User talk:Postdlf/Archive14

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Postdlf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Could you plz have a look at IRCSET

I have started working on this article. Could you please have a look here. It would be really nice if I receive some suggestions and guideline regarding this issue. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another List of Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion

There is a discussion going on here. I though you might be interested in commenting due to your previous comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

requesting source for 2 year old edit

Hi. A user has requested a citation for this edit. Any chance of that happening?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I probably got the U.S. District Court judge status from the Political Graveyard, which identifies Stainback as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. However, I now find that he was actually a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Territory of Hawaii. Though the territorial courts were federal, territorial judges do not appear be to included in the Federal Judicial Center biography database. But an indirect source, if nothing else, proves it: the opinion for Leung v. Territory of Hawaii, 132 F.2d 374 (9th Cir. 1942) lists the case as an "Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Territory of Hawaii; Ingram M. Stainback, Judge." Category:Hawaii Territory Judges should also be created and added to Category:United States territorial judges. If you could please make the proper changes... Postdlf (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. But maybe they should just be included in Judges of the District Court for the District of Hawaii. I'm not a history-buff but I suspect that there were several States that had Federal Judges in their "territory" prior to becomign officialy a State. If Judges in Hawaii are going to be distinguised in this way, it might lead to more technicaly-correct-but pointless-and-complicating subdivisions in other Districts. What do you think?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not using "territory" in an informal sense; it's a legally distinct form of political organization. Territorial courts are furthermore Article I courts, not Article III courts like the U.S. district courts. That distinction is a matter of accuracy, which is never pointless. Postdlf (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Should Category:Hawaii Territory Judges be a subcat of Category:United States District Court judges? On one hand they aren't Article III judges and - from what I under stand - "U.S. District Court judges" refers to Article III judges. But on the other hand, in the opinion you quoted above, the court seems to refer to his court as a "District Court of the United States." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there was also a territorial supreme court—the analog of a state supreme court—so the Hawaii Territory judges category wouldn't only include territorial "district court" judges. Beyond that, what's in a name? We should keep the territorial "district courts" categorized separately from the proper Article III District Courts, though perhaps a more substantive discussion on that should be had somewhere. Postdlf (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

From United States district court: "District courts in three insular areas - the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands -'exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts.' Despite their name, these courts are technically not 'District Courts of the United States.' Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article Three of the Constitution, and serve terms of ten years rather than for life." So I would keep the categories separate despite the shared name. Postdlf (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

	New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

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.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain blurb

Is there a particular reason you felt the need to add Party to the McCain blurb. I think it is grammatically incorrect, but at the very least I don't think it sounds right. If you could let me know I'd appreciate it because there is a debate about it on WP:ERRORS. -- Grant .Alpaugh 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To provide context or clarification, basically. "Republican" has other meanings, and non-U.S. readers may not necessarily know that it's the name of a political party. If the grammarians are complaining for whatever reason about "Republican Party nomination", why not just change it to "nomination of the Republican Party"? I honestly don't feel strongly about it. Postdlf (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I first saw the Kristen ad---

in a forum post (uploaded by Advanced Member "Cosmo") on the NY/NJ-home-based "escorts' reviews" site Best GFE. I've updated the image page accordingly (since I hadn't surfed to the NYPost to upload it from there. Incidentally, the Post uploaded it first.) --Justmeherenow (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

botnet edit on lead

I like that. Good one! Lawrence § t/e 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo request

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. For spite house, please photograph the Freeport Spite House, which I believe is on a triangular plot at the corner of Lena Avenue and Wilson Place in Freeport, New York.[1] GregManninLB (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I never have occasion to head out there and that's about an hour away from me. I'd be happy to do anything in Manhattan. Postdlf (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Postdlf, I have another one. Can you maybe help us out with this request or do you know anybody, who can? Thanks, --Flominator (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

requesting your input

here:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 19#Category:Justices of the New York Supreme Court. Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Clear Channel television stations

Category:Clear Channel television stations, 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. – --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Doonagore Castle.jpg

Your photo of Doonagore Castle has been posted to Flickr as her own work by this account holder http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/508026088/ in contravention of Flickr's own guidelines.

To complain about this copyright infringement please see http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Matthews

Back in 2004, you seem to have changed the article on Supreme Court justice Stanley Matthews to indicate that his full name was "Thomas Stanley Matthews." I can find no evidence of his having the given name "Thomas" in any sources - the Supreme Court's own list, the Congressional Biographical Directory, and American National Biography all call him simply "Stanley Matthews." My intention is to move the article (although I'm not sure where, as Stanley Matthews is taken up by a soccer player). Do you have any idea why you added "Thomas"? john k (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically (possibly A People's History of the Supreme Court, of which I no longer own a copy), but googling "Thomas Stanley Matthews" provides some sources outside of Wikipedia, perhaps most relevantly, http://www.oyez.org/justices/stanley_matthews/ this]. This source indicates that as an adult he just went by his middle name. Typically articles should be titled by commonly used names, but at least here the birth name of "Thomas" allows for disambiguation. I'm sure you and the regular editors of this article will make the right decision. Postdlf (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

re: "Repetitive" categories

Agreed, that in certain circumstances the cats won't be repetitive but at this time all the cases in Category:United States free speech case law involve the First Amendment. So it doen't make sense to have both cats on each free speech case.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That the contents of the categories happen to coincide now doesn't mean that they will always, or that they do as a matter of definition. Free speech case law does not necessarily invoke the First Amendment, and the First Amendment does not necessarily involve free speech. So we're going to keep both categories. Postdlf (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing that any of the cats be eliminated. I was only proposing that Category:United States church-state separation case law, Category:United States free speech case law, and Category:United States religious freedom case law be subcategories of Category:United States First Amendment case law. I understand that on very rare occasions Category:United States First Amendment case law won't be the parent cat of the subcats, but simplicity and brevity should outweigh rare technicalities. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

These aren't "rare technicalities." For example, there have been a number of recent notable court decisions, including by SCOTUS, involving purely statutory interpretations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. These would go under the religious freedom case law and/or the church-state separation categories, but they are NOT First Amendment cases if the issues did not go beyond the statute. Accuracy should never be set aside for simplicity, particularly since you're complaining about a difference of only one category, the inclusion of which hardly sacrifices simplicity or brevity. It's a completely sensible and simple system to include a case law article in categories for both the broad area of law (i.e., the right at issue)—and the specific law applied (i.e., a constitutional amendment)—when those do not overlap entirely in either direction. Postdlf (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you're right :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Court cases litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union

Category:Court cases litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union, 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. –

Since the the original creator is "deceased", as it were, I thought you might like to take on the role of "adoptive parent" of this category. Cgingold (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit

Hello --

regarding this edit you made yesterday to a protected article:

(03:13, 28 April 2008) Postdlf m (I think this is what was meant...?)

I respectfully request that you self-revert that change, for two reasons.

Your edit changed the meaning of the statement. The word "unacceptable" is the word that appears in the reference:

Jenkins, Philip. Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. pg. 78: "Pedophile implies coercion, exploitation, and even violence, so that to show any tolerance or sympathy for the condition is socially unacceptable." (emphasis in original)

Also - the page was protected due to an extremely difficult ongoing situation with a long history, and related to ArbCom concerns regarding pedophile activism. Even a seemingly small change to the page without clear consensus on the talk page can undermine the process of sorting out the disputes through the use of the {{editprotected}} process, that requires overt expression of consensus.

For context regarding the ongoing disputes, here are some pages that may be of interest:

Please revert your edit, for both reasons listed. If you choose not to self-revert, please reply to let me know the reasons for your decision. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit was based purely on what I thought to be proper stylistic language for an encyclopedia article. It didn't change the meaning, merely the point-of-reference as to who or what is making a valuation. For an article to say something is "unaccepted" is to make the observational statement that people find it "unacceptable," of which the references provide representational examples. "Unacceptable" is the valuation itself, which an article cannot assert in its own "voice." This should not have been a controversial change, or at least not in the sense you seem to think; it's really nothing more than a Manual of Style issue. Postdlf (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I35 bridge edit

I liked the phrasing better before. Now the setup is secondary to the result. My opinion, of course. - Denimadept (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think dates are usually less important than the events that occur on them, so the events should come first. That the bridge collapsed is the key fact and central topic of the second paragraph and so should be the opening clause. The date and time are secondary context. Also, closing the sentence with the time of the collapse—evening rush hour—helps lead into the next sentence to suggest a reason for the number of casualties. My opinion, of course. ; ) Postdlf (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Needing a professional eye...

Could you take a look at this assertion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Copyright notices. It looks like it coming for an interested layman (by the 'boxes on his user page) and yells for someone in the profession to look at.

Thanks - J Greb (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The same editor who posted to the project talk just nommed 4 of the templates for deletion. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 4#Comics-trademark-copyright - J Greb (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

United States Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency

Thanks for weighing in and setting up the standard naming for the Subcommittee (a name I didn't originally establish). What with your legal and comic book fusion it seems like you're ripe to be proselitized to looking into an expansion of the 1954 hearings (either in that article or by itself). I'm still trying to understand the status of the subcommittee; I think there were prior and subsequent investigations beyond comic books so the history of the committee may be one thing, and the specific acitivities another. I find of particular interest the seemingly dry EXHIBIT No. 6B AN EVALUATION OF COMIC BOOKS -- JULY 1953 from the hearing transcripts:

The Committee on Evaluation of Comic Books, P. O. Box 1486, Cincinnati, Ohio, with 84 trained reviewers, has evaluated the 418 comic books available. They are placed in the categories of No Objection, Some Objection, Objectionable, and Very Objectionable. Those in the first two are deemed suitable for use by children and younger teen-agers.

The list of comics is pretty comprehensive, and (I think) in a perverse way would lead the collector to try and get samples in certain categories (to a title, every single Very Objectionable title is on my find list!). I'm still trying to figure out how Batman rated in the Objectionable category! Not the Bats! -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Legal and comic book fusion"...I like that. : ) Batman, as I recall from Seduction of the Innocent, depicted an inappropriate pederast relationship between Bruce Wayne and his young male ward Dick Grayson. Postdlf (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:United States federal commerce legislation

Category:United States federal commerce legislation has been nominated for merging. 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.

I think this CFD would benefit from your input. Cgingold (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

	New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

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.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Walter Adolph

I am not sure if the sources given in the article are enough to establish notability. Numerous such articles are present in wikipedia. I want a second opinion. Do you think this article meets WP:BIO? Please respond in your talk page. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say probably yes, but I don't have much experience with articles on military officers so I don't know how it meets standard practice. I don't think that every officer in a nation's army merits an article, but serving in wartime and receiving multiple decorations may be enough, particularly since you'd need to document those achievements through secondary sources, the existence of which would prove that the officer has been noticed by military historians. Postdlf (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GV/Riverdale CFD

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For some of the finest reasoning and argumentation I have ever seen displayed at CFD Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Saul Steinberg Image

Thank you for your contribution to the Saul Steinberg image created and posted by me. I acknowlege your comments about derivative works/copyright and have removed the image. However my belief is that the work is clearly an original work of art using photography as an aid. Many artworks are created this way - eg Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup can is an example.Can you detail your thoughts more fully? Thanks. Simonfieldhouse (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of what artists do to remake the work of others is justified by fair use, but even artists sometimes get sued for copyright infringement and lose. But we need to separate between what people, whether artists or not, do in practice out in the real world, and what the policies are on Wikipedia, which are more restrictive than what fair use may allow legally. Content posted to Wikipedia generally needs to be freely licensed by its author. In this case, you cannot claim to be the sole author of those drawings, because you took the subject's appearance, pose, composition, etc., of the drawings from the photographs you used as an "aid." As your drawings are derivatives of those photographs, the copyright owners of those photographs therefore have rights over whatever copyrightable elements you used from them in your drawings. And as none of those photographs are freely licensed, to post your derivative drawings on Wikipedia, you need to satisfy the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Non-free content. Really what that amounts to is that we have no more right to use your drawings than we would the underlying photographs, so we gain nothing in that adaptation as far as acquiring freely usable images and only lose accuracy in the translation from photograph to drawing. Also, derivatives cannot be uploaded to Commons. Postdlf (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and explanation for your actions. Of course I respect the policies of Wikipedia and will remove the images. Many thanksSimonfieldhouse (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your odd deletion of synagogues

I cannot undersand what you thought hat you were accomplishing when you deleted the category Moorish Revival Architecture from all of the pages describing Moorish revival synagogues. The Mooorish revival was an historicist style that flourished for about a hundred years. During that period a number of follies were created, in gardens and so forth. there were also temples for the shriners, at least one resort hotel, and there were movie palaces. Almost everything built in this style was, in other words, an entertainment or pleasure venue. This seperates it from other historicist styles, which were used for office buildigns, universities , etc. (I know of only one Moorish revival university) Architectural historians concur that almost the only "serious" buildings built in the style were a large number of synagogues. Synagogues, in other words, are the most important exemplars of the Moorish revival style. The synagogues should, therefore, be accessible under Moorish Revival Architecture. I do plan to edit the Moorish revial page eventually, leaving examples of the theathers and syanagogues, while listing most of them on a serarate page with a discussion of the application of this style to these particular types of buildings. also, I checked and pages on gothic revival churches include the catefory Gothis Revival architecture. I would be grateful if you would undo your edits and reinstate the category to these pages. Perhaps you could have consulted before making the deletions. Elan26 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Are you aware that all of those articles are in Category:Moorish Revival synagogues, which is a subcategory of Category:Moorish revival architecture? That is why I removed the parent category, because placing them in both that and its subcategory is redundant. This is a matter of general categorization that had nothing to do with these specific topics. Postdlf (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I find it problematic in this specific case. If we were discussing Greek Revival or gothic revival architecture, synagogues woudl be appropriate as a subcategory on a seperate page, since they were a minor part of those historicist movements. Moorish revival is different because synagogues are the most significant Moorish revival buildings. Surely someone clicking on Moorish revival architecutre should expect to find a list of the most significant buildings built in thsis style. The Synagogue category is a, in this specific case, a handy wat to collect the many synagogues built in this style (have you ever been to one by the way? people often gasp audibly at the stunning display of gilded and polychrome Moorish patterning), What I am arguing here is that the rule you are applying is inappropriate in this instance.Elan26 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26

I've noticed that the Moorish Revival synagogue subcategory is the only one grouping synagogues by architectural style, and is also the only subcategory in the Moorish Revival architecture category (which is otherwise sparsely populated). It seems that the best solution would then be too merge the Moorish Revival synagogue category into the parent architecture category and then delete it; you can propose this at WP:CFD. But otherwise, the presence of the subcategory in the parent category obviously provides a list of the synagogues, and I haven't seen any reason why the articles should be in both categories. One or the other. Postdlf (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To replace the subcategory, you could also create a List of Moorish Revival synagogues, which could go in the parent M.R. architecture category, provide summary information of each, and also list ones for which articles have not yet been created. Postdlf (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. supreme Court wiki proj.

Hello. I noticed that you are part of this project too (I just joined). I remember we both edited in tandem the Williams article right after that decision was rendered in May. Would you like to keep in touch about other Sup.Ct. issues as they come up? I liked your style, brah. JeanLatore (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, these days I mostly just have time to keep my SCOTUS term opinion lists updated (2007 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the justice-specific ones), every now and then a little infobox completion. But feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the infoboxes (originally my design), or understanding the legal opinions themselves. Postdlf (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Embassies and High Commissions in London

Category:Intelligence gathering legislation

Hi -- If you're not too busy, I think the CFD discussion for renaming Category:Intelligence gathering legislation would benefit from your input. For some reason it hasn't attracted much input other than my own fairly substantial comments. It's already been relisted for further discussion and won't stay open much longer, so if you're interested don't delay. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

	Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27 This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

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) 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)