User talk:Postdlf/Archive2

This site is incredibly addictive... It has to be the best use of the internet's potential that I've seen.

Who am I? I'm a law boy nee art boy that should be doing his homework instead of contributing here. But what can you do.

Double jeopardy

Just thought I'd let you know I tweaked a change you made on the Double jeopardy article. You added a sentence mentioning res judicata. I changed it so that it talks about collateral estoppel. IANAL, but as I understand it, the two are similiar but not the same. I always thought that res judicata applies to decision of law made by a judge, while collateral estoppel applies to judgements of fact made by a jury. If that is the case, then collateral estoppel applies, not res judicata. [***] →Raul654 06:11, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

The three concepts have nothing to do with whether a judge or a jury made the decision--the effect is binding regardless as long as the judgment is final (the different degree of deference a judge or jury decision may receive under appeal is not relevant here). True, juries are typically the factfinders, but not always. Civil trials can be had under judge or jury (not all states guarantee the right, and the right in federal court only applies to cases at law, not in equity), and in the US, even a criminal defendant can always waive his right to a jury trial and be tried by a judge instead, and double jeopardy will apply the same.

Res judicata (L. "a thing adjudicated") includes both claim preclusion and collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion. Issue preclusion applies to whatever factual issues were necessarily resolved with the final judgment of a claim. You can have res judicata without collateral estoppel--when a judgment for the defendant could have been based on the failure to prove any or all of multiple elements, so that it is uncertain what issues were actually decided--but not the reverse. --Postdlf 30 Jan 2004, 3:22 am (EST)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. →Raul654 09:07, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think it could be slightly edited to provide more clarity on when jeopardy attaches in U.S. law (particularly with regards to the dismissal -- with prejudice, without prejudice?). I don't know if you'd be interested in this. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone with a little more knowledge of criminal law than I have will have to tackle that, at least for right now. But the whole meaning of prejudice, in a civil context (and I assume criminal is the same) means that the same claim can't be refiled against that defendant. Without prejudice means it can be refiled. In the federal civil court system, prejudice attaches, for example, after the second time the plaintiff has himself withdrawn the same claim, preventing him from refiling it a third time. A dismissal with prejudice acts as if the claim had been adjudicated in favor of the defendant (and so double jeopardy would follow), I just can't speak to the details of when exactly a judge would attach prejudice in a criminal context--that would likely be a matter of state and local law anyway. --Postdlf 18:19 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capitalizing animal common names

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your stay. Re: capitalisation of species names... there is a long history behind the decision to capitalise species names.. if you are interested in hearing all the reasons behind the decision give me a shout and I'll dig 'em out. Til then best not to change articles on an ad hoc basis - often, like Orca they part of a whole series of articles and it'd be nice to have the capitalization the same across all of the them. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:27, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I assume you mean that there are wikipedia-specific reasons. I suppose I would like to know why animal names are being capitalized like proper nouns when they are common nouns. If there is inconsistency among the articles, it should be resolved in a grammatically correct manner. Thanks! --Postdlf 5:07, 2 Jan 2004 (EST)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). --mav 03:57, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I'll respect that convention if it is accepted on wikipedia--I don't wish to disregard established custom. I agree that it would avoid ambiguity with those particular species names that begin with common adjectives. However, the cons are that it's contrary to established english grammatical rules for capitalizing nouns, and I don't see it being used consistently at all from entry to entry. Do we then capitalize every occurrence and form of the common species name Human as well? --Postdlf 1:49, 3 Jan 2004 (EST)

Re your con: Actually it is common to find species names capitalized in books (and I include popular books as well as academic tomes in this). For example I have used the National Audobon Society Guide to Marine Mammals of the World and Mark Carwardine's Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises as sources for many of my cetacean articles - they always capitalize species names. In works specifically telling you about the animal the name is capitalized. This is not just a Wikipedia convention - there are manuals of style that confirm. However you are right in that more general articles are unlikely to use capitalized forms for common animal names. Thus we wouldn't expect to write "XYZ was famouse for owning Dogs" in article about person XYZ. This is also consistent with other established norms of writing. Thus we have the hybrid situation of capitalisation on rather scientific articles and no capitialisation on more general articles. This is perhaps not ideal but I see no way of having and enforcing a global policy. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:50, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I guess that sounds reasonable, and I did not know that it is a convention in use elsewhere. You don't have to worry about me lurking through the site and maliciously de-capitalizing every animal name I find (as much as I may be tempted...). --Postdlf 3:11, 5 Jan 2004 (EST)

