User:BD2412/Archive 003

Status: Active. bd2412 T Dispute resolution clause: By posting on my user talk page, you agree to resolve all disputes that may arise from your interactions with me through the dispute resolution processes offered within the Wikipedia Community. BD2412 Note: If you are visiting to express concerns because I have edited your user page to fix a disambiguation link, please bear in mind: I assume that you have the link there because you wish to point readers to the proper term (e.g "I speak Greek" or "I am Greek"). It makes it much easier for those of us who are cleaning up disambiguation links from articles if there are fewer user pages cluttering up the "What links here" page. Cheers! BD2412 Talk page archives I have divided my archived pages by topic, rather than by date: User:BD2412/Archive - Law the law, or articles on law-related topics (cases, doctrines, judges, professors, etc). User:BD2412/Archive - Articles all other Wikipedia articles. User:BD2412/Archive - Deletion AfD votes, policies, and mechanics. User:BD2412/Archive - RfA Requests for Administration and Requests for Comment. User:BD2412/Archive - Tools Wikitools (templates, categories, disambigs, etc.) and Wikiprojects (Disambiguation repair, Red link repair, Duplicated section repair, etc.). User:BD2412/Archive - Vandalism vandalism-related discussions, particularly requests to deal with vandals. User:BD2412/Archive - Miscellaneous everything else (thank you's, screw you's, my signature, jokes, comments, etc). I archive frequently - if you post a comment here, do not be surprised if it has been put away by the next day. I reserve the right to delete frivolous posts. My archiving is done primarly by the cut and paste method, although I occasionally archive long pages by page move. If you're looking for the edit history of a comment in my archives, it will likely be in the edit history of a page to which I moved a long archive. Copyrights of machine-generated pictures I'm wondering now about machine-generated images such as x-rays, MRI pictures, etc. Since those involve no human creative input, are they even eligible for copyright protection? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) One could say the same thing about photographs taken with cameras - but I would highly doubt copyright would attach to a machine generated picture unless the person operating the machine made some wholly non-utilitarian effort to do something creative with the process. bd2412 T 07:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC Chapter Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Enjoy!! BD. enjoy your travels! -- DS1953 talk 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Hello! Hello I noticed that you have interest in legal articles and great knowledge. Can you plz. take a look at this article i just wrote Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York and tell me what you think? Do you want to team up to work on legal articles together? JeanLatore (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Would you be willing to edit an article that I have started? I picked you in a semi-random manner and am wondering if you would care to come and collaborate on Toibb v. Radloff with me? Didn't realize how badly it was written until I self-nominated for WP:GA and got a reality check from a more experienced editor. I want to see what it takes to fix my work up into a good article; more interestingly, one of the comments left by the reviewer ("And how it's studied in law school etc.") is something about which I am absolutely clueless. Please edit it mercilessly. By the way, I like the forum-selection clause at the top of your user talk page. Very clever. Bwrs (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Requesting administrative intervention Hi BD2412, can you please explain to User:Pseudomonas that pages like the one I just did on Dickinson Wright PLLC aren't candidates for speedy deletion simply because they mention a private company? This guy doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the guidelines. --Eastlaw (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Seems the situation has resolved itself without my intervention. I'll keep an eye out, though. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Nightmare or Gordian knot Hardly urgent but... Can you take a look at the terms residency, resident, legal resident, tax resident, permanent establishment, and so forth in what seems to be an endless loop of legalese wherein the colloquial or common use of such terms as 'permanent residence' (NOT involving either citizenship nor visa statuses! Like as in "College address" vs. home of record and such usages.) which have me going dizzy from cross dependent linking and aliases (via redirect pages). Strikes me at least one page is missing and needs created. I'm hip deep in a couple of other edits, and also don't care to break any legal definitions, so figured to yell for help to someone who could address colloquialisms and the law. (No doubt in your copious 'spare' time! <g>) Seems likely to me "permanent residence" could perhaps be better named "permanent residence (law)" or the like, so colloquial meanings have a home. I'll continue to mush back to missing real estate terms like two family residence and three family residence, which I found missing starting from "home" and house. (Seems a simple link check can cause a lot of trouble! Yikes!!!) Let's say I'm really sidetracked trying to do the right thing, and 'that', whatever it is, is now fairly obscure to me! Worse, if I keep editing new pages, I'm gonna lose chains of edits that lead me innocently into this conundrum. IIRC, I began editing in valley and Hollow, so spate of cross edit'ns been a wild as checking chain of links goes. Thanks! Nice to say hi again. My oldest boy is starting college this August down your neck of the woods--Florida Tech. Got nearly a full scholarship which is definitely a good thing! Cheers // FrankB 17:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A little help I wouldn't mind a little help if you have time. :-) The FairTax article (FA) was listed on the main page this week, so it's now receiving its share of comments. I don't know what your position is on tax reform nor do I care if you support or oppose such a bill. I've always found you to be honest, provide good discussion, and you know taxation and wikipedia policies very well, which is what we may need there with many new users making comments (we get the extremes). We've been through FAR on similar things and just so stressful. I'll warn you that it is a controversial subject, so like many of our tax protester articles, it could get a little heated. Anyway, thank you for you help if you have time. We need some level heads. Morphh (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) This is becoming increasingly difficult and stressful. It has now moved itself to Fringe Noticeboard in an attempt to remove sourced economic research about the plan. It's picked up another person that is completely oblivious to policy. I don't have the time to deal with this by myself. We clearly need some more individuals to instruct on policy. Your help and experience would be appreciated on this article. Let me add that I understand this might better be suited for another "noticeboard" but I thought the last board would have helped. Instead, it just added to the problem and created more stress / work. Morphh (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC) I was wondering if you would be able to join the discussion over at FairTax. This has become too difficult to address by disputing parties and the introduction of a first time moderator has recently made it worse. It looks like we may be heading to an arbitration, but I think we just need more people in the discussion. This article is seriously wearing me out. Most of the discussion is not really about content, it's more about policy and the basis for including and excluding content. Debates over WP:FRINGE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Thanks Morphh (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Ok, let me do some research on the topic. bd2412 T 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you, some links in here help. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-19 FairTax Morphh (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I wanted to thank you for taking your time to do some research on this. At this point, it looks like my changes address the main disputes and hopefully additional issues will be easily resolved. I know how researching a disinteresting topic can be, particularly when you have limited time and much to do. While it appears I was able to resolve it, I wanted you to know how much I appreciated you taking a step to help resolve the disputes. Things can get overwhelming here at times and your involvement reduced a great deal of stress, allowing me to work through the issues. Morphh (talk) 21:17, 04 September 2008 (UTC) The Guidance Barnstar I award this Guidance Barnstar to BD2412 - a Wikipedia leader. Thank you for taking time in assisting fellow editors in dispute resolution on a topic that holds little interest. You may have saved this editor from leaving Wikipedia from too much wikistress. Thanks Morphh (talk) 21:17, 04 September 2008 (UTC) Kumite I noticed your post on Kumite (tournament), and I tagged the article to be merged with Bloodsport (film) but I'm not entirely sure thats the right place for it. Perhaps you could reiterate your viewpoint on the talk page smooth0707 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC) New templates with red links reports Now available at the usual locations. However, after looking at the output, I think another sort step would be helpful, so I think I'll re-run it later today. --Russ (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks, I'll work on it when that's done! bd2412 T 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States Hi, BD. Just want to let you know that I will be out on vacation starting Monday and will be gone for a week. I won't be able to review the artcile then. However, there's no need to rush on finishing the GA nomination. We can keep the GA nomination open for a while longer if you need extra time. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC) That's fine with me as well - I'll call upon some other editors with knowledge in the area for a review. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Painter disambig You recently edited this page, removing a crucial qualification. If you can think of a way to shorten the distinction I was trying to make, then please do it. But it is necessary. Why? Because as you have left things, someone who paints murals would qualify as a "painter" under the second definition, just like a house painter. A disambiguation is inadequate if it doesn't clarify the distinction being made, and it's too bad if it takes more words than you'd like to see. If you don't restore that distinction, either in my original version or in a new version improved for brevity, than I will restore it myself. MdArtLover (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Done. Users should be able to get that distiction by visiting the individual articles, however. bd2412 T 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States This is probably pure speculation, but...I know that there were rumors that Frank Murphy was allegedly the first gay SCOTUS justice. I doubt you could find any mention of this in reference sources, so I doubt that it warrants any inclusion in the article (i.e. it wasn't like the situation with J. Edgar Hoover, where persistent rumors surrounded him his whole career). --Eastlaw (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) UPDATE: There's this article, linked to Murphy's talk page, but it's pretty scant. I don't want to turn Wikipedia into the "Are they gay or not" website; I personally don't really care about these things as much as many others here do. How seriously you wish to take this reference is your decision. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC) It was in a book in print, I think it's worth a scant mention. bd2412 T 02:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC) And on a totally unrelated note... User:Java7837 has been on a tear, removing links to Sourcewatch in articles.[1] I asked him on his talk page why he is doing this, and he hasn't answered me. What should I do? --Eastlaw (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure I disagree. Give him a bit more time to come up with an answer. bd2412 T 03:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Links to List of United States Supreme Court cases Hi. I just noticed that User:MZMcBride has been removing links to this list from case articles. He's done it to like a hundred articles. Did I miss something? I left a message on his talk page but haven't heard from him. In any case, I could use a third opinion. It's been my impression that the links were ok because they were thought to be useful but before I revert his edits maybe we should talk about it and get a general consensus.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I think we're on top of it. Although we may be discussing whether to move the links to the infobox.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC) "Law Review" vs. "Law Journal" Title Hi, I appreciate you getting me on the right track as a new editor! I have posted a detailed rationale for why I wanted to move the Law Review page to Law Journal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_review Thanks, Brewsky83 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Meetup Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately, I am now in the DC area. bd2412 T 02:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC) My newest essay/rant I just wrote a really long new essay that you may find interesting: not all business articles are spam. I'm going to post it at the village pump for policy. I would, however, appreciate hearing your thoughts on it. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Discussion about the next DC Meetup Greetings! You are receiving this message because you said you wanted to be reminded about future DC meetups on Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_4. We are planning the next DC meetup in late August/early September at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_5, and would love to have your input. Staeiou (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC) The NLJ 250 Hello again, BD2412. I have created this table based on the National Law Journal's rankings of the 250 largest law firms in the USA by headcount. I was wondering if you think such a thing would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia (we already have a listing of the largest UK and EU firms, by revenue). Also, if you do want me to make this an article, let me know if I should delete the salary information, as I am unsure if such data is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Eastlaw (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I wouldn't bother with salary info - just another statistic to keep updated. Also, do we need all 250? bd2412 T 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure that all 250 firms are necessarily notable, but I think it's useful enough to have on Wikipedia. Eastlaw (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Since it's a factual list, there should be no copyright concerns, I'm just wanting to avoid duplicating any of the source's editorial judgments (like having 250 as the cutoff). I'm also concerned about the possibility of the numbers becoming outdated quickly. But, I think the chances of any problem arising are quite remote. bd2412 T 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC) OK, I already made the page: List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers. I didn't think that listing the same number that NLJ did would be a copyright problem. As far as the numbers becoming outdated, I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. I know the other lists of law firms are already outdated, since they use revenue figures from 2006 and 2007. Several of the firms on my list have already merged (which I've noted at the bottom). By the way, if you feel more comfortable responding on your own talk page, that's fine with me. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks - it looks very good. I've made it sortable in case anyone has a hankering to look up the firms alphabetically or (more likely) by city. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities Thanks for your expression of interest in Wikipedia Prisons, otherwise known as Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities. Seven people have now indicated here that they would like to help out so I am now assuming that this project will actually happen. I suppose we need to take care of a few preliminaries: getting through the proposal stage, and creating a wikiproject page, page tag, and maybe an infobox. Thanks again for your interest. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC) E-mail I sent you an e-mail recently. If you can't help me with the issue, could you point me to someone who can help? Everyking (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Hang on, checking it out. bd2412 T 15:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Ok, will email you back. bd2412 T 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities Update As you can see, this project has now taken off. Thanks for your support!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Fair use question Hi, me again with another IP law question for you. I have a bad feeling that a lot of what we claim as fair use here on WP is actually not. After reading [2] I'm concerned that our overuse of non-free photos of deceased individuals doesn't come close to being fair use: Edward Boyd (one article that I worked on a bit), for example. Although WP may be non-profit, I think we might fail the first factor in that the use is not transformative, and being in the top 10 sites on the Internet means a small copyright infringement is visible by a large number of people kind of makes the non-profit aspect moot. Anyway, I'd like to get your thoughts on it when you have time. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The fair use factors are non-exclusive and are weighed collectively. Hence, it is possible for one or two of the factors to go against a fair use claimant while the remaining factors weigh more heavily in favor of the claimant. I'll have to think on it more. bd2412 T 22:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I get what you're saying; it's my poor wording that makes it seem like I have a poorer grasp of it than I actually do. So here's my analysis and I'm curious to see how much you agree/disagree: Purpose and character - not transformative (original intent of the creator is to portray the person depicted in the photo, which is what we are doing), non-profit educational use. Nature of the copied work - All non-free content here are required to have been previously published, but we have to consider the public interest in seeing what these people look like -- but I'm not sure how important it is to actually have a visual aid in many cases where the individual's appearance is not significant. Amount and substantiality - Generally speaking, we use 100% of the copyrighted photo, although there are cases where the photo is cropped to focus on the individual depicted. Effect upon work's value - I argue that our status as a top 10 web site increases the competition to sites that have to pay for the content, thus giving our visitors less incentive to go to other sites and thereby decreasing their traffic. Additionally, it's my understanding that copyright holders such as press agencies tend to charge based on expected distribution of the copyrighted work, so WP's nonpayment means a lost market opportunity for them. So I have it that we fail the last two factors for sure, and likely the second factor as well, leaving the first factor up for grabs. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry to butt in here. Do you mean the Pepsi Boyd? And a clear explanation of "transformative use" would help a lot, I think. I certainly don't fully understand that, let alone "original market role"... Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) No, not the Pepsi ad itself; I'm fairly certain we get fair use there. I'm talking about the photo of Edward Boyd himself. The ad is a decent example of transformative use; our use is different than the original intent (as an advertisement), whereas we are showing it in context to show how Pepsi eschewed racial stereotypes in their advertising. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Fair use comment and request for advice Hi there. I was reading an old discussion and noticed this comment. Would you be able to advise here. In particular, there was an old discussion for best practice for NFC images. See here. Would you have opinions on those images and their uses? Also, I wrote part of the comment at point 6 here: "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos (some of which are later donated into the public domain: example)." - does that sound OK? Sorry to pile all those questions on, but getting some knowledgeable opinion really helps in such discussions! Carcharoth (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Chapter 13 (song) A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chapter 13 (song), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 18:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Why are you telling me this? All I did was make Chapter 13 a redirect to the U.S. bankruptcy statute. Someone else moved this and made it into an article on the song, please contact them about it. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Are/Were you a brother in TEΦ? I'm working on the List of Tau Epsilon Phi chapters, which is currently the best consolidation of TEΦ chapter information on the internet (better than national HQ, though that isn't hard...). I am looking for help finding information on the Missing Chapters, and any help or information you can add to the discussion page or the article would be most appreciated! TΓ 703 Timmccloud (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC) I was indeed, graduated about twelve years ago. I believe there's a Facebook page for the 100 year reunion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Re: DC 5 Plz. see this site. (I'm not familiar on how to add a IPA pronunciation to witk.) ffm 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Well, yes, there is that. I still prefer to pronounce it like eye-diom (which sound more like idea and less like idiot). But I acknowledge that I am wrong in doing so. bd2412 T 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Nice meeting you too. -- BRG (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Pro se BD - I see you were over at the Pro Se article doing a little cleanup. Have you taken in what's going on over there? Any opinion?? Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The situation has caught my attention. I'm actually about to sign off, but tomorrow evening it will have my full attention. bd2412 T 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks. By the way, how's LLM school treating you? Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) So far, so good! bd2412 T 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I think that the secondary cites to confirm the plain language of primary source quotes (like you just removed) are "MLA cites" - KS was citing them because that's where she discovered it, and MLA would say that may require a citation. Moreover, these secondary cites still add nothing to confirm the relevance or interpretation of those sources, which is his or her biggest problem. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC) WP Law assessment Hello BD2412, since you are a participant in WP Law can you help in a WP Law dispute? Several months ago a non-participant in WP Law removed the links to WP Law's assessment department and essentially squatted it: the editor did not make enough changes to return the link to the assessment department on WP Law's project page, refused to let others make necessary changes (and said the status quo would last a year longer), and adding content from WP India that specificially linked to WP India assessment department links (rather than WP Law). In the past week or so I have reopened the Assessment department after cleaning it up and reduced the number of unassessed articles by about a third (+3000 unassessed articles to about 2300 unassessed articles). Now the editor who squatted the assessment department is lashing out in two ways: (1) reverting the article assessment's I've made that assessed articles as a C class. The editor's argument is that WP Law has not adopted the C class. However, the assessment bigwigs of Wikipedia stated that the C class is a default opt-in and a consensus opt-out. Two WP Law participants (including myself) support the C class and the editor with whom I am in this disupte is the only editor against it, and so there is no consensus to opt-out. (2) the editor in disupte is reverting the changes I've made to the assessment department to return it to the defunct state. Could you please just state some of the rules, reiterate that the C class is an automatic opt-in, and suggest a possible mediation? Thanks. EECavazos (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC) This user is misrepresenting what's really happening here. His assessment was overriden for two reasons - (a) it was quite often poor in terms of following the quality scale that's been used (and sometimes incorrect usage of the importance scale), and (b) we have not adopted C-class, and the editorial team does not have the authority to impose their changes on the WikiProject. Seeing he wanted to use C-class, I opened the discussion on adopting it at the WikiProject talk page and informed him, while moving back those poorly assessed articles to more suitable grades. Since then, he's been revert-warring and being a complete nuisance, making only a handful of productive contributions in terms of trying to reactivate the assessment dept. But he's been making significant and clearly controversial changes, and continues to do so as if he has the authority. If he has no interest in making any productive contributions outside of assessment area, and keeps edit-warring over it, then that speaks for itself. The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss - he was reverted but does not seek consensus or discuss so please show him to that page so he does not continue in this fashion. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Either way, I'm headed out of town for a wedding, and will be offline until Monday night. Possibly Tuesday. If this issue is not otherwise resolved by then, I will resolve it. bd2412 T 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Are you sure it wasn't Ted White? Hey BD. I have come to chide you about an amusing edit you made to Seminole Tribe v. Florida. Ed White (11/3/1845-5/19/1921) took no part in the consideration of Union Gas Company. I have fixed it - but not before having a good laugh. It was brought to my attention by User:Mind the gap. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Changing subject slightly, thanks for the fixeroo on my additions to Pro Se, and your help with the Kay Sieverding situation, generally. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Cheers! It has been a great 3 years my old friend, I wish you the best. Thank you so much for everything, it really has meant a lot to me. Perhaps I will email you some time, though I don't know I have it. Good luck with your practice, and thanks for being there. If you could watch over the Analytical Graphics article that would really be great. Thank you so much, Prodego talk 23:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I understand and respect your decision. I'll drop you a line here and again. bd2412 T 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Pro se BD: I put this proposal on the talk page the other day intending to be a request for urgent action, but no one seems to have noticed. Feel free to leave any thoughts you might have - if you feel like it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) CfD nomination of Category:Fictional duos Category:Fictional duos, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC) A little help when you come back? United State congressional apportionment. An editor ran his own numbers and for some reason thinks his numbers are not original research and that the link cited for the article is. World's gone topsy turvy... Foofighter20x (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I'll look into it, but I really need more time to finish up my school and work projects. bd2412 T 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (Image:TauEpsilonPhi.gif) Thanks for uploading Image:TauEpsilonPhi.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina I have nominated Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. [ roux ] [x] 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC) [ roux ] [x] 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC) No content in Category:1042 BC Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1042 BC, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1042 BC has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:1042 BC, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC) The Violin Diary Thanks for flagging my article on The Violin Diary, although it may be published through a vanity-press, doesn't mean it's not notable. It's perfectly notable. So BRING IT ON. Amelia Nymph (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC) There's nothing to bring. You're welcome to provide evidence that this book, unlike the vast majority of books in print, is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. bd2412 T 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I don't know why you've decided to go and flag the TVD articles I started here and in WikiQuotes, but your vendetta against the subject matter will NOT be tolerated. Amelia Nymph (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I assure you, my only vendetta is against Wikipedia (and Wikiquote) being used as advertising space for subjects which do not merit an encyclopedia article. If I am in error, please provide evidence of the encyclopedic notability of the subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Howdy thar, pardner Hey, pardner, just thought I'd say howdy. I still watch the tax articles (and in particular the tax protester-related articles) like a hawk; things have been fairly quiet for many months -- but you know how that goes, things can change at a moment's notice. For about a year and a half, I have also been posting at the tax protester forum at www.quatloos.com. Very interesting forum. I hope the LL.M. program is suitin' you fine. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Hey, nice of you to stop by! The program is indeed keeping me busy (expect to see a lot of updating of various articles on Patent, Trademark, and Copyright once I get through with it). I hope all is equally well with you, my friend. bd2412 T 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Proposed deletion of Charles Hamilton Aide A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Charles Hamilton Aide, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern: This article does not assert the notability of its author, e.g. by citing a notable novel, song, or drama. Assuming good faith on the part of the creator there will be 5 days to improve the article. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 121.220.222.139 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I proposed this page for deletion without relaising what a large contribution you have made to wikipoedia. I'm sorry for any offence and hope you can improve the page :) 121.220.222.139 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks, I already have. bd2412 T 09:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)