn anyway. GusF 16:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC).

Arbitration clause for editors

Hi Postdlf. Please add your lawyerly evaluation to the arbitration clause discussion at MediaWiki talk:Edittools. BD2412 T 03:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PETA Lettuce Ladies

Nice pic. --Viriditas 12:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

An artist is no better than the materials he has to work with. Postdlf 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA

Postdlf, thank you for supporting my RfA - I shall do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 22:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Albany County

My reasons for opposing categorizing people by county are numerous, but suffice to say for now, this is how I'd prefer such relationships to be documented on here–with full annotations explaining the topical intersection. Please let me know what your thoughts are on handling it this way as an alternative. Postdlf 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of lists. I don't want to maintain them and it doesn't seem like many others are too diligent about it either. In the absence of either a list or a category, I'll always create the category first. With the ability to subcategorize, etc., the category is easier for me to find. It also eliminates the temptation to pull too much info into the grouping as is often the case with lists. (I want a nice compact list of people and/or articles without having to scroll through a seven lines-per-article list). Personally, I see very valid reasons to have both lists and categories — but I'm going to peruse and maintain the category side of the universe every time. wknight94 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Lists are key when a relationship, when described in the simplest terms, may be utterly uninformative because it could be either highly trivial to the subject or highly significant. Most people by locality categories are like this. To use myself as an example, I never spent more than two weeks of my life in my city of birth, and I've lived in six cities since. The bulk of my life was spent in one city that I moved from before I even started my career, so if I were to one day earn my own Wikipedia article, I would think it silly to categorize me based on my childhood neighborhood when everything I did to earn that article was somewhere else.

This transience is admittedly less an issue with biographies of more historical figures, yet even so categories shouldn't attach to every individual in that locale's list of "what links here." It may be significant to Albany County to list its favored sons and daughters, but does that mean that being associated with Albany County is of equal importance to those individuals such that they should be classified by that association? It may be as trivial to them as my birthplace is to me, and of interest only as a matter of local vanity.

As a sign of the haste with which I fear you are proceeding on this categorization project, you added Wheeler Hazard Peckham to Category:Union College, New York alumni, yet his article clearly states that he left before graduating, and so is not in fact an alumni. Please take more time to ponder and research the relationship you're trying to classify. Postdlf 07:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your points. First, from the definitions of alumni I looked up, graduating is not a prerequisite [4] [5].

Second, the subjects of the articles in wikipedia are not the _target audience. At the risk of sounding brash, they don't get a vote. If I think it's interesting — and, more importantly, I feel like others may find it interesting — that X was born in Albany County, that's sufficient for me. If X disagrees, X can sign up for an account and remove it. In addition, I am exercising some self-control. You'll notice not too many in the Union College Alumni cat are also in the Schenectadians cat but if a person was born in Schenectady, I figure someone will find that interesting.

Third, if the clearest reason for interest is for local vanity reasons then that sounds reasonable to me. I moved from Schenectady County to Tampa, Florida and am fascinated at the differences and feel like the differences between Category:Tampans and Category:Schenectadians is very telling. I think it's a little heavy-handed for someone to decide what is and what isn't a good enough reason to have a category or a list. Your example of Albany's "favored sons and daughters" sounds about as POV as it gets. Who decides that classification? What if I don't care about either of the Rufus Peckhams but I'm riveted by the area's serial killer Lemuel Smith? If there is a definition somewhere in your example, someone can feel free to create a subcategory that they find more useful.

One of my proudest accomplishments here is one of the silliest: I started the trend of categories like Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s, etc. Of course it's a ridiculous idea and I've even had people mention to me how unnecessary and sick they are. And yet, whenever I see that a celebrity has died, I go to their wikipedia page here and inevitably someone has already added their died in their XXs category. At least one other person finds those categories fascinating enough to drop whatever they're doing and add the category to whoever has just passed on — and that's all I need to hear!  :) wknight94 12:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake about the alumn definition. Though I would still like the categorization issue to be thought of not as "is anyone interested at all in this topic", but rather "how important is this topic to this article by which I intend to classify it"? In other words, ask not what Mr. X can do for someone's interest in Albany County, but what Albany County does for someone's interest in him; why else categorize that article by that topic? Since I am so interested in the Peckham family (long story, that), why should I not categorize Albany County, New York by Category:Places associated with Rufus Wheeler Peckham? Postdlf 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You explain on your user page your distaste for having articles buried by categories. Imagine the poor New York article gasping for air under a pile of categories - one for every person from New York! I don't see the harm of simply listing "when" and "where" in biographical articles. I don't use the "when" categories of articles but I also recognize that they're not harming anything and could be useful in the future. And I don't understand your assertion in your user page about categories burying articles more than a trivia section. Categories are forced to be listed all the way at the bottom of every article as far away as possible. I think John Lennon has an aesthetically unpleasing quantity of categories (and apparently used to have even more) but I'm not going to complain as long as they're out of my line of vision. And if I ever wanted to do a school report on him and wanted to find things related to him - including his place of birth - I'd be glad I had all those categories to choose from.

BTW, I found another reason to dislike lists. There's no pointer from an article to a list that contains it! I found all sorts of lists for Union College that I would have never thought it would be on and would have never thought to look for. And half of them were including the wrong Union College! Categories are simply a more comprehensive and less mistake-prone manifestation of lists. Again, that's just my opinion.  ;-) wknight94 14:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no pointer from an article to a list that contains it—that's what "What links here" is for. Postdlf 17:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

About vandalism

Hello, well im sorry about all those pages I've tried to post, but I dont see how they are vandalizing, and how come that carbox article i tried to post was unable to be posted by me, and was by my friend, how can that be, im just saying i dont think its going to do any bad to anyone, well thats just my opinion. sorry if i took your time. thanks goodnight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalfreak212 (talk • contribs)

Please look on your talk page—there is a list of links that someone else left for you to read through that will introduce you to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This isn't a free message board or web hosting service, so you can't simply post whatever you feel like. Posts that appear to be inside jokes or nonsense that is otherwise of no use to an encyclopedia are often called vandalism when done repeatedly, because it's a hassle to have to delete it, and for the brief moments that it is up, it reflects poorly on Wikipedia as an information resource. Please read through our site to learn what we're up to here and I hope you can make a real contribution. Postdlf 08:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

i understand. i will contribute with wikipedia's expectations.Metalfreak212 08:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Crow Winters

Howdy, jsut read the notice you left on User_talk:Crow winters's talk page. While there's nothing specific to poke at, you did come off as a bit acerbic - especially considering the guy had only just started editing. Remember WP:BITE. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 23:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have little patience with self-promotion on here, particularly after he unjustifiably removed Template:Cleanup-importance from LOADING, which I added to give him a chance to explain it. I personally thought your comment on his talk page implied too strongly that all he had to do to get an article for his personal web comic was wait a year, rather than actually achieve notability; we all have our own ways of communicating. Postdlf 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The comment I left on the Crow's talk page wasn't meant to infer that persistence = notability, but rather that he'd have a better chance of proving his case with a year or two under his belt. But I understand what you mean. Anyways, I'm not saying that what you said was wrong per se, merely that you could have said it with a bit more tact. But each to his own. Best regards GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Hatshepsut

I think the pics are great. I made a cropped version of Hatshepsut 1.jpg for the lead image. If possible I would like to see the additinal pics you took especially those on the wall to the right of the central statue in the panorama. Thanks. -JCarriker 13:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad you like them; I've added the rest of the pics to my subpage. Postdlf 21:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Thanks for creating the court case infobox, I just used it at People v. Goetz, extremely useful! Tufflaw 04:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the catagories from my user subpage. I can be absent-minded sometimes. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Foolkiller

Thought you might like to know that after you pointed out the fancrufty Foolkiller article, I did some draconian editing and now it's hopefully a bit better. Was that really proposed as a featured article?? ←Hob 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better, thanks for your contribution to that. I don't believe anyone supported the FA nomination apart from the article's author. Postdlf 23:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

1951 vegas pictues

Glad that someone has some pictures that we can use. The Vegas Vic picture can go in the Fremont Street article. The casino still exists, and has a valid gambling license, on the Fremont Street Experience although it is closed most of the time. The Silver Slipper Saloon picture could go into the Silver Slipper article where it mentions the name issue. Actually in that article I'm not sure what the correct names are, it seems to be rather confusing. The Westerner Gambling House and Saloon picture could go in the Benny Binion article which now mentions this casino. As for the "ON TO THE GOLD RUSH" wagon, I wonder if that has something todo with the Heldorado event that was held for many years. Of course the history article is the place of last resort. Good luck. Vegaswikian 03:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your random thought.

Happens all the time with patent (an infringement shortly before the expiry) - courts come down hard on that, and will indeed enjoin the infringer from continuing to derive benefits from what began as a wrong. BD2412 T 04:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• P.S., I'd like to get Leasehold estate and Concurrent estate up to WP:FA standards - can you run through them and opine on improvements? Cheers! BD2412 T 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NYPD Blue

Articles about fiction should be in the present tense when discussing the subject. There are a couple of instances in the article where it drops into the past tense. I fixed one of them, but there are a few more. It is minor, but I believe the article could do with a copy edit to find them all. --malber 11:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely true, though I personally wouldn't consider that error great enough to require the fiction template. If you're interested in combating that problem as a whole, and not just regarding that one article, I recently started the arduous rewrite of lightsaber, which is a rather fan-centric non-article at present, and which definitely describes fictional "facts" as if they were real and without even tying them to specific works of fiction. I redid the intro, but the rest needs serious attention too. Interested? Postdlf 19:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about Gonzales v. Oregon

In this edit you changed Ashcroft v. Oregon to Oregon v. Oregon. Did you mean to do this or was it a typo? I can't find a reference saying that that's what it was called. (That couldn't be the full name anyways). Broken S 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It was one of those masochistic lawsuits...  ; ) Thanks for catching the typo; that should have been Oregon v. Ashcroft. Postdlf 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yercaud Article - clean up

Hi Postdlf

I have posted a question for you in the talk page of Yercaud Just wanted to know about your suggestions/clarifications as you have marked it for clean-up.--bkris 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned Up the article

Hi Postdlf I have cleaned up the Yercaud article. If you get a chance, check it out and remove the "Quality non-compliance" tag if it is good to go. --bkris 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland v. David B. Hill

To be honest, I'm having trouble remembering. It was quite a while ago. I think that I just saw it in other articles and decided to clarify the point since it wasn't mentioned there. Regarding Wheeler Hazard Peckham, may God have mercy on your soul. ;-) Best of luck. --MikeJ9919 21:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm already off to a good start... I've already gotten locked in a cemetery due to my quest. Postdlf 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres

This is not recreation of previously deleted material and I believe it is you who are acting in violation of deletion policy. The new Category:Causes célèbres was an entirely different beast to the previous deleted one, because it was a parent category for three very tightly defined categories. Category:Legal causes célèbres and the other two sub-categories cannot be speedied as previously deleted material because they were not even created when the CfD was debated. The issue in the CfD debate was, for many voters, whether the categories were too vague. The new categories were not vague. It has always been the case that, where an article title was deleted, it does not preclude the recreation of an article with the same title provided issues raised in the CfD have been solved. This is indeed the case here.

What this amounts to is you have just speedied material which you did not have the ability to speedy. If you want the categories deleted then take it to CfD and argue your case, and if others accept it you will have consensus. You should certainly recreate the category now. Do you want me to help? I may say I consider it a very uncivil thing to go ahead and speedy delete the categories (even if you did have the authority to do so, which you did not) without getting any response from me. David | Talk 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The category was the same one that was deleted because it was named the same and used the same definition. If you thought you could do it better so as to avoid the problems of the original, that's an argument for Wikipedia:Deletion review. Furthermore, I can't see how claiming a separation between the "social", the "political", and the "legal" made those categories any more "tightly defined" than if those "limiting" adjectives were left off—the boundaries between those conceptual spheres are amorphous at best. It seems absurd to me that Terri Schiavo, for example, had been added to "social causes célèbres," implying that she had social impact but not legal or political, or that any greater weight could meaningfully be given to one over the other. Adding these "limiting" subcategory adjectives to the original deleted category was a thinly-veiled attempt to make them "different," in the judgment of myself and User:Kbdank71. You obviously disagree, so take your case to WP:DRV. Postdlf 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not the case that one must go to Deletion Review if one wants to recreate an article which is different to, but under the same title as, a speedily deleted article. The requirement for a speedy deletion of previously deleted material is that it is "substantially identical", which is a high test clearly not met in this case. The subcategories were substantially different. The arguments you make about Terri Schiavo are ones to be made in a CfD debate and not here, and I again advise you to take it there. You have broken deletion policy. David | Talk 22:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the Category:Causes célèbres that was deleted can be any different from the Category:Causes célèbres you recreated. They were named identically, but more importantly both covered so-called Causes célèbres. You speak as if the first one was about a vanity webcomic and the second one about a notable BBC series. So goes the parent... The subcategories were substantially identical to the parent, differentiating themselves by nothing more than arbitrary attempts to make the designation more specific. If Category:Important people were deleted for vagueness and arbitrariness, changing it to Category:Legally important people and Category:Socially important people wouldn't avoid that judgment. The underlying concept of causes célèbres was too subjective to allow for classification. "Social," "legal", and "political" add nothing to the clarity of what a causes célèbres is. Postdlf 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack, but I think the fact that you didn't know that causes célèbres is a plural of which the singular is cause célèbre is indicative of the fact that you have yet to fully understand what the category is there for. The issue of whether the underlying concept of a cause célèbre is too subjective for any classification was not raised at the CfD debate. David | Talk 23:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To use your own definition to better illustrate my point, you wrote that the category "legal causes célèbres" "denotes people or institutions raising legal issues which became Causes célèbres." Setting aside for the moment how the phrase "raising legal issues" makes something tightly defined...so your category, Fooing X, is a category for "things that Foo and became X." X (causes célèbres) is a deleted category. However, the basis for Fooing X is of course X—things that "became X." Furthermore, most, if not all things Foo ("raise legal issues," "raise social issues," or "raise political issues"), so things that Foo before becoming X is really no different than X. Postdlf 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything that takes you six lines to explain is sufficiently complicated to have to be taken to CFD. It cannot simply be determined by a single admin using speedy deletion powers. David | Talk 23:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, you still disagree with us. I'm comfortable with that. Postdlf 23:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you said that. I do not like disagreement. I like to build consensus. I do not like being led to the conclusion that you were acting in bad faith on this issue and am currently trying to resist - please assist me. David | Talk 23:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning at great length, in as many ways as I can, and I don't wish to spend any more time on it because I don't see any merit to your position. Recreate the category or the "subcategories" and I will delete it and warn you with a block. List it on deletion review, and I will vote against it there. If it passes deletion review, it then goes to a new CfD, and I will vote in favor of deletion there too. If it survives that CfD, then that's that. Postdlf 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am trying hard not to apply WP:BEANS to that and conclude that you were issuing an invitation to a wheel war. Even if it is, I don't join in wheel wars. You make it clear that this is at heart a content dispute, and were you to use your admin powers to block me, you would be acting in breach of blocking policy. I have no intention to comment again here so perhaps I should refer you to Cromwell's letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland from 1650: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." David | Talk 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

David, I must agree with Postdlf. "I don't see how the Category:Causes célèbres that was deleted can be any different from the Category:Causes célèbres you recreated." Which is the crux of the argument and, which btw, you didn't answer. Fundamentally, the new categories are no different than the ones that were CFD'ed last year. Which means yes, they are able to be speedied. And for the record, just because one doesn't know the plural of the term doesn't mean squat. It's not a requirement of CFD that you need to know the plural in order to have an opinion. --Kbdank71 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Article

Read this Wikipedia words:

• ...is nearly self-contained; includes and explains all essential terminology required in the article, such that someone could completely understand the subject without having to read many other articles.
• ...branches out; contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and outside materials that may add new meaning or background to the subject or give relevant, connected information, so readers may easily understand where they should go for more background or information.
• ...acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
• ...is an appropriate length; article size is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information that would be better suited for a child article ("subarticle")... (AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ARTICLE DOES!!!!!!! - T)
• ...reflects expert knowledge; fact-based and rooted in sound scholarly and logical principles.
• ...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date. (in this case the ones with the producers word - T)
• ...includes informative, relevant images, each with an explanatory caption (...) to add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text(...)
• ...is engaging; uses varied sentence lengths and patterns; language is descriptive and colorful while still maintaining encyclopedic tone.

(from wikipedia:the perfect article) ... Just trying to make you change your mind about my bat-embargo page. Throw me a word if you want. Greetings--T for Trouble-maker 05:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

image

i like the picture of haystack rock that you took a lot. It's on my user page so everyone can see how great the Oregon coast is. Thanks and keep up the good work.--Alhutch 17:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:William Cranch.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:William Cranch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

dbenbenn | talk 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bo Bice.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bo Bice.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image 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 image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image 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 images, 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.

It needs to be verified that image came from a press kit. If it did not, I have found press images that can be properly used under fair use criteria. If you can provide the source and want this photo still then please provide it. If you don't have the source I will replace the image with a press photo where the source is known. --Wgfinley 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's from the American Idol website. Go ahead and swap it with another if that's not acceptable to you. Postdlf 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, that's what I thought. I've replaced it with one we can make a better fair use claim on. Thanks. --Wgfinley 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think one of the frontal photos would be better for the article? The one you picked is interesting, but unfortunately probably the least informative about what he looks like. Postdlf 00:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that wasn't a promotional image, is was one you took off their website, that would be a copyright violation. --Wgfinley 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the ones put on the American Idol website fit the promotional bill, but I'm not going to argue that; what I actually meant was one of the frontal photos from the same source you took your replacement--the Bo Bice press photos section. Postdlf 00:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A agree, I'm not a member of the fanclub though and that's the only one you can get full sized for free. --Wgfinley 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Does membership require a fee? Want to sign up?  ; ) Postdlf 16:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use help

Hello. I was refered to you by User:Improv on the #wikipedia IRC channel. The fair use issue is about the various images related to the Pokemon franchise. There was a user that uploaded various pokemon related images, some questions the copyright of the images. I checked the website of Pokemon USA, Inc, the company that holds the licenses to everything and anything that is related to Pokemon. According to http://www.pokemon.com/termsofuse.asp, they own the copyright on everything and they do not permit commercial usage of their items. According to Jimbo's email on May of 2005, non-commercial images are to be deleted either by speedy deletion or via WP:IFD. Some have contended that the images can be used user the guise of fair use, but according to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html, I think these images will not meet the fair use test

• 1. While Wikipedia, and its parent, the Wikimedia Foundation are considered a Non-profit organization in the United States, many websites re-use our content and put ads, such as GoogleAds, on their copies. Also, with the email Jimbo sent about non-commercial images, something must have been said to him by a copyright holder or by his legal team.
• 2.The Pokemon images have been around for a max time of 10 years, but with the francise still creating products, some images might be less than a year old.
• 3. We use a lot of pokemon stuff, such as screenshots, logos, character images, cards, etc, so the amount we could get away with we have breached
• 4. Since Pokemon is still making stuff, we might hurt some of their market a bit.

I am probably taking this way to far, but it is my opinion that we should get rid of the Pokemon images, but I wish to get your opinion on this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to know specifically which image you're talking about; you can't do a fair use analysis in the abstract simply based on the subject matter of the image. But here's a few corrective points:

• The copyright holder's stated licensing terms are irrelevant, because if it qualifies as fair use the owner's consent is not in any way necessary. Most copyright owners try to claim they have more power over the use of their work than they actually do. Fair use is statutorily permitted.
• Jimbo was talking about images that were released under a license that only permits non-commercial use. This doesn't include fair use images, because if you have fair use, you don't need a license. These non-commercial only images were tagged with an image specifying that restriction, not a fair use tag.
• I think you have misunderstood the fair use elements in the following ways:
• 1. The purpose of our use is broader than whether we (or our mirrors) may incidentally make a profit off of the image, because though relevant, that isn't dispositive of this element. Our use is primarily informative, in that we are not displaying the image simply to sell copies of it, or sell access to viewers, but to illustrate an academic work on the subject of the copyrighted image. That some may make ad revenue from that academic work is actually less important than you'd think.
• 2. The age of an image is irrelevant to fair use. The element focusing on the nature of the work copied relates to whether it is creative or informative; you get greater leeway in copying from a technical manual, for example, than a novel.
• 3. The fair use analysis is done independently for each work copied, not by over-all quantity of fair use claims in the sense you are implying. The amount of work copied would mean how much of an independently copyrighted work you have copied, not how many of an author's works.
• 4. The effect on the market for the original is not judged so broadly; ask instead how much of a tendency there would be for your copy to supplant the market for the specific work you copied, or likely derivatives of that work.

If you can point me to a specific image, I'll go through the analysis on it as best I can. Cheers, Postdlf 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade

Hi there. I noticed you reverted my edit of the infobox in Roe v. Wade stating that the original one is consensus-approved. As a result, I'm somewhat perplexed by the existence of this template: Template:United_States_Supreme_Court_Case which seems to have idled. Is there any interest in actually moving to this template, or should the status quo remain? I just don't want to start using the wrong template and cause some fun janitorial editing. -- Inanup 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion on the templates awhile ago on the SCOTUS wiki-project. That template lacks flexibility (such as the inability to remove the dissent line in cases without dissents), is less efficient in its use of space, and is a less favored design. There is a template version of mine (see Griswold v. Connecticut for an example), so feel free to replace my code with the proper templates, though I believe the number of templates required for the modularity makes it not worth the while. I will start moving articles from Template:United_States_Supreme_Court_Case, and I will then list it for deletion. Postdlf 00:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Postdlf, I'm completely behind you on your template - it does a superior job and I've put it in every case I've contributed that has a template. BD2412 T 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree with you that the template is rather inflexible. Just wasn't sure what was going on. -- Inanup 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created Category:United States Supreme Court cases without an infobox to shepherd the many in need of one into a corral. BD2412 T 14:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Plyler v. Doe needs a ton of work

There's almost nothing there... BD2412 T 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• D'oh!!! - intermediate... I knew that... too long since I took con law. BD2412 T 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Italian-American actors

The CFD was almost a year ago. You'd have to renominate it for deletion. Personally, I think it is a useful sub-category, considering how large the Italian-Americans category is. JackO'Lantern 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy that even suggests that CFDs "expire." It should have been relisted on WP:DRV if there is a legitimate complaint about the original CFD, and then if there is an undeletion consensus, relisted on CFD for a new deletion decision. Otherwise, it is speedy deletable regardless of how long has passed since the original discussion. As for its "usefulness," there is a List of Italian-American actors where the information is preserved, and a large category is no reason to make arbitrary subdivisions. Why not Category:Italian-Americans born in 1923? Postdlf 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And was it intentional that some of the entries were only in the Italian-American actor category, but not in the obvious Category:American actors, or an accident? Bad result, because it not only makes it impossible to find all but the most obvious Italian-Americans by their nationality, and ghettoizes them by separating them out from other American actors by their ethnicity. Postdlf 22:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a similar thing with Category:Jewish Americans. It was CFD's in April 2005 - where it was unanimously voted to be deleted, was re-created, and then was CFD'd again in November 2005, but this time the votes to keep majorly outnumbered the votes to delete. Things have changed since April 2005, and I seriously doubt that the category wouldn't be kept if it was nominated again. I really think you should re-nominate it. And I'm sure it wasn't intentional. People should be in both cats. JackO'Lantern 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article you suggest indicates CfD shouldn't be recreated simply does not. [6] is clearly intended for articles not categories. And not only that, but it refers to articles recreated with the same content and "admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical" which does not apply to categories. And these are not arbitrary categories, your example Category:Italian-Americans born in 1923 is a poor analogy, since it is extremely narrowly defined. There is no Category:Americans born in 1923, but there is Category:American actors, that should have been a better example of comparison with Category:Italian-American actors. Even better examples would be Category:Jewish American actors (which survived a CfD) or Category:Mexican American actors. Therefore if you don't have more reason to speedy delete these categories than a personal POV on this matter, these categories will be recreated. --Vizcarra 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I pointed to no "article," but instead the CSD criteria policy page. Your interpretation of what "general" means not only contradicts common understanding, but ignores the fact that those "general criteria" are "general" only in contrast to the specific rules that follow for articles, images, categories, etc. "Deleted material" includes categories, and whether a category is "substantially identical" to a deleted one is judged on its title and classificatory definition; these recreations were entirely identical. To interpret it your way, and exclude categories from CSD, would make CFD a sham; anyone could override a deletion decision and force it into replay at any time by recreating a category if deleted categories could not be re-deleted on sight.

I don't see why you don't simply list those on WP:DRV to get a consensus for undeletion there, if you are so confident in their merit and the obsolescene of the previous CFD. You're only going to get sanctioned if you recreate them without having gone through that process in violation of policy. Postdlf 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to discuss irrelevant points, go ahead, now read my entire remark replacing "The article you suggest" for "The CSD criteria policy page". It talks about recreating material when such material is a "substantially identical copy", which cannot possibly apply to a category. Can you point me to that "policy" that you think I will be violating when I recreate such categories? --Vizcarra 06:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category deletion policy : Categories that are patently nonsensical, vandalistic, test pages, substantially identical recreations of earlier deleted content, or requested for deletion by their creator and sole contributor can be deleted immediately. Official policy. --Kbdank71 14:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, rather than getting too attached to those categories, please take a look a this discussion on this issue, which while it isn't official policy, I do believe it represents consensus reached through discussion and experience. Also, while I personally would prefer far fewer such categories, the principle that page expresses makes sense to me in establishing a dividing line. Cheers, Postdlf 01:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think these things should follow common sense. If a category like Category:Greek-Americans only has 100 people or so, then it does not need subcategories. A huge category like Category:Italian-Americans does need subcategories like Actors, Musicians, Politicians, etc in order to ease navigation. I think that's the primary concern. JackO'Lantern 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

How is navigation difficult when the category's contents are alphabetically sorted and you can skip from one letter to another? What exactly are you trying to do with the category that you can't do? Postdlf 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

By difficult navigation I mean a category is too large for its own good - too many people bulked together, with their only connection being their ethnicity. It needs to be narrowed down, i.e. Italian-American actors - so the people listed are connected by more than their common ethnicity and someone can browse by more specific fields, since the general field has become too large. This is what has recently been done with Category:Jewish Americans - which now has something like 10 people in it, because everyone else is in sub-cats. Look how much easier it is to navigate that page, especially if you're interested in a particular field - politicians, actors, writers. JackO'Lantern 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus there is some cultural significance involved in Category:Italian-American actors and Category:Italian-American musicians. --Vizcarra 06:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for something different to work on...

I've just planted a seed at Supreme Court of the United States in fiction. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... Historical fiction is about all that's coming to mind right now beyond the examples already there (People vs. Larry Flynnt, Amistad); don't know if that's where you intended to go with that. First Monday was a horrendous show, btw; ever see it? Not only were there the glaring inaccuracies to bug me, but it was just a really dumb show. Postdlf 06:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rory Conroy

Hello. Twice now you have deleted my attempts to add a page for an Irish actor named Rory Conroy. I read that previous "afd" discussion and there is obviously some confusion. That original article, although having not read it myself, seems like a hoax made up from nonsensical facts. I am not sure of the motives behind the fake/former Rory Conroy page, all I am trying to do is add information about a legitimate and aspiring Irish actor. My attempts are not a hoax and it upsets me that you delete my work every time I try to contribute. Looking forward to your reply. SweetCakes87 19.02.06

My message on your talk page told you how to proceed if you think there has been an error, or that your article is not covered in some way by the previous deletion discussion. Please post a request on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Postdlf 17:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How to object to an objection to deletion

If you feel my "'censorship' claims are particularly out of place [on the votes for deletion page]", the place to so allege is "there", not on my talk page. A category is also effectively a list, so to delete a category without creating a list, IS TO DELETE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT, not just a category name. I would like to have stated this in the deletion arguments, as it is relevant to the arguments there. Next time, please put your arguments on the proper page, so that all interested parties can see and have their input on it. As to censorship claims, they rightly belong in the arguments on deletion. A claim of censorship is certainly a legitimate defense against deleting an article, perhaps one of the most important ones.pat8722 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, based on official policy and custom (from what I've observed in the past couple years on here), it isn't inappropriate to discuss something on someone's user talk page, because that's basically the reason we have them. People also get tired of deletion discussions needlessly going on for screen after screen, so as I had a question specific to your comment and specific to my understanding of it, I thought it was something better diverted to your talk page.

Anyway, I've reread your votes and noticed now that only one of your votes says "but move to a list" instead of "or move to a list." So it's only that one that confuses me; the others, as I interpret them, are clearly saying either keep the category, or delete it and make a list article. I'm fine with that. Would you consider changing the "but" in that one vote to "or" to clarify your intention?

I'm also not understanding your presumption that a deletion decision is something as nefarious as "censorship"...are you worried people are secretly voting their prejudices against the bisexual, rather than making editorial decisions about what categories best organize information? "Censorship" is such a loaded word to use, particularly when you don't yet have a lot of experience with individual users or how discussions usually proceed. Postdlf 23:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Censorship

I just read your intro to this page and it's very good. Exactly what I wanted to say, thank you very much. Gerard Foley 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's an issue I feel very strongly about. Postdlf 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)