Hi, just stubbled across this. Genus should be caps, species not. 1 exception, plants named in honor of a person, e.g. Livingstonii, or as a real example Encephalartos Woodii. signed, me. [editor's note: not Postdlf]

I think you are talking about the scientific name, over which there which there is no dispute. The discussion here is about the common name. I am not sure if the anonymous user and postdlf are the same person as you have both signed 'me'! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 06:47, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I figured that using "me" on my own talk page would be clear--I didn't count on anonymous imitators! I've changed the "me"s that are actually me to my nick. --Postdlf 3:12, 5 Jan 2004 (EST)

Treaty

Re: Treaties. What I was getting at is that the treaty power allows the federal government to legislate in areas that it would normally be unable to do so under the division of power between the Federal government and the states.

Yes the Federal government can't use the treaty power to get around the explicit constitutional limits on the powers of the Federal government, but it can use the treaty power to exercise powers beyond those delegated to Congress in Article I.

The relevant case is is Missouri v. Holland 252 US 346 (1920). -- User:Roadrunner

Re: various chameleons : Thanks for including the taxonomies. Eventually I'll be doing each species for the genus... Rhymeless 04:10, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:VfD-Daniel C. Boyer

Thank you for your insightful comments at Template:VfD-Daniel_C_Boyer. UninvitedCompany 15:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my thoughts on the VFD page...I think there's a principle at play here that Mr. Boyer is missing. Please help me keep an eye on him, and take a look at the last couple edits on International Union of Mail Artists—full explanation now on the talk page. Postdlf 16:28 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I keep an eye on his contributions when things get slow, as he has added all manner of dubious material. Surrealism is another of his babies and is a frightful mess, and a look in any print encyclopedia, art survey, or book on surrealism will tell a very different story than our article does. I checked all the references at a regional library once for confirmation. His article has a revisionist POV held by a small school of thought: that surrealism is a dynamic movement continuing yet today; that surrealism is not a mere style, movement, period, or form (etc) of art but rather A Separate Entity In Its Own Right; that there is important, influential, highly regarded work being done in surrealism in the United States right now. Real world is that the surrealism movement in art and culture was largely over when abstract art took center stage in the 1960s.

But there's no point in trying to reason with Boyer, because he'll spout all manner of references that purport to show how surrealism has been misunderstood by the mainstream art movement. As you have found, he is adept at coming up with supporting references that are not really authoritative. The effort involved in refuting these is high, since it is so hard to "prove" the absence of something, or "prove" that something is unimportant. The right way would be to try to get, say, three college professors, at different institutions, to write a 1-2 page letter summarizing their views on the topic.

But they would have not to be art historians, as that would be begging the very question that is in dispute. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:07, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians may respond with apathy and even with such evidence an edit war could drag on.

Surrealism as an article is more important to Wikipedia than IUOMA or Natatoria, because people actually come to Wikipedia to read about Surrealism. It's too bad the article is so poor. I am not up to the challenge of improving it, however, since I don't have the background, and since MeatBall:FightingIsBoring.

As for IUOMA, it should just be deleted, since there is less to say about it than the Podunkton Methodist Church Women's Group, which at least holds a bake sale and a quilting day every year, and actually *has* a treasurer and a president.

UninvitedCompany 18:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Despite your vendetta against surrealism, there is a term for this "revisionist POV": Surrealism. Check any primary source. Check Breton's Manifestoes of Surrealism, in which he provides the following definitions for surrealism:

"SURREALISM, n. Psychic automatism in its pure state, by which one proposes to express-verbally, by means of the written word, or in any other matter-the actual functioning of thought. Dictated by thought, in the absence of any control excercised by reason, exempt from any moral concern."

"ENCYCLOPEDIA. Philosophy. Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life. The following have performed acts of ABSOLUTE SURREALISM: Aragon, Baron, Boiffard, Breton, Carrive, Crevel, Delteil, Desnos, Eluard, Gérard, Limbour, Malkine, Morise, Naville, Noll, Péret, Picon, Soupault, Vitrac."

Check the journal La Revolution Surrealiste, check the Chicago journal Arsenal: Surrealist Subversions, check the Surrealist Subversions anthology (this is reviewed, for example at http://eserver.org/bs/reviews/2002-10-28-2.43PM.html, and I would like to point out a quote therefrom: "Any art student who ever saw surrealism as a primarily artistic or intellectual movement rather than a political one should have no such conceptions after reading this book -- almost every essay underscores the intrinsically revolutionary and political nature of surrealism"); that is, check any surrealist source in addition to things just written about surrealism. In terms of it continuing after the 1960s not only might I point out the huge flood of surrealist publications coming out of not only Chicago but Paris, Portland, Prague &c., but -- would you be willing to accept it as a mainstream source -- this quote from the Grove Dictionary of Art: "Breton's death in 1966 left no heir who could impose cohesion, although some activity continued in Brussels (with Marcel Mariën and the painters Jane Graverol and Felix Labisse), Prague (with the artists Jiri Kolar, Josef Istler, Eva Svankmajerova and the film maker Jan Svankmajer) and Chicago (coordinated by Franklin Rosemont)." In my view "some activity" is an understatement (the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition in Chicago (at which 31 countries were represented[1]) obviously postdated the 1960s, and it received substantial mainstream media coverage, as did the "Surrealism Here and Now" show at the Heartland Cafe in Chicago[2]), but it is at least a mainstream source showing surrealism continuing after the 1960s. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

line-item-VfD

I'm not aware of any line-item-VfD. Pretty much edit wars are the only way people use to prevent people including themselves in articles. Sad. A better way might be to ask for page protection. - Tεx τ urε 16:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer

Please do not interpret what I am about to write as lobbying to keep Daniel C. Boyer; I have no position on this. Neither is it an attempt to control or alter any of the content of the article should it survive. I am just asking you to explain why you would say "Googling you, I couldn't find anything that you hadn't posted yourself, or that wasn't just a representation of wikipedia content" when this is not what the Google results would show, and by your own admission you hadn't actually examined all of the Google results (this is not an attempt to say that I am not an "aspiring artist," just to examine this claim on its own merits and nothing more); why you slightly shifted your claim that with one exception "everything I saw was on sites that either allow users to post profiles directly, or at least exclusively post unsolicited submissions", when this claim was based on again not examining the evidence; and what is the implication of "I've had art professors with work in the permanent collections of museums who I don't even think merit entries. If webzines and group shows were enough, everyone with a BFA would have their own article" when by examining Wikipedia you will see that my artwork has also been included in books and my articles and responses to inquiries have been included in (print) journals, and I am currently preparing for my seventh solo exhibition. This is not an argument as to my famousness or non-famousness, or whether there should be an article on me (I could still be obscure or "aspiring"), but I think you should confine your arguments to facts; otherwise, you should explain yourself. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:41, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I said I didn't find anything else other than what I stated I did. One reason may have been that my search was for the single term "daniel c. boyer", not the occurence of "daniel" together with "boyer." As for the "facts", you presented the long list of links as all being examples of content you were not responsible for yourself, which clearly wasn't the case, and I honestly described what I found in what I did look through. If you actually look at what I said instead of interpreting my statements to be broader than what they were, I never pretended to take anything more than a sampling of your links, links that you misrepresented as ALL being something that, at the very least, not all of them were. And from my sampling, I only found one link that was of a different character than what I had first found.

Most of my listed links were for "Daniel C. Boyer," so I don't think that point is that significant. What I was questioning was whether you would characterise Wikipedia as being an objective academic project and then be inconsistent by being so casual about research and forming an opinion on that basis. I also, rightly or otherwise, took your original statement about content I had posted very literally (in none of the links did I actually physically post the material), but you then shifted gears to content I was reponsible for. However, most of the links I provided I wasn't responsible for the content of either; an example is the P.S. Rabel biography (I don't read German!). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have anything against your work--I actually liked some of the drawings that I saw online--and I'm not disputing that you apparently have had some success in your profession. As have many, many people, however. My point about art professors is that there are plenty of people that have been successful in art, in terms of getting their work shown, but that alone doesn't make them notable for mention in the content here.

I don't dispute this in the slightest. If you are going to say that I'm not notable enough for mention here, I won't dispute it. All I am asking for is that you refrain from making factually-inaccurate claims. I'll let this statement go to address what you claim my motives are as well. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you're letting your ego about your work get the best of you, and I think your claim that you have no position on whether or not your titular article should be kept is a little disingenuous, considering the great lengths you've gone to in order to dispute comments about your significance. Perhaps you should have taken to heart the comment about your "disgusting self-promotion" posted in your talk page last year, from the very one whom you say started your article (under an anon IP, it appears), as well as the unanimous agreement, but for one vote last I saw, in the VfD page. Just ask yourself how appropriately you've handled this, in choosing not to stay out and let others who are disinterested argue for and against something in which you are personally invested. --Postdlf 18:15 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Beer ads

Thanks for the head's up, and for your vigilance! I've spared two articles that aren't as spamish; Mountain Crest Brewing Corp. and Mountain Crest Classic Lager (which seems to be the company's only noteworthy brand). I'm not sure if they can be NPOVed adequately; if you think not, by all means list them on VfD. We do have articles on other beer brands, but of course, they don't read like ads. Cheers, -- Hadal 19:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nicely done! I know how you feel, but thanks to your effort they're not getting the hyped plug the company desired. It's also odd that only the brother, and not the president, was originally mentioned. Sibling rivalry, perhaps (though that might be assuming too much about the submitter). -- Hadal 20:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VfD-Electional astrology

I'm hoping your comment that you can't tell electional astrology apart from astronomy was a slip of the fingers. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:08, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded a bit snippy, it's just that it's really annoying when people don't know the difference. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:17, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

No, I agree. I just feel so ashamed now...everyone's going to think I'm a regular Weekly World News reader or something. Postdlf 20:20 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VfD-Skull (mythology)

I hope you'll change your mind and discover some of the skull symbolism in Western art. How about Wolk (mythology)? Would you permit that? It's not as interesting as beer can labels I'll admit... Wetman 20:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I hope you noticed that I said on VfD that I liked your prose--I just don't think it's of the right descriptive nature for a wikipedia article--it's too much of a meditation. (maybe wikibooks instead?) But more to the point, the reason why I listed it on VfD is that I have serious doubts as to whether there could be a full article on the topic (and by "mythology" I assume you mean to include symbolism and artistic uses...so "skull (symbolism)" would be a better title). I can't think of any skull symbolism beyond use as a proxy for death or the dead, and as a warning...also of death (i.e. on poison, pirate flags, etc.). I can think of two options that would be better: include a "cultural references" section in skull, or a page on death (symbolism) that would include skulls and everything else. As for wolves, I also think a cultural references section would be appropriate there in the main article...that's how it's done for apple. If I'm wrong about the varied and multiple uses of skulls in culture, myth, etc., then I'd love to see that reflected through expanded information in your article. Postdlf 22:16 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

and I just noticed there is a small section on wolves in folklore in that main article, btw... Postdlf 22:18 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deletion candidates

I have deleted Growling Dog Productions since it was previously listed on vfd and deleted. Someone else has deleted Scott Ross Schaefer. The guidelines for speedy deletion candidates is located at Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion. What does or does not need to be listed on vfd is a matter of some interpretation. Maximus Rex 21:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This may provide some insight into Anthony DiPierro's voting. (Or maybe it won't.) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Evidence. -- Maximus Rex 16:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks...I try to be objective in judging the behavior of other wikipedians--it helps to see that many others have had the same concerns that I have. It looks like those arbitration dialogues had concluded that he had stopped trolling on VfD...I think it's time to revisit that conclusion. Postdlf 18:23 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Palestine in short

Hi. I agree that Palestine in short should be deleted but it is not a candidate for speedy deletion - please list on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if appropriate. - Tεx τ urε 15:30, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This also applies to Range and borders of Palestine. I can't find a reason under Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion that allows me to speedy delete this article. Please list on VfD. - Tεx τ urε 15:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought Palestine in short was at least borderline for speedy deletion, but I thought it was also clear that it was redundant content posted to avoid peer editing on the main article, after the creator had spurred an edit war seen by many as vandalism on his part. I didn't list the Range and borders one for speedy deletion, though I still think it's also a solid vfd candidate. Postdlf 7:20 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with redundant categories

If anyone's wondering why I have a lot of vandal-appearing edits relating to the variously named United States history categories, it's because I'm really confused and trying to fix it. Yeah. Redirects unfortunately don't seem to carry over the articles that link to them to the target category. Anyway...I'll sort it out. Postdlf 3:27 04 June 2004 (UTC)

Categories of Airports

I noticed you changed the category of Bolton Field Airport to Airports in Ohio. Just to let you know, I am categorizing every airport currently in Wikipedia. The topic of subdividing countries is still one under discussion. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/categorization and post a note there. Until then, I am reverting them to Category:Airports of the United States.

Secondary note, the current style is Transportation in * not * transportation. Burgundavia 04:17, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New York City categories

I am not certain if you know, but the standard for naming, is * of * or * in *, not * *. Ie. Transportation in New York City, not New York City transportation. I moved most of the transportion categories to the standard style, but there remains: Category:New_York_City_history Category:New_York_City_neighborhoods Category:New_York_City_skyscrapers which should be moved to the the standard style, as well as Category:Manhattan neighborhoods. If you have any questions, give me a shout on my talk page. Burgundavia 00:15, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

As for conventions, most is just observing and asking. As for the moving, I did it all the hard way. Go to the deepest level and start there, then change each level as you. I really do hope they make categories expandable. Hope this helps. Burgundavia

Categorization of United States National Security Advisor

You made seven edits in a row to this page, but you marked them all minor and didn't give edit summaries for any of them, so it's rather hard to figure out what you were trying to do. In any case, the overall effect of your edits in total was to:

Categorize this article into Category:National Security Council and Category:Executive Office of the U.S. President
Remove the See also section pointing to Category:United States National Security Advisors
Categorize this article into Category:United States National Security Advisors

While no. 1 makes perfect sense, I'm not sure what your goal was with nos. 2 and 3. The article describes the office of National Security Advisor. The category lists people who were National Security Advisors. United States National Security Advisor isn't an example of one of the United States National Security Advisors. I've backed out those two changes. In the future, please mark down at least a word or two of edit summary to let people know what you're trying to accomplish when the purpose of your edits isn't self-evident. --TreyHarris 04:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think my point in putting it there was that it contained a list of National Security Advisors—perhaps a better alternative would've been for me to simply name the category for inclusion "National Security Advisor" so that way it would more sensibly contain the article describing the office as well as those who have held the title. As for as edit summaries, I knew that unfortunately someone along the way would be displeased by my omission of them, but when I go on my categorizing frenzies, I try to work very quickly. I think for the most part, my categorizations speak for themselves (at least in the end—sometimes it takes a few tries to fix them because they don't show up in previews). Postdlf 11 June 2004 4:06 (UTC)

Non-tariff barriers to trade

Hello to Manhattan, I very much like Krzysztof Kieslowski as well! I made a comment at the discussion of the article Non-tariff barriers to trade because you have the understandable perception that tariffs are tariffs, which, I am afraid, some economists try to pretend is not the case. Good luck with your studies! Please also check my page and let me know there in case you are interested in my learning project. Get-back-world-respect 17:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moving articles

Hello. Nice work with all the categorization. I noticed you moved a Supreme Court Case article recently by cutting and pasting the content. This is not recommended as the article history does not move with the content when you do this. Reccommended method is to use the Move function (tab) at the top of the article. Of course, if there was an article at the target name already, you'd have to ask and admin to delete it first, which is generally no problem if it is only a redirect. older≠wiser 02:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the case...there was a redirect there. Thanks for noticing my work on the categorization...I've been quite pleased with how the organization has been coming along so far. ---Postdlf 2:09 13 June 2004 (UTC)

User:IZAK

I think IZAK isn't capable of being objective about anything related to religion. He's completely blinded by his ideology. See User talk:John Kenney#The VfD/Prof E-Mal, Talk:Jew, and User talk:Eequor#Objection to Jewish mythology. It's really a shame he can't understand and forces Wikipedia to his beliefs by his persistence. --Eequor 13:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Robert Jackson

I decided to undertake the disambiguation of "Robert Jackson" since we had a lot of ridiculous links. I was working on the article about the NYC Councilmember. Then I saw that, at the same time, you'd created the disambiguation page. Was this just an amazing coincidence? It doesn't matter at all, but I can't help being curious! JamesMLane 19:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have the Barnette case on my watchlist, and saw that you had disambiguated the Jackson link in that article...then I noticed that Robert Jackson itself needed to be disambiguated. Tha's all. Postdlf 19:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot I'd done that link first. It seemed like too much of a coincidence to be true. Anyway, thanks for doing the Robert Jackson page. JamesMLane 20:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Grand Upright v. Warner

I see that you added a neutrality dispute tag to this article, noting that it was someone's personal critique of the case. The article is very stubby at the moment (no description of the case itself, for example!) but it seems accurate, so far as it goes. Do you see any errors in Mr. Cronin's analysis of the case? Do you think that the law does say that a request for permission is equivalent to stipulating that there is a valid copyright, or that use without permission is copyright infringement? Jamesday 18:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read the case, and your questions about what I thought about it are missing the point of what is wrong with the article. The stub may have sound criticism of the case, but at current it contains nothing but criticism without actually explaining what the opinion said or how the court's reasoning could be otherwise justified. That wouldn't necessarily be fatal, just a sign of a work in progress, but the choice of language furthermore treats the criticism as accepted fact—its very definition is that it is "a flawed US copyright infringement decision..." It is acceptable NPOV to point out that courts or legal scholars consider it flawed. It is unacceptable POV to say that it is flawed. Postdlf 19:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Place categories

Thanks for your help with Louisiana places categories. -- Infrogmation 20:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Columbus area FM stations

I must strongly disagree with your moving of Columbus FM stations from articles such as WNCI to WNCI-FM. This only introduces inaccuracies into the wikipedia and violates FCC naming conventions. Please use the FCC database to do station queries before moving articles to prevent these bad edits. Richardsur 04:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about—I've done no such thing. Postdlf 14:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I didn't do enough research before posting to your talk page. It was shortly after you added the category information that the articles were moved, so I figured you were moving them. Sorry. By the way, great job with the categories. --Richardsur 22:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Harvey v. Horan

I hope you don't think I've abandoned this article. I'm afraid it's taking a bit longer than I expected, as there's a lot of information in the appeal that I'm trying to incorporate into the new article.

Again, thanks for your help,

Acegikmo1 16:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Towns category

You might want to be cautious about creating and populating categories for Towns in XX State. In many states, "towns" have no official meaning and the term was only used in Wikipedia articles because Rambot-generated articles used it for Census-designated places that were not cities, villages or other official entities. Of course, in some states, "town" does have an official status. older≠wiser 02:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the categorization can be changed as the individual articles are corrected—otherwise, there is no way to categorize them now. I noticed under one state, someone had unthinkingly categorized all municipalities as "cities"; at least I'm using the terms currently present in the article. Postdlf 02:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Books that start with B

I read your message and if the category and sister categories are really such a problem then I'll allow an administrator to delete them if we could get ahold of one to remove them and the links to them. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon Talk]] 20:00, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Washington Metro

Re your comments on User talk:Bryan Derksen. You're right about (Washington Metro), I just figured that could wait until those had actual pages (And I did it pre-emptively with a few, specifically Pentagon City (Washington Metro)). That is a worthy project, I could get on it. Leave the recategorization to him. ;) And you do have a good point with crowding out the category. --Golbez 08:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

County Categories

Please review the comment I put on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Counties, and comment there. I'd like to get some other mids looking at the subject as well. If you think I'm out of line, feel free to use my talk page as an alternative. Thanks, Lou I 19:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Still thinking about your update. Re: Category for colunial governors, I'd suggest the title if Category:American Colonial Governors with a sub-category of Massachusetts Colonial Governors, etc. This avoids some conflicts, since Nova Scotia Colonial Governors is no problem, but still leaves the otther naming problem of PROVINCE vs COLONY. The term province is a two plus century dead legal term. The British secretary of state and trade lords used it, but even in the eighteenth centry Americans only used it on legal documents and formalisms. I'll still have to thrash that one out with Jengod. Regards, Lou I 20:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did the difference in term between a "province" and a "colony" actually have any legal impact, or was it pretty much mere semantics as between "commonwealths" and states today? Postdlf 17:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Help, please

You have done a lot more with Categories than I have. I modiied the category entry for the American Revolution, hoping to make the Revolutionary War a subcategory, but not the other way around. Yet after my change, each category will refers to the other as a subcategory. If you could take a look, and let me know how or why I failed, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Lou I 16:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For some reason, the way the database works, changes to categories don't always update right away. If you look at Category:American Revolution, it's only a member of Category:United States history, so nothing more needs to be done except waiting for the system to refresh Category:American Revolutionary War so the changes will be visible there too. Postdlf 17:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I've been pondering whether there should be a Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence or a Category:Signers of the U.S. Constitution. I'm leaning against it right now so I've held off, but I don't yet have any conclusive reasons why or why not. Postdlf 17:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Legal Citation

You're the law guy, I'm not. Is it really universal to use "U.S." rather than "US" in legal citation? -- Jmabel 18:20, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes—while not every jurisdiction uses the exact same citation forms (for example, some state courts put the case name, then year, then reporter rather than the standard Blue Book case name, then reporter, then year form used in federal courts and law schools), case reporter abbreviation is something in which there is total consistency. "U.S." refers specifically to the "United States Reports", the official Supreme Court case reporter, and is the only accepted way to refer to it.

Strictly speaking, I think "U.S." is probably the only right way to abbreviate "United States" in general anyway, despite the common use of "US". It isn't the same as state abbreviations such as "NY" or "DC" that are proper without periods because they have accepted use as postal codes. Postdlf 19:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Hello again Postdlf,

I have finally completely rewritten what was US Constitutional right of access to DNA testing. It is now located at Harvey v. Horan. It's about fifteen times as long as the original article and (I'm hoping) as many times more accurate. I would greatly appreciate it if you'd look over the article. I will graciously accept any corrections or suggestions you have.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 05:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Experiments that Work and Ones that Don't

Are these necessary considering how we have categories now? They seem like unnecessary clutter. Postdlf 23:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you're mostly right. It was practicable and (I think) helpful with Roman myth. It's clearly breaking down with Greek myth, where things are much more open-ended and complex. Where something like nymphs or the figures associated with a god are loosely defined and wide-ranging and potentially hierarchical, categories are much better. So I'm mostly dissatisfied with the experiment.

The only ones that I think might be worth keeping, in stripped-down form, are Template:Greek myth (Titan) and Template:Greek myth (Olympian) - maybe or maybe not (sea) and (Hades). At least the first two data sets are small, heterogeneous and closely interrelated enough where it could still work. Bacchiad 00:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fun with Religion

Thanks for the update regarding that "Aldism" article, or however it's spelled. Funny stuff. Oh, well...wouldn't be the first time I was quoted out of context! :^)) Take care. - Lucky 6.9 16:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FHM

Thanks for taking the time to deal with the FHM category. In the end, it just came down to the fact that MK wasnt happy with the idea of his 'hard work' going down the drain. Anyway, its not the last of it - a while back we went through and deleted a bunch of "Year in MTV" articles, which someone was going nuts over. The FHM lists are about the same thing, only they seem more acceptible given how fast things are moving around here, and the fact that policing thest articles would be impossible. It might require 3 people to do nothing but scour categories to prune them, without really the avaliable tools to do a good job. Category pruning ought be a system task for sysops, IMHO, but that would require some upgrades. Thanks again. -SV 18:38, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

User:Arevich

Have you seen the delightful message that has been left on my user talk page by this user? I'm glad I'm going away for two days, I can tell you... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It gets even better—check out what he last wrote on his talk page. Postdlf 20:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Check out what I wrote about him removing your text, etc. - UtherSRG 22:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:Eighth albums

I suppose there are no more appropriate kudos for your contributions on this dialogue than: Rock on! *grins* - UtherSRG 20:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vate

My vate entry has been deleted, although it was posted in the undeletion list :( This discourages me to contribute in wikipedia. The lesson or others: It doesnt mean it doesn exist if you don't know it --Vate 16:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vate, your re-creating of the article was out of process. It was deleted back in Novemeber of 2003. Proper process to restore an article is to list it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Then, if concensus dictates that it should be restored, an admin will restore it. Since you decided to not follow this process, I deleted the article so as to restore correct process. - UtherSRG 16:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stubs

You asked me about stubs. I have little or no intention of expanding stubs. If you'd like to delete one or more of them, you're welcome to do so. —Vespristiano 02:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's fine to create stubs and rely on others to edit them, but make sure that even as stubs, that they aren't worthy of deletion—we shouldn't have to follow you around deleting stubs that you have given little time or thought to. With many of your stubs, it was impossible to see what was notable about the subject, or in some cases even what the subject was. At a minimum a stub should tell someone exactly why they would want to research the subject more and contribute to the article. Please see Wikipedia:Perfect stub article, and I hope you can incorporate some of those guidelines into your further work. Thanks! Postdlf 17:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Rome

Here's the NBC4 article on New Rome. http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/3598592/detail.html

Senators

Thanks for the kind words. I have noticed some pages like that, but some states have an alphabetical list (which is useful) and some have a chart (which is almost made redundant by my charts, inspired by US Congressional Delegations from North Carolina). I figured I'd deal with that once my superior ;) tables were done. Am I missing anything?

Unfortunately, right now, I'm trying to figure out how to do California. :P I've finished half the districts and am wondering if it's best to split it up. Maybe you're a good person to ask - Should I split it into several 15-district-wide tables, or just do one, 54-district wide table, and make people scroll horizontally to read it? And I have noticed the alphabetizing issue, that's a simple fix. --Golbez 06:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just reread your comment. My tables are specificaly lists of the delegations; i.e. a horizontal reference for whom served in what year. There's still a place for a vertical reference, i.e. an alphabetical list of senators and representatives. Such a list, if not made wholly redundant by a category, probably does not belong on my delegations pages, since they aren't grouped by delegation. That's the whole point of the tables. Any suggestions? --Golbez 04:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Art categories

Hi,

I noticed that you have recently created some sub-categories in the visual arts. Can I also encourage you to join the categorisation discussion at Category talk:Art -- Solipsist 20:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atlantium

I appreciate your response. My apologies concerning talk page deletions - that was a misunderstanding of etiquette on my part. --Gene_poole 07:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

listings on WP:CFD

Heya - I think it's a good idea to make the category listings subheadings. That way when the category is deleted and delisted, it can show up automatically in the edit summary. Keep up the good work! - UtherSRG 12:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ohio categorization

Just wanted to say that I've been watching your work on Ohio counties, etc. which some interest. (Actually I've been watching recent changes and noticing the frequent appearance of the word Ohio.) Good work - also, it makes me happy because I'm currently an out-of-state Ohioan and it reminds me of home. :) Aranel 18:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sympson the Joiner

Sympson the Joiner survived VfD with two Del votes (including the nomination to VfD), three explicit Keep votes, and two arguable implicit Keeps (via mentions of Cleanup).
In accord with severalWP:CU mentions, it
1. went on,
2. got a one-word M(inor) edit after 18 minutes, and
3. was kicked off by one editor after 14 hours, with summary "nothing more is likely to turn up".
Your comment at Talk:Sympson the Joiner#Should this be Merged? would assist me in determining what next.

--Jerzy (t) 04:25, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

User:Hemanshu

I think you were very polite and appropriate in your notes to him. - UtherSRG 12:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Academic institutions

I started several threads on Category talk:Academic institutions, so we can clarify things there, rather than on scattered user pages... -- Beland 04:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Grandes écoles

I note that you capitalized the É in . Why this decision? École is a common name; you would not use "Universities and Colleges in France", would you? David.Monniaux 06:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)