User talk:Postdlf/Archive17

Yeah...
Hi, you recently sent me a message talking about vandalism on an article about a random school board or something, but I never edited that page and before reading the message you sent had never been to it. I'm using my personal laptop on my college's network, does that matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.32.226 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Chaser
hello,

I've taken some time to familiarize myself with the past discussions regarding the ussc and scite templates, and I've written up some comments at the above hyperlink. Before posting this at WP:SCOTUS, I wanted to make sure it got looked at by User:MzMcbride and User:Chaser and yourself since I try to defer to you guys as the senior members of the project.

Also, I'm a fairly recent (6 months?) addition to WP:SCOTUS, and I've noticed you're there a lot so I wanted to introduce myself. I'm a rising 3L, also in New York, and I've gotten really interested in the project, and I've admired the work that you've done. If you're looking for a collaborator on any projects, keep me in mind. (and I hope to see you this weekend at the conference? I will be giving a "lightning talk" on recruiting law students to Wikipedia.)

Cheers,

Agradman talk/contribs 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Sofia Coppola film
Hello, saw that you started the Lost In Translation article. There's not a page for Coppola's next film, Somewhere; so if in any way you're interested in contributing please take a look... User:Xxcvii/Somewhere_(2010_film)

AfD nomination of Scott Savol
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Scott Savol. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Scott Savol. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Python vs Alligator
I recently noticed that you were editing the American Alligator page. There has been an attack in Florida where people from Asain countries have brought Python's as pet's. When they are no longer able to keep them they release them into the wild. These snakes have bred with local snakes also recently an asain python ate a wounded alligator but was attacked by another alligator. The Python blew up with the aligator inside it. The alligator that made the kill left and left the dead animal as a threat to the Asain Python's. Study's show that a war for territory has erupted. Do you wan't to help me make a page on this, or a more discriptive section in the American Alligator Page..--Schmeater (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Saturday Press.gif
Thank you for uploading File:The Saturday Press.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response on your talk page. Postdlf (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

File:The Saturday Press.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Saturday Press.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation style
I reverted the change of citation style in Depth of field. The article currently uses Chicago-style author-date citations, which is one of the acceptable styles for Wikipedia. The guidelines call for a consistent style, following the prevailing style of the article (see WP:CITE). The author-date system has pros and cons, but it's the most common form in the scientific literature, including Sidney Ray's Applied Photographic Optics. The main downside is that it's bulkier, but it has the advantage of providing more information. Another advantage is that the substantive footnotes are kept separate from the citations, which is the main reason I use it.

Author-date citations probably wouldn't be the best choice in a legal article, though quite honestly, the inline citation of the case law in court opinions isn't all that dissimilar from author-date, and it's even bulkier. A few years ago, Garner proposed moving most of this stuff to footnotes, but it doesn't seem to have found much support in the judiciary. JeffConrad (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I had thought citations were always to be kept in footnotes via tags. Postdlf (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unquestionably, the style is far more common on Wikipedia. It's probably the one most familiar to most editors; moreover, it looks to me as if only a small minority of WP articles use discursive footnotes, so the clash between citations and notes seldom arises. There are other approaches to separating the two (e.g., the group attribute), but at least to me, they seem pretty awkward. JeffConrad (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Postdlf (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not bad
This was not a bad idea. Debresser (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ‎
My stuttering internet has rollbacked your edit rather than undone it so I could tweak some grammar and leave a comment explaining it, so apologies if you thought I was silently rolling back your contribution. I'm about to fix it now, but essentially I was planning to edit your contribution to avoid a "X of the Y of the Z" situation, seeing as the fall of the wall is discussed earlier in the sentence, and also that the end of the cold war is still a topic of the cold war, and the film also alludes to other parts than just the end. But thanks to a slow down, all it did was roll you back! Grrr. SGGH ping! 16:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I think it's best to specify that the theme was the end of the Cold War rather than just the Cold War generally, because it's about a change in a hostile political situation rather than just the existence of one.  Postdlf (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to do as you intended by changing "topic" to "events" SGGH ping! 16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * why not "touching on the contemporary events of the Cold War" --> "touching on the contemporaneous end of the Cold War" ?" Postdlf (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Iguana
Very Cool! I'll post some tips when I get a bit more time!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Chagall image caption
Thanks for fixing the caption on the Chagall image. I've seen that problem a lot when images get tagged. You might be interested in a discussion I started about allowing commemorative stamps in articles. Any opinions on this issue could be very helpful: It's discussed here.]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page editing by blocked user
Hi - you've already blocked user:99.141.94.222 but they continue to add profanity to their talk page. Could you lock that down too? I reported to AIV, but the helperbot is too quick to remove the user since they're already blocked. Thanks. 7 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Thanks for the heads up.  Postdlf (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick work.  7  02:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

List of overweight actors in United States cinema
You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Drawing or painting?
I've responded to this on the List of Leonardo talk page. Amandajm (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Keith Bardwell
An article that you have been involved in editing, Keith Bardwell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TJRC (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your productive changes on the Keith Bardwell article. At last an editor I can work with!! RE the "Category:Louisiana state court judges," are you sure that that's the right place for a justice of the peace? As a resident of Louisiana, I would think of a "state court" judge as being a justice of the state supreme court, the state courts of appeal, or the state district courts. There's also a level of municipal courts. Justices of the peace are elected in parish wards which are not in a municipal court jurisdiction. But I can grasp that for WP purposes the intent of "state judge" may be justices who are just not in the federal courts. Rammer (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. That is the intent of the "state court" qualifier in the category.  While I understand your point about the justices of the peace being elected locally, their position is created by state law and is part of the state court structure, and administrated and disciplined by the state's Judiciary Commission.  So calling him a state court judge is appropriate.  Postdlf (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoax categories
You removed the hoax categories from Colorado balloon incident with an explanation in the edit summary saying that the determination was premature. I find this difficult, if not impossible to believe. News stories are being published at this very second with the lead, "authorities confirmed the "balloon boy" saga was a hoax." Exactly how is this premature? Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Colorado State University physics professor Brian Jones determined it was impossible for the balloon to launch with the 37-pound boy inside. Richard Heene, a former weatherman and amateur scientist, would have been aware of this.
 * Robert Thomas has come forward with evidence revealing that the entire incident was planned by Heene in advance as a media stunt. Heene reportedly planned the event in advance: "Can we attract UFO's with a homemade flying saucer?  Heene allegedly told Thomas.  "We will modify a weather balloon, so that it resembles a UFO and will electrically charge the skin of the craft (Biefield-Brown Effect). We will capture the footage on film, and will utilize the media as a means with which to make our presence known to the masses. This will not only provide us with incredible footage, but will also generate a tremendous amount of controversy among the public, as well as publicity within the mainstream media. This will be the most significant UFO-related news event to take place since the Roswell Crash of 1947, and the result will be a dramatic increase in local and national awareness about The Heene Family, our Reality Series, as well as the UFO Phenomenon in general."
 * There is some speculation that the evidence above was presented as a proposal for a reality television show on a major media outlet, such as ABC, before the incident occurred. "Documents show that a media outlet has agreed to pay money to the Heenes with regards to the balloon incident."
 * According to the Larimer County Sheriff, "all three of the Heenes' sons knew of the hoax".
 * "Charges of conspiracy, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, making a false report to authorities and attempting to influence a public servant and federal charges were also possible."
 * Exactly what are we waiting for to add the hoax category? Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your points, but please address this on the article's talk page, where a discussion has already begun and the WP:BLP concerns of prematurely labeling it a hoax have been laid out. Mostly we're looking for an admission or conviction given that a hoax would bring with it negative moral, parenting, and of course criminal consequences.  I don't know if anything short of that would be sufficient; "speculation" and accusations by the authorities are certainly not enough.  Maybe in the last ten hours or so since I looked at the article there have been further developments, I don't know (and I just woke up), but please discuss this on the article's talk page.  Postdlf (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with your closures and resolved tags, but can you sign them all? Cheers, –xenotalk 19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. postdlf (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

River categories
I have added an alternative propsal to a few of the river categories' nominations. I think it has much merit. Please visit the discussion(s) again and add your commentary/opinion. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith Bardwell deletion
I've asked the closing admin to reconsider his conclusion. Probably best if you don't jump in on his talk page too, as he'd probably just feel ganged up on. If he still disagrees with me, I'll be happy to post the deletion review request. Postdlf (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At last count (I read the deletion discussion yesterday) there were more votes to keep than to delete although several voters on both sides recommended renaming the article so as to emphasize the incident instead of the man. Consequently I created a REDIRECT called "Bardwell incident" which could be populated as the main article. You're right to warn against petitioning the gatekeeper, because the evidence so far has been that democracy is not necessarily considered welcome or even desirable. Nonetheless, wiking the article out entirely is not a reasonable alternative. Writers whose legitimacy is above reproach had dedicated many hours to creation of an article which thousands of readers were finding useful. It was the one source on the 'net where people could find a dispassionate attempt to contextualize the situation and to provide more information than just what the man did and how he is horrible.  There was good reason for renaming the article but no good reason for deleting its substance.  Rammer (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The vote was 18 to 13 in favor of keep/retain. But on the more important consideration--strength of argument--the "keep/retain" voters cited various reasons for continuing the article. The "delete" voters cited one argument, that the notability was of a one-time event, not a sustained biography of a notable person. But that is an argument for retitling the event or for grafting it into another article, not for eliminating the information entirely. Rammer (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently without the courtesy of according you a response, the deletion forces have proceeded to eliminate even links to the article, calling it a "coatrack."
 * That's standard. If an article is deleted, then links to it are removed.  Nothing is gained by characterizing them as "deletion forces," as if they present a unified front or an armed camp.  Postdlf (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cached version of the article? Rammer (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As an admin, I can always view and retrieve the deleted history. Postdlf (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call
That was the professional edit. The other versions were not. Kudos. Dr.K. logos 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
Thanks for your support of my idea at the Village Pump. I was just about to post here to ask you to clarify, but you beat me to it:)-- SPhilbrick  T  15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lorrin Andrews
Aloha, I see you put Lorrin Andrews into the Category:Hawaii state court judges which is not quite accurate. Hawaii was not annexed by the US until 1898, and did not become a "state" until 1959, about a hundred years after Andrews was a judge. The government at the time was te Kingdom of Hawaii. We should probably at least create a category of judges of the Kingdom, since there are articles on a few. I put him in the "American" category since he was born in the US. If someone has the time they could even write an article on the Kingdom courts, or at least a paragraph in the Hawaii State Judiciary article. W Nowicki (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. So it wasn't even a U.S. territory at the time...  I think this is the first instance I've seen of an article on an American who served as a judge on a foreign court rather than a state or federal court of the U.S. (territorial courts are federal).  Maybe there are others, and there should be a category just for that?  Because otherwise he's left without a proper subcategory within American judges, and it would be presumed by his placement within that category that he served on an American court.  Something to think about...  Thanks for your note.  postdlf (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really understand how Wikipedia works.. I apologise for deleting the image, but it is, in fact, of me, and whilst the copyright is owned by SuicideGirls.com, I wonder if - out of the kindness of your heart - you could perhaps use an image of a different girl, not myself. I would very much appreciate it if you'd edit it, hopefully it won't be too much trouble? Many thanks, Bonnie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.127.69 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article/November 1, 2009
Hello! Please do not place an image on the main page without first protecting it (to prevent vandalism). In the case of a Commons image (such as File:Jacques plante.jpg), it must first be uploaded to the English Wikipedia (or protected at Commons by an administrator there, as I've just done). Thanks! —David Levy 16:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should've thought of that. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No harm done. (:  —David Levy 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Townships
Hi- According to the WP article: municipality, a township is considered to be a municipality in some cases. Because in some rural counties in IL, the township gov't is still the only local gov't that the people have, since some townships still don't have any incorporated villages, towns or cities. So, this is definitely a "gray" area, but I thought we should include it, just for the instances that the township gov't is the only "municipal" type of gov't within the realms of certain rural counties. Although, we could leave it in the "IL counties" and "local govt in IL" categories, maybe that would make more sense. I think I'll do that now! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what municipality was trying to say is that only in some states, townships are actually incorporated as municipalities; it wasn't trying to say that in all states, townships are sometimes municipalities. It doesn't become a municipality by default, just because there is no other local government.  But your change improved it, thanks.  postdlf (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Have a good week!--Funandtrvl (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Carlo Rossi
I suggest to put redirect to Category:Carlo Rossi (architect).--Andrey! 13:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Look to iwiki of there:--Andrey! 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC) And than this category is worse, than Category:Alberto Cavos? Why you have left the architect who has brought 5 % and have removed what has brought 95 %?--Andrey! 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Росси, Карл Иванович
 * Здание Александринского театра
 * Здание Главного штаба (Санкт-Петербург)
 * Дворцовая площадь
 * Площадь Ломоносова (Санкт-Петербург)
 * Марсово поле (Санкт-Петербург)
 * Площадь Островского (Санкт-Петербург)
 * Попов, Яков Николаевич
 * Российская национальная библиотека (комплекс зданий на Невском проспекте)
 * Улица Зодчего Росси
 * The participants at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_21 unanimously decided that the category should be deleted; this would also preclude the creation of Category:Carlo Rossi (architect). I have no opinion on whether that was the right decision or not, just that it was the decision that was reached.  The individual who requested that the Rossi category be renamed or deleted was under no obligation to do the same for any other categories, even presuming he was aware of them.  If you also think the Cavos category should be renamed or deleted, you're welcome to list it as well at Categories for discussion.  And if you want to try and overturn the deletion of the Rossi category, please feel free to make such a request at Deletion review.  You're welcome to do that at any time.  But the best argument you could make that the category should be recreated would be to create more articles for it (or find other articles that should have been categorized by it), to counter the argument that, with only two articles, it was too small and unnecessary.  postdlf (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How many objects should be in a category that it have not deleted?--Andrey! 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal
Hi Postdlf,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Could use a second set of eyes
With regard to and IP and these threads:


 * User talk:J Greb
 * User talk:Hiding
 * User talk:204.30.1.18

The IP's full contribs are here.

Right now, given their last set of responses is to punt as a non-constructive account.

- J Greb (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a broader history that I'm not aware of. Is this someone's sock puppet?  I can't glean anything from that IP's edit history alone that would give context to the recent talk page postings.  Or is that the point, that they just don't make sense?  postdlf (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry... the Long-n-Short of it is that about 2 years ago, prior to Hiding opting exercise the right to disappear to change his handle, the Comics Project had a purge of the articles "Earth-2" versions of characters. One of the most vociferous proponents of keeping them was Netkinetic, who had a habit of not logging in to voice his opinions, edit, and revert. IIRC, this 204 was strongly linked with that.
 * At this point, the IP has accused Hiding of recreating one of the articles that Hiding agreed should be nothing more than a redirect. Something Hiding didn't do. And the IP is insisting on flogging Hiding with his pre-RTD handle. When both Tenebrae and I point these out, the IP is squawking "straw man argument".
 * My immediate reaction to that is that the IP should be blocked as a disruption only account.
 * - J Greb (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Netkinetic's account hasn't been active for some months. What is especially confusing here is that this IP actually restored a redirect, and then accused Hiding of being the one who had previously undone the redirect to restore the article.  At any rate...I'll give the IP a warning and if the disruptive posts continue I can block.  postdlf (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories per county nomination
Hi Postdlf. After I read you nomination post in WP Museums I did some searching and found that this is not limited to Oregon state. Similar divisions have been made for most categories under Category:Museums in the United States by state. So although I don't like a categorization system that has a big number of categories with only 1-2 articles in each, I also don't think that bringing up the Oregon case (or generally going about it with individual CfDs) is going to solve the problem. Hoverfish Talk 04:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

cleanup section at David_R._Brown_(neuroscientist)
Hey, would you mind starting a talk page section on what you want to see cleaned up at David_R._Brown_(neuroscientist). Since you added the cleanup tag, almost nothing has been edited in that section despite much work on the rest of the article. I think you might be able to focus the discussion to get the tag off the page. Thanks. PDBailey (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Settlements, neighborhoods, etc., by state and city, etc.
Hi. Seeing your extensive modifications to categories and articles about cities, municipalities, neighborhoods, etc., I'm assuming that I missed a discussion somewhere. Where was this discussed? (I want to understand the logic of this restructuring.) --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some long-overdue cleaning up. Do you have a specific issue, question, or problem?  I'd be happy to explain if anything is unclear.  But from your edits (the ones I've looked at, at least), it seems like you understand the system.  postdlf (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you were doing with formerly incorporated municipalities. It's not clear to me, though, why it was necessary (to name two examples) to change long-standing article title "List of cities and towns in Tennessee" to "List of municipalities..." (I don't disagree with this, but in the past I got the impression that there was strong resistance here to using the "municipalities" terminology) or to change "locations" to "settlements". --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Settlement" has long been the generic term on Wikipedia for a populated place in the U.S., as reflected in the category system. "Location" doesn't address whether the place is populated or not, and could include anything with a name from a hill to a park, so a list of only populated places would be better to use "settlement". As for the list of cities and towns, see List of municipalities in California for another example of usage. This isn't a systematic change yet, but I think it's a good one, particularly given that the reason why "cities" and "towns" are grouped together in particular states is because those are classes of municipalities. Clarifying that in the title helps avoid the generic use of "cities and towns" just to mean "large and small settlements." If you think it's a bad idea in the case of the TN list (though I can't see why), I won't object to you moving it back, but at some point a comprehensive discussion should occur for all such lists as to the preferred title. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Regarding "cities and towns" vs. "municipalities," in Tennessee, I recall trying to change that name at one point in the past (a very long time ago now) and was over-ruled by other Wikipedians who insisted that it was important to keep the words "cities" and "towns". In Tennessee, "city" and "town" are just words (there's no legal distinction between them), so the terminology really doesn't matter. --Orlady (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Though now I see this edit. Pasquo is not a separate municipality, correct? I understand that there are second-level municipalities within Nashville/Dade County, but Pasquo is an unincorporated area within another municipality. Maybe it would be best to call it a neighborhood of Nashville? postdlf (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Arlington is not a good analogy for Nashville-Davidson County, as Arlington (with which I am more familiar than I am with Nashville) is functionally a city that is legally a county. I think Indianapolis may be a more relevant analogy for Nashville, as Indianapolis' government is consolidated with that of Marion County, Indiana, but outlying communities in the county have not assumed the identity of the city. As for "unincorporated", in a state where ~45% of the population lives in places that are truly unincorporated -- meaning outside of any municipality, I think it is a misnomer to use the word "unincorporated" for a community that is part of an incorporated city-county. (Similarly, in discussions of Connecticut and Rhode Island, I have asserted that articles about villages located within legally constituted towns should not call those villages "unincorporated," as no places in those states could be described as "unincorporated" within the meaning of unincorporated area.) --Orlady (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Final sentence kibbitzed by Orlady at 1:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the entire county of Davidson County (including some areas that are still fairly rural) is now governed by a consolidated city-county government, but that did not make the entire county into "Nashville". Many named places in the county (including, but not limited to, the cities that are separately incorporated) still seem to retain a strong separate identity. As near as I can determine, Pasquo is one such place that is not considered to be a neighborhood of Nashville. (Furthermore, Nashville itself is still a distinct entity within the consolidated city-county, with residents paying additional property taxes for additional city services not enjoyed by the whole county.) Also, I don't like calling any part of Nashville-Davidson County "unincorporated" since all of it is officially incorporated as part of the consolidated government (unlike much of the state of Tennessee, where the only local government is the county).
 * Caveat: Folks like User:Kaldari and User:Smashville (who apparently live in Nashville) know far more about Nashville than I do (I don't live there, and never have). I would generally defer to them regarding terminology for places like Pasquo, Madison, Donelson, and Old Hickory. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any specific knowledge of Nashville either, and I see it is an usual case in local government. I see your concern with calling Pasquo "unincorporated," but as used on WP that just means that Pasquo itself is not incorporated, not that Pasquo isn't within an incorporated area. It seems from the Nashville article that there are other municipalities within it, but Pasquo is not one of those. Maybe the best solution then would be to call Pasquo a neighborhood in Davidson County? Which would not be unprecedented at the county level (see Category:Neighborhoods in Arlington County, Virginia). postdlf (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The operative word in Tennessee vernacular is "community." "Communities" exist inside cities and the same term is used for unincorporated places (which can be both identifiable settlements and amorphous rural areas). Davidson County includes a number of formerly unincorporated communities (and I think at least one formerly incorporated municipality) that are now part of the consolidated governmental unit, but are still very distinct from Nashville and would not even laughingly be called "neighborhoods". The best example that I am aware of is Joelton, Tennessee, which is a rural community fairly remote from Nashville. I don't actually know anything about Pasquo, but it also seems to be distinct from Nashville.

Hello postdlf. There was already discussion and consensus to not move List of cities and towns in Tennessee to List of municipalities in Tennessee. If you want to move the article, I would suggest proposing it on the talk page. Making bold edits to featured articles without discussion (especially if they oppose existing consensus) is generally frowned upon. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't read the two year-old, four-person discussion on the talk page before moving the article to a title consistent with its scope, content, and introductory sentence ("There are 347 incorporated municipalities in the state of Tennessee..."). The fact is that the list article only includes municipalities.
 * I see one of the commenters on the talk page argued in favor of "cities and towns" based on common usage, as people ask for the "closest town with a gas station." And no one searching for gas would care whether the station is in or outside of a municipality, but that's exactly the dividing line the list's content makes by excluding settlements that are not incorporated.  So maybe we should instead wonder what someone looking for a list of only municipalities on Wikipedia would expect it to be called (particularly if they aren't sure what Tennessee calls its municipalities, given how much that varies from state to state).  It might also say something that someone happening across the list article (because of general work on U.S. settlements) thinks it should obviously be at another title based on its scope and content.
 * Ultimately, if you move back the list to its "cities and towns" title, I'm not going to bother with it further, but I think that would not be a good decision, and certainly not if the only reason is to be consistent with a two year-old, four-person discussion. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You-related DRV
Hi; I noticed there is an ongoing DRV for one of your closures. You may not have been consulted/notified. Apologies if you are already aware. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up; no, I wasn't aware of it. postdlf (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My consistent opposition
My consistent opposition was based on the idea that we don't disambiguate unless we really have to. For me, there really is no need to always standardise. But regardless, the idea has changed and parenthetical phrases are currently the vogue across Wikipedia guidance, so I am behind times. But just to explain, my inconsistent (I think you'd agree it isn't actually consistent, and I take issue with the idea that it is) opposition is based on standards for the sake of it, because at times there really is no need. And to answer another question, I have little experience with hot cat. I only discovered it after reverting a vast amount of categories renamed by a disruptive user. Hiding T 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:BD2412/200,000th edit party
You're invited! bd2412 T 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Primeverse/Archive 1
06:16, 25 December 2009 Postdlf (talk

Hello,

I was wondering why it would be G6'd, since it's an archive. When I created it, I removed the duplication from the current talk page. It was disputed by user:collectonian, who subsequently marked the talk page as an archive.

Aren't talk pages not supposed to be archives, but subpages to talk pages should be archives?

70.29.211.9 (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Image/File question
This is in regards to File:Tintin's dog.jpg and a query I posted at Media copyright questions.

The question it comes down to is, can a photo of a toy or sculpture be released to the PD or under a CCA if the subject is not in the public domain?

I realize the photographer can relinquish their rights to the photo itself, but due to the subject of the picture, wouldn't it still need to be treated as a non-free image?

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the two sections on the image page for licensing; one for the photograph, and one for the separately-copyrighted subject matter. I've responded at greater length at the MCQ page.  Cheers, postdlf (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

my talk page
Correct me if im wrong, but aren't I allowed to control my own talk page?--Levineps (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are quite a few issues in the queue for you address before I would bother responding to that one. postdlf (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you should be nominated, you and BrownHairedGirl should throw a party and just revert all constructive edits, last time I checked Chris Brown is African American.--Levineps (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Levineps
Is it appropriate for me to implement the community ban per the ANI talk page since I initially proposed it, or do I wait for an outside admin to do that? Am I expected to take the lead on this or would it be inappropriate for me to do so? I think there's a clear consensus for a category-edits ban and the additional points you've made. I've never done something like this before so I don't know. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This question was answered by BHG here. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)