User talk:Postdlf/Archive18

Your edit filter request
Hi there! I moved your request to EF/R for organizational purposes. When you get a chance, could you take a look at it, please? I had a concern/question to clarify before implementation. Thanks. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 03:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

subcats of american national museums
will you add the rename to the subcats as well? dm (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's do it after the parents are renamed; those will be much more obvious speedy renaming candidates then. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While Category:National museums of the United States in New York is a *bit* clearer than Category:National museums in New York, I prefer the latter, since it is similar to all the other museum cats. Especially since we would need to do Category:National museums in Georgia (U.S. state) anyway...  dm (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. And location versus nationality corresponds to uses of "in" versus "of" here.  I'll make a mental note, probably get to it in a week or so, as I won't be spending too much time on WP over the next several days.  postdlf (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of policies
What do you think of my response to your post at village pump? Do you think we could implement my idea (making information about the purpose a given policy easily available) somehow? Offliner (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a difficult question. I think a lot of it is a matter of just doing it on a day-to-day basis in every discussion we have on WP, whether on an article talk page, a deletion discussion, or at VP.  Maybe there could be a guideline (or even just an essay) urging people not to rely on rote policy citation regurgitation in lieu of substantive explanation (maybe there already is one somewhere?).  And reminding people that citing policy is at best only half the work: you may have settled on what you think governs the issue, but you still need to convince others of the best way to apply it in a particular circumstance.  To do it properly the focus should always be on what the best editorial decision is, not just the superficial level of what complies with codified policy or guidelines.  Yeah, all that should be written down somewhere if it isn't already.  In another guideline for people to cite.  ; )


 * I think also we could go policy by policy, guideline by guideline, and ask ourselves whether its purpose is clear. What does it substantively accomplish.  That may not always be evident; it may reflect the way consensus tends to go without an articulate reason as to why.  A history of how the policy was written could be interesting, but maybe not that helpful, and it would be difficult to summarize.  Just looking at the edit history of a particular policy or guideline may omit a lot of developmental discussions that occurred on the talk pages of other policies, the Village pump, or even user talk pages.  postdlf (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
I'm just writing to say a big THANK YOU for 2001 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States and similar pages. It's exactly what I was looking for, I spent some time in fruitless Googling, and then found these. Wikipedia comes through agaian! (Or rather its fine altruistic editors.) Jamesdowallen (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm very glad to hear it. I've wondered sometimes if I'm just playing with little colored tables for my own amusement.  postdlf (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality
Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad
I thought I had control of editing my own talk page, I haven't had any incidents in nearly a month. I have not edited categories which is my main restriction. As soon as you put the notice up on my board, I reverted it as it was before. Again I am sorry!--Levineps (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:People associated with the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 76.66.200.154 (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazing pictures
Hi Postdlf! I just saw your pictures in the Dominican Anole article, they are soo beautiful! I particularly like File:Anolis oculatus at Cabrits-a01.jpg and File:Anolis oculatus at Coulibistrie-b01.jpg. I would suggest nominating them as Valued pictures after they have been in the article for 1 month (this is a VP criteria). Elekhh (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Yvonne Craig.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yvonne Craig.jpg, 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. Damiens .rf 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted images (example of a re-working)
This was an example of an image whose rationale was re-written to address the conflicted license File:Notre_dame_de_la_paix_yamoussoukro_by_felix_krohn_retouched.jpg

Dual tag are IMO more confusing... by all means the rationale should note the copyright in seperate elements, but the PRIMARY license tag, should be a singular one that can be used quickly to determine if an image if non-free (in which case it needs a rationale) or free(in which case it should be on Commons) for example.

Also a 'single' license policy allows for endless debate about the degree of free, non-free in an image to be avoided.

A simple one liner can be used " If it has any copyright or un-free elements, then it cannot be licensed under CC or GFDL." which is more straightforward than a pointless row.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look and think it over. postdlf (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted license template
I tried to re-word it slightly.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigghhh...
Re your edit summary here- the sad part is that with every new person making the same mistake, they think their case grows stronger. "See? People keep becoming offended!"

If policy had to change every time a religious person became offended, we never would have left the dark ages. -- King Öomie 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very true. But I'm skeptical they're even different people, given the rapidity with which all these new users have attempted the same edits.  postdlf (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification about arbitration: request for amendment
Request for amendment which involves you has now been filed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I'll try and post something there in the next couple days. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:United States environmental law
I have nominated united states environmental law for renaming to environmental law in the united states. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User you recently blocked
Dear Postdlf, you recently blocked User:Roux who was subsequently reblocked with an expiry time of yesterday for incivility, which is the eighth civility block he has received amidst 12 total blocks. I realize that SarekOfVulcan more recently blocked this user than you, but per the top of that admin's talk page, he has just experienced a serious and unfortunate personal tragedy and so I should probably not trouble him any further about anything else. Anyway, on an admin's (Coffee's) talk page, I made a polite request (not a demand, but a respectful "please" and "thank you" request). Despite having no connection to the discussion at all, Roux showed up with an edit summary "stop making up crap about how wikipedia 'works'--it only works that way in your rabid inclusionist head." You would think the day after a block expires, someone would not immediately personally attack someone else. Because there have already been multiple blocks and warnings for civility this month alone, I am not sure my warning will be sufficient or even acknowledged as it is coming from me whom he apparently dislikes. Indeed, this was his reaction followed subsequently by this swearword laden reply. As such, I am giving you a heads up as it the long history of warnings and blocks on this user just keep being ignored. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs with music by Kenny Dorham
Hi! When you have time, could you explain why there was no consensus to rename the Kenny Dorham song category here? As the nominator I'm obviously biased, but it appeared to me that nobody questioned the statement that the category did not contain any songs, and that the only reasoning for making an exception here was based on the precedent of The Shadows songs, which is in a completely different category tree. (That category tree indeed makes no distinction between songs and instrumentals, but that's not relevant since Songs by composer does make that distinction.) I'd like to hear your reasoning for the "no consensus" closure. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your position is very clear throughout that discussion, but it's very unclear as a whole, and it's not clear to me that others participating accepted the distinction you were making. I'll ask User:Richhoncho to clarify whether he ultimately objected to your rename in this instance apart from any concerns about other categories or the structure as a whole.  If not, I'll change it; if so, then I'll have to leave it as no consensus.  postdlf (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenny Dorham
Thanks for your question on my talkpage. My position is clear to me, but difficult to explain - not helped by my half-a-change of mind during the discussion. Don't be afraid to ask for further clarification! Basically I cannot see any reason to move Kenny Dorham from "songs with music by" to "compositions by" because, ultimately, they mean the same thing. Therefore to move one category without all other similar named cats would be rather pointless. If I had reached a concensus with User:Jafeluv I would have been happy to merge both categories into either name, or even creating a new category name for "musical compositions by Foo" - providing the people over at the classical project weren't too offended. And, as Jafeluv pointed out, it is silly to have some artists in both categories. It's a shame that Jafeluv didn't reply to my last point and I have been meaning to discuss the matter further on his talkpage. I think the reasoning behind Jafeluv's nomination was that the sole entry in the Dorham's category didn't have words and therefore wasn't a song- and I find that a rather artificial distinction because some music composers work with lyricists some times, or somebody adds words later, and I can't see any reason why a composer should have 2 categories for that reason. Categories, in my opinion, are for bringing similar articles together, not necessarily exactly the same articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation; looks like I did read your comments correctly then in finding that you did not support the rename at the end. Which leaves the CFD properly closed as no consensus.  postdlf (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, postdlf. I think I've bugged you enough already, so I'll answer Richhoncho on their talk page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Australasia
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Australasia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PanchoS (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the template!
I found you because you undid an anon's deletion of my edits for Rufus Wheeler Peckham, and then I found out you helped design the Scotus template, that's great! I'm new to wikipedia, but have basic HTML skills, and would be interested in making a similar template for WTO Appellate Body reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckb187 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up!
Just wanted to say: thanks for the great Reptiles articles! I keep bumping into them when I look into the new articles. Great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a fun hobby. And a much less stressful way to contribute to Wikipedia than some other areas.  postdlf (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 8bed8c765a2a95f153d5457c1261fa91
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Userboxes
How do you make them all in a straight line like how you have? Thanks.

LolWalmartLol (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tables. Try copying the code I've used and then playing with it in your sandbox to get it how you want it (User:LolWalmartLol/sandbox). postdlf (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User page
fn is up for deletion and the tagging has caused it to stop working. I've adjusted your user page. Hope you don't mind. something lame from CBW 10:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

discussion closure
Hi, Podstdlf. I noticed you closed a discussion here. I would like you to have commented your decision, since I feel the concerns I presented there weren't addressed, and besides there wasn't that much support for the merge (yes, it's 2/3, proportionally, but only 2 users afterall -- and one of them only added a single comment, without participating further in the discussion). I would prefer the discussion to be relisted, or at least that you had presented your summing up of the discussion. Would you consider that? Thanks, Waldir talk 07:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do believe that your arguments were well-addressed and countered by the other participants. As they stated, the "by country" naming scheme is widespread as a container category; it's confusing otherwise.  And as User:Shawn in Montreal stated, the purpose for which you intended (if it would be a useful category) was not well expressed by that name.  My suggestion would be to open a discussion somewhere, maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, about what kind of category you want to maintain and how best to name it.  Or if you feel confident enough to proceed unilaterally, I would not personally consider Category:National film websites or a similarly-named category to be prohibited by this CFD decision (others might), but I cannot say with confidence that it would itself survive a new CFD based on the comments at this one, and it was unclear whether that accurately described the intended contents anyway.  So probably best to discuss it first rather than waste any effort.  Best, postdlf (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll leave it for now. It doesn't seem to be worth the effort. Maybe when there are a few more similar articles, that category (whatever is the most appropriate name for it) can be created. Thanks for your reply. --Waldir talk 17:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review
Hi! I've opened a deletion review for the Kenny Dorham CfD we discussed in February. Feel free to comment here. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS case infobox and opinion links
Postdlf, regarding this edit, can you point me to that discussion? The only one I could find was this one, which seems to endorse using something (whether Findlaw or Justia is another matter). I find these links more helpful than scrolling to the bottom.--Chaser (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please make a case for NOT including the new list? Do you really know who in this style of music is notable and who isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumpledwhistle (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you, because you're the one who wants to add content. That's the way things work here.  None of those individuals already have articles, or at least you didn't wikilink to them.  Provide reliable sources establishing that these musicians are 1) associated with Doolin and 2) notable enough to be mentioned in the article.  postdlf (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS KEW - PHOTO PERMISSION
Dear Postdlf We'd really like to include your photograph Bathsheba, Barbados 34.jpg in a book entitled "Why People Need Plants" (ISBN: 978-1-84246-425-0) which is to accompany a new Open University short course in plant sciences. The book will be published jointly by the Open University and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. RBG, Kew is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to inspire and deliver science-based plant conservation worlwide. Our publishing department uses any profit made from commercially viable publications to subsidise the publication of major floras and other reference works and does not make a net profit once salaries etc are taken into account. This book will be sold commercially and will probably make a profit. I'm really struggling to understand what and what isn't allowed as regards the use of wiki images in commercial books - we usually just spend what is essentially public money on buying images from libraries as its the safest and easiest way forward! In many cases though, people have uploaded the exact image we need under a commons license. I very much hope that you will allow us to use your image and would appreciate a timely response as the book is already in proof.

I assume it's not wise to leave ones e-mail on this - in truth I've no idea if it'll reach you - does 'save page' equate to 'publish message'- why does it all have to be so impenetrable?

Best regards,

Sharon Whitehead [redacted]

Category:Fauna of California - closed
Hi Postdlf, just read your message - 1. Sorry ! 2. Promptly stopped adds to "Category:Fauna of California." I now understand that I plowed into a topic previously well discussed and decided upon. What happened; I was trying to find some Calif. desert info, had difficulty as it wasn't in list form/title so not in the "Category:Lists of fauna of California" options. When found articles of a list but not titled as such, it seemed inappropriate to add them to the 'list of lists' category, - is that ok occasionally? I'm in botany so the Calif. article finding/access is a bit different (not better) for the flora. I'm so sorry to have caused you a batch of revert work. Thank you for keeping a system that works monitored. Best Look2See1  t a l k →  23:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could join this discussion...
Hi, having seen your post at WP:VPP about the fact vs. characterization distinction, I wonder if you could be persuaded to join in the dicussion at WT:NPOV, which concerns this very matter, and how it should be expressed in the WP:ASF section of the NPOV policy, which attempts to address it. Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Crystal City aerial view
Hi Postdlf,

I'm writing from Philanthropy magazine. We are looking for a photo like your aerial view of Crystal City, VA, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crystal_City_satellite_image.jpg to accompany an article. Would you please tell us where and how you located the original? I've found similar photos at the USGS website but had difficulty downloading them. If it's possible to email me the original, please let me know.

Thank you! 67.154.207.154 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Sargon of Akkad.jpg sourcing
Hey,

I've seen on File:Sargon of Akkad.jpg with the comment "looks like source information to me". Unfortunately I can't see anything that looks like a source - claiming that it's from a museum without a catalogue number, claiming it's lifted from the Encyclopædia Britannica online (Which page? When? What URL? What was Britannica's original source?), and then a rather worrying hand-wavy claim that because it's from Iraq pre-invasion, it's PD anyway. Do you think this is in line with policy? Sorry to be a pain. :-)

James F. (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More source information would be helpful, but I certainly can't say it is unsourced. The requirement is to provide enough to locate the image in the original, and I assume Encyclopedia Britannica is searchable, so that shouldn't be too difficult.  It's certainly reasonable that the source of an image of a relic at a museum would be the museum itself, so I have no reason to doubt the credit to the Iraq Museum.  The statement about Iraq copyright law is from Commons, which I have no reason to doubt.  So my view is that there's enough there for me to assume good faith on the part of the uploader, at least until you've performed your own investigation and found contrary information.


 * If none of that satisfies you, I have a copy of Gardner's Art Through the Ages that has a full color image of the same work, credited only to "Iraq Museum, Baghdad" (photos that are from other sources not listed in the caption are specified in the back; there is no other information for that image). I should scan and upload that anyway.  postdlf (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gardner's doesn't give a catalog number either; I doubt you'll typically find that in a general reference work not published by the museum itself. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS case links
FYI. The SCOTUS case links to Justia are no longer working (see the ones at List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 544). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.121.23.2 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, though it's a problem with links for more recent cases, not all Justia links. I've started a discussion here.  Thanks for the headsup, postdlf (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu
Requests for comment/Mayumashu IZAK (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I Happen to agree with you but...
Your edits to National Museum of Natural History meet with my agreement - yet your edit summary does not say why you changed it. Please be more verbose in your edit summaries. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins have "rollback" capabilities, which allows us to revert an edit with one click. Rolling back an edit like this automatically creates an edit summary just stating that a particular edit was reverted; there is no opportunity to manually add an explanation when rollback is used.  Whenever this is done, it's understood that the reverted edit was viewed as clearly nonconstructive.  In this case, not only was the edit I reverted a POV, promotional language-text dump pasted over the existing, neutrally-worded section, but a quick google check also showed that it was language copied from the museum's own website.  postdlf (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can use "undo" to revert previous edits, yet still have the option of adding an explanation of the revert to the summary. It seems strange to me that an Admin tool would be less flexible than something an ISP can use. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about photo
Hello, I'd like to get your permission to use your image of a skeleton swordfish in a National Geographic Channel documentary. Would you please contact rlevi@hoff.tv this week? Thanks. BillyBucko (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stanley Wagner (vintner)
Thanks for all your efforts at Articles for deletion/Stanley Wagner (vintner) to try to change one mind. Every time I'm about to chime in with a rebuttal to the nominator it seems that you beat me to it. Thanks again. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion.
I have high regard for your judgment, and would like your opinion at Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings - even if you disagree with me. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you're an admin and involved with the CfD...
Could you comment here? Thanks!  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bringing up the topic again... I'm a little worried. Judging by how user Occuli appeared all too happy to act on his/her opinion on whether the category American beauty pageant winners belongs in bios before a consensus was anywhere near reached, I have little doubt that if the result is a simple keep Occuli will undertake wholesale reversions of my edits adding the cat to bios.  Is it possible to add a note to the discussion asking the closing admin to specifically address whether the cat should be kept in bios or not?    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright
I wonder if you might be able to shed any light on the discussion about copyright at Featured_picture_candidates/PicassoPainting and File talk:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg. Thanks.  Ty  15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wampa
Do you have a reliable source to verify any of the material you have added? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A work of fiction is a reliable source for its own content. There are multiple works mentioned as depicting the article's subject in the vast swath of text you removed.  It isn't OR to describe a work of fiction unless you're inferring things that aren't literal and obvious or otherwise interpreting it in some way.  If you can pinpoint such passages, by all means trim those out.  But the text you removed is not all completely worthless, and whether the wampa was depicted in those works is verifiable by reference to the works themselves at minimum.  Further, the "behind the scenes" section in particular deals with out of universe material, not just plot summary, and it is verifiable even though not verified at present (the changes to the Special Edition scene have particularly been the subject of a lot of secondary source commentary).  So I undid your edit for applying a hatchet where a scalpel was called for.  postdlf (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're planning to add inline citations to achieve that verification then? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...because if it's not done today, then all is lost? postdlf (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * because Verifiability requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, the only compelling reason to immediately remove uncited material is WP:BLP. Short of that, there's no WP:DEADLINE (while we're needlessly throwing acronyms around), so tag statements of fact with Template:Citation needed that you think need inline citation, remove sentences that are irredeemably OR such as unattributed opinions, and post a notice to the Star Wars Wikiproject to get more eyes on it.  But I'm not going to let you just wipe out an entire article just because you don't want to take the time to sort out what is actually broken from what isn't, or what can't be fixed from what can.  postdlf (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, which is policy : "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately" (my emphasis). Apparently you aren't willing to find the sources for this stuff that you've added.  And what on earth do you mean by using language like "I'm not going to let you ..."?  Are you threatening me?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do please calm down. At most I'm "threatening" to revert you again if you try to throw out the baby with the bathwater by wiping out the entire article, not all of which was OR or uncited (which you do not contest) rather than target specific problems and give others the time to fix what is fixable.  I see you have now added citation needed tags to the article.  Well done.  I've also posted a notice to the Star Wars Wikiproject about the article (none of which I wrote, incidentally), so now we sit back and let the community process work.
 * On a more general note, namechecking policies (as if I have no idea those policies exist) is not a substitute for substantive discussion. It remains to us in every situation to determine how best to apply policy, with a pragmatic eye towards ