User talk:Postdlf/Archive13

Apologies for the intrusion, a propos Evlogi Georgiev

Dear Sir Evlogi Georgiev 1)Is part of the Bulgarian history in difficult times for the Balkans -complete rule of the brutal Ottoman Empire 2)A main boulevard in his name in the capital of Bulgaria is not just a street. 3)He funded a whole University, actually the most lively, energetic University of the country up to date and cultural hub. 4)He is more notable than any pornstar from Tazmania (sic) listed in this site and certainly not as ridiculousas this article (check the pix) Dildo Best regards,

• user:Spyros Pantenas

PS please feel free to delete this article after you have read it

It took me a while to figure out what article you were talking about, but I tracked it down and I think the problems I had pointed out have been fixed, so I have no further interest in it. Cheers, Postdlf 03:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all the time you spent as well as your quick reply.All the best. Spyros Spyros Pantenas 14:51 16 April 2007

Court opinions

I just wanted to tell you that the lists you've made for these pages are great. Thanks for your work. gren グレン 09:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

This is the best user page I've encountered so far. Mine is a big old mess. Can I get a copy of your JD userbox? (I'm Albany Law School '91). Bearian 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, can I get a copy of your practice in NY userbox? Your whole page is protected. Very truly yours, etc. Bearian 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just my user page is protected (cleanup tasks make admins frequent targets of vandalism), and I'm using the same code on my unprotected talk page. But the JD box is Template:User degree/JD, and here's the NY practice box again so you don't have to filter through the rest above:

This user is licensed to practice law in the State of New York.

Cheers, Postdlf 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I put articles up for deletion?

For example.. this one..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Inch_Dix

It is 100% fake. PhilANThropiSt 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The CFD you commented on is up again

Because of your history, I thought you might be interested in contributing to this deletion discussion. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Devon Zacharias

hi the page i made on Devon Zacharias i think is very hurtfull that you would say he is a non notible person he helped many people with community service to the poor and weak the young and old and you say he is non notible and i find that extremly rude and i would like it if the page would not be deleated thank you i hope you understand Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve09876 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Sailing Tidbit

The sailing tidbit is fully sourced and currently in the Jimmy Wales article. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I couldn't edit your main user page, so here's what I wanted to add:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Arknascar44 do so humbly award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar, for making more fine edits than I have ever seen. And believe me, I'm not going to let THAT go unrewarded! Arknascar44 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

John Dillon

There are 3 people called John Dillon, two of them are John F. Dillons, and this isn't at all confusing?? Maybe not for someone are supersmart as you obviously are, but for the rest of us mere mortals maybe a little clarification is required. I see you created the article too, hope you get over your bad case of ownership soon. Snappy56 22:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding my point, which is about how disambiguation pages and links work generally on Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes 'Go', what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? ...When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate or add a link to a disambiguation page."

There is no risk of confusing "John Forrest Dillon" with "John Francis Dillon," or any other "John Dillon" for that matter, because the use of the middle name in the article title distinguishes the subjects. Only John Dillon or John F. Dillon are potentially confusing because those titles could represent more than one subject. Because you could have gone to either of those looking for a different John or John F. Dillon than the one the article is about, those articles should have disambiguation links. Unless there is more than one "John Forrest Dillon" to worry about, there is no need to disambiguate from that article. Postdlf 17:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 14:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV for SCOTUS nominees

The DRV you suggested is now live here. Cheers.--Chaser - T 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As if the DRV weren't enough. There's another CFD.--Chaser - T 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Borough categories

I'm contacting you because I see you have created some Alaskan 'borough' catgeories and given them their proper names. There is currently a heated debate with regards to English geography relating to the borough category names. Someone has been naming the categories after the main town in them, which covers a different area to the borough itself. Some of us believe it should be unambiguous so the full borough name should be used. It would be welcome if you could lend us your vote for a rename at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. Thanks. 88.104.64.157 16:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, but I can't say I know anything about English geography. The "boroughs" in Alaska are the analogs of counties in other U.S. states, which is a political subdivision relationship that I fully understand. I know nothing about political subdivisions in England, nor would I think that conventions in the U.S. would necessarily have application to other countries. Good luck though. Postdlf 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to posting your 2005-era Hatshepsut photos to Wikimedia Commons?

I was just perusing the talk page for Hatshepsut, and ran across the excellent photo shoot that you did back in 2005 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (User:Postdlf/Hatshepsut_images). I did much the same thing earlier this year, and was dismayed to find that the room and its contents had not been restored (most of the artifacts had spent much of the previous year on tour in a traveling exhibit). I only ran across your images because they were linked from the talk page, and are not otherwise easy to find.

Would you have any objections to either letting me move these to Wikimedia Commons using the same GNU Free Documentation License you posted to Wikipedia? This would easy allow Wikimedia contributors in other languages to use them, and to make them more easily findable. I would add them to the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hatshepsut and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Egyptian_antiquities_in_the_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art categories (there to join similar shots I managed to take at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, the Brooklyn Museum and a few at the Met as well).

I am volunteering to do this on your behalf (and give due credit of course) though you are obviously more of a Wikipedia veteran and I would understand if you have a reasons for not wanting me to do so. Just let me know!

Cheers! Captmondo 20:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no objections (nor could I object even if I wanted to, given that I released them under the GFDL); I'm not very active on here anymore, so it would be great if you could do it yourself. Just make sure that you follow the proper transwiki procedures at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, which should tell you what information to include in the Commons description. Last I checked, I was also surprised to find that the Hatshepsut article doesn't currently use any of my pics; one used to be in the lead. I've never been a regular contributor to that article (I took the pics on request, because I live in NYC and frequent the Met) so I haven't changed it myself, but my pics seem to be higher res and more legible than what is currently in the article. Though maybe the relics depicted in those other pics are more notable, I don't know. Postdlf 20:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Only just saw your reply, as I didn't set a watch notice on this page. While I certainly could have moved them without your permission, common courtesy says that I ought to at least ask. ;-) I have moved everything over to Wikimedia Commons, and thank you for suggesting I take a look at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons as it referenced a move tool I was previously unaware of that made the process go smoothly.

I have restored/added one of your pics (a cropped version someone else edited) to the main Hatshepsut article, which was definitely better than what was there before. There was an instance about a year or so ago when someone posted an image of the same statue that was obviously taken as a scan from the catalogue of the recent touring exhibition those same pieces were on not too long ago. Your shots are clearly not from that book (I should know, as I have a copy), and pre-date the tour, and I don't think many people knew about where this "cache" of Hatshepsut images were until I stumbled across it by accident.

For the record, you can see the moved images here.

Cheers, and thank you again for taking the time to shoot and post the images in the first place. Captmondo 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

Hi, I randomly stumbled upon this on my watchlist. Wow. That was probably the most unreasonable and just plain rude talk page spammings I've ever run across. Tools like Twinkle make editing a lot easier, but they should not be used to enable such idiocy. The sad part is, I don't think that contributor was even aware of the lunacy of demanding one hundred rationales in the course of two days. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

Hey I just want to say I agree with you on the issue of Fair Use Images [1] . Honestly I think that(at least for comic images) the Fair Use rule is just well stupid. The info that is supplied on the fair use, is repetitive and seems to add no important info to the image, especially due to the fact that everyone is getting all wound up about them. Anyway just wanted to say if you have any plans to fight this somehow, and you need help. Count me in.Phoenix741 12:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal

I have moved it back to the no-diacritic title, because that is the official caption in the Supreme Court, and we should reflect it precisely. FYI. -- Y not? 02:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Postdlf 02:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Rationales

Thanks for adding these :) Sfan00 IMG 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your legal expertise

Dear Postdlf:

I recently wrote a rather stubby article on the Rule in Dumpor's Case. I think I gave at least a good cursory explanation of the rule, but unfortunately, there is not much information on the web about this rather outdated relic of the English Common Law. In fact, the rule itself is not even mentioned in Black's Law Dictionary! What's more, now that I have graduated law school and taken the bar exam, I no longer have free access to Lexis or Westlaw.

If you could help me flesh out this article, and at least turn it into something more than a tiny stub, I would be much appreciative. I don't know what resources you have at your fingertips right now, but any little bit would help.

Thanks again,

--Eastlaw 08:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your formatting expertise

Postdlf, if you're so inclined, I could use your help with formatting our SCOTUS case lists, which I recently reorganized after discussion at WT:SCOTUS. Any modifications to Template:SCOTUScaselists would also be welcome. There are no formatting problems, but I know you're good at making such things look more sleek and professional.--Chaser - T 08:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You tube links

Thanks for backing me up on this, despite our earlier disgreements.

A possible compromise is to semi-enforce 'rationales' on You Tube links.

Given that the person adding the link would know the nature of the You Tube clip,it should be possible to explain why it's acceptable to link to a particular clip. Ideally, the material linked to should be the work of the You Tube uploader concerned (or someone who has permission to upload it), should add to the article in question by providing additonal critical commentary, demonstrating some specific evnt or phonemenon which would be difficult to explain without reference to it, or serves to illustrate concepts disscussed in the article for which a demonstration is required.

In addition , Does US law allow for fair-use in respect of video/TV news footage? Because to my mind linking to 'short' segments of 'rare' or cultrually signifcant footage (for example the BBC footage of when SAS stormed the Iranian Embassy siege) could be justified given that the footage would be next to impossible to replace with a 'free' equivilant of comparable value.

Your comments are welcomed :) Sfan00 IMG 11:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of 'rationale' like claims for links are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stwalkerster/youtube#A Sfan00 IMG 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know any possible fair use claims for copying and posting video clips online outside of any recontextualization or commentary, so I can't say when, if ever, posting something to YouTube would qualify as fair use. But you raise an interesting question about whether a video clip could be a copyright infringement on YouTube, but a link to that could qualify as fair use on Wikipedia. I believe that when the links themselves are provided for commentary (i.e., you're writing about the infringing site) you might have a fair use-type defense. But otherwise, if we have a fair use claim for the YouTube-hosted video clip on Wikipedia, why not just upload it directly to Wikipedia just as we would an image? Particularly since, if the YouTube uploader didn't have authorization to post it there, it would presumably be taken down eventually, making the link of only temporary value. Postdlf 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Anthony Comstock.jpg

This image does not have sourcing information. I agree the guy died in 1915 so it is probably PD-US. However, it is possible that that picture was:

1. Not published in the United States.
2. First published in 1923 or later.

In either of those scenarios the PD-US status would not be true. This image would likely be rejected by Commons for a lack of sourcing; and proper sourcing is required on Wikipedia too. Surely you can remember where you found it? I find your use of rollback in this case unfortunate.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't remember where I found an image I uploaded over two years ago. I'm certainly not going to object to source information being added, but this is a completely fixable issue, not one that requires a seven day deadline. This strongly suggests that the photograph was published as an official portrait of Comstock in his role as Secretary of the N.Y. Society for the Suppression of Vice, so I don't see this being an urgent concern. I'll be happy to search for source info, or failing that, another photograph of Comstock for which I can provide the date and photographer, etc. that we can replace it with. Postdlf 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deadpool992 edits

Thanks for pitching in. It has been raised (a couple of times) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics but I'm afraid it is one of those things that will require a bit of a grind to fix the messy edits (the vandalism I can cope with ;) ). I'll run through some more later and then work on cleaning up the category with a less broad brush approach to make sure everything is in the appropriate place. (Emperor 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Practiced set of eyes needed...

If you could, I need a second opinion about what's playing out here: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 19‎#Kasnia.png.

Thanks, - J Greb 06:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The image you added to Metropolitan Museum of Art

Great find -- the engraving showing the Met's opening reception is a great addition to the article. Interesting that the paintings were hung salon-style ... more popular then than now, though the Renwick in DC and some others are still the exceptions, innit? Thanks again for adding it to the page. Best, -- Docether 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome... It was republished in the last edition of the Met Bulletin. BTW, the Columbus Museum of Art also hangs its pre-modernist European art salon style. Postdlf 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Macroom

Nice pictures of my hometown. Ceoil 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  : ) I regret that I wasn't able to spend more time there—it was one of the more memorable towns I saw. Postdlf 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Steven Cook copyright

The Steven Cook article doesn't matter to me. I couldn't care less if it is deleted or not, but this is a rather odd administrative case, isn' it? I am curious about why you deleted the article when the talk page is unanimous that it was not a copyright violation. Even more interesting: Why did you mark the article as being a copyright violation if you do not believe that it is a copyright violation? Based on everything I've read, that template is supposed to be reserved for actual copyright violations. -- Lilwik 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, I restored it (and the deleted talk page) after someone else had speedy deleted it because I thought the talk page discussion made that speedy deletion inappropriate. I then marked it as a "possible" copyvio (as Template:Copyvio reads—if it was indisputably an "actual" copyvio, then it should have stayed speedy deleted) to identify that concerns had been raised that needed to be resolved, and to make sure that it got resolved through discussion rather than another speedy deletion. Obviously the notice can be removed once those concerns have been addressed. Postdlf 03:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I should have just removed the original tag the moment I realized that it wasn't actually a copyright violation, but I wanted to see how the discussion played out. I wonder why it was deleted anyway? It had a hang-on tag to indicate that there was a discussion going on. Now we've got this tag that can only be removed by an administrator and will cause the actual deletion of the article in a week. -- Lilwik 08:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

policy policy and more policy

Yeah I know what you mean, you can get to a point where you just have to shrug your shoulders and let it go... --Fredrick day 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Your right. Please accept my apologies. Hammer1980·^talk 18:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Williams

Copied from talk-page

Why should this be a protected redirect? It redirects to someone who is more commonly known as Andy. Would it be best pointed at the disambig page? 217.42.254.196

(Copy ends)

A similar situation might be the redirecting of Michael Jackson to Mike Jackson (the British officer), and moving the musician to another page. This is not how things are at the moment, so why the inconsistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.154.138 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I redirected and protected it because it was an easy way to deal with the repeat posting of garbage at Andrew Williams that we had to keep deleting; see deletion log. I'll think about whether it should point elsewhere. Postdlf 16:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the help with User:35.10.248.238's "pretentious citation cruft" discussion. I've warned him not to delete text in opposition to the consensus ... richi 23:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 19:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI renaming of Category

This is just "FYI" as I noticed you participated in the the renaming of Shows on Adult Swim. It may have had some unintended consequences. I have posted a comment on the Category's talk page. ++Arx Fortis 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it had the exact consequence that was proposed and intended—excluding television series from being categorized by the network of syndication. Which is why I supported it. Postdlf 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do You Remember A Man Named Patrick Hebron ?

Well, he's back. Noticed your comments on a log from 2 years ago. Thought you may be interested.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Hebron (2nd nomination)

Love your work, True theory 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You tube links..

Hi...

Would appreciate someone glancing an eye of some of the you tube link removals Sfan00_IMG's been making.

It would be nice if someone could provide justifcation for some the removals on the respective articles talk pages.

In any case another pair of eyes reviewing removals would be appreicated, as I am concerned I might be a little overzelaous meaning some links could be reasonably reinstated.

Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MetLife Building Image

Good morning, I am quite new to Wikipedia but found your fantastic image of the MetLife building. I am a designer working in the building and would love to use it (I plan to make it more illustrative) in an invitation for a children's holiday party. I read the terms of the license but to be honest I am no lawyer and don't fully understand them!

Is it OK for me to use it in this way? Also, can I use it for local marketing events for my company?

I appreciate your time, as I said it's a fantastic image (and I enjoyed your images of Clare too, I am originally from Ireland so I thought it was a nice coincidence that you had taken some great shots from there too).

Thanks again Fiona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fglavey (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments. My photographs have been released under the GFDL license, which means (put simply) that you may use it in any work that is also released under the GFDL and that gives proper attribution to myself (read the language of the license for further details as to what this requires). I imagine that you don't want to release your company's publications under a free license. However, the GFDL is not an exclusive license, which means that I retain copyright over the image and I may give you separate permission to use it under whatever different terms I decide (which would make the GFDL irrelevant). Please feel free to e-mail me to discuss further (see the link in the toolbox section of this page that says "e-mail this user") if you are interested. Postdlf (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Frank article

Who is Horvitz in your article? Doesn't appear to have been introduced.Alethe (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

An earlier edit identified him as "David Horvitz"; I don't remember having added that information so I can't speak for its sourcing. Postdlf (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Realg187 editing your comments

FYI: Realg187 has been insistant on editing your comments. I've reverted him so far, but he hasn't shown any signs of stopping: [2] Paul Cyr (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Individual appellate court opinions by year for all of the Justices?

I'm not sure I see the value of having a separate article for every single one of these, and I wonder if they will ever all be made - are you planning to go back to prior courts as well? Cheers! bd2412 T 05:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, stranger. The original plan was to just have a table for each year listing the opinions rendered in those lower courts, not to have articles for each of those lower court opinions. I think their value is in showing how the justices' jurisprudence developed or stayed the same throughout their judicial careers, plus I saw it as a way to keep those details from flooding into the justices' main biographies (see Samuel_Alito#Opinions_as_court_of_appeals_judge). But it's unfortunately been months since I've had the time to do anything with the SCOTUS ones at all, let alone going beyond that; I only sporadically edit Wikipedia now, mostly to proofread articles I read. And the firm I work at now has an hourly LEXIS plan rather than a flat rate like my former firm...so I can't really do "free" legal research for Wikipedia any longer. Postdlf (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't even thinking of an individual article for each opinion, I think it's too much to have an article for each year. Most appellate court decisions are rather boring run-of-the-mill affirmances anyway - how about a single article on, e.g., Opinions of Samuel Alito as a court of appeals judge or the like, relaying the basic statistics (i.e. how many opinions authored, maybe how many dissents) and then noting any of particular importance and summarizing the flavor of his appellate style? bd2412 T 03:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What area(s) of law do you practice?

Hello sir. I'm entering my second semester of law school, and was wondering what areas of law you practice. I know you edit a lot of comic book articles, and have helped effect a good bit of policy for WP:COMICS regarding copyrighted material, but I was wondering if intellectual property (specifically copyright) was your area of professional practice, or just a hobby.

I thoroughly enjoy learning the law, but I'm still working on finding my niche and how I will use my legal education once I graduate. I think I'm basically looking for your thoughts on the profession since law school and maybe what brought you into it, if you don't mind my asking.

Thanks! Psyphics_ΨΦ 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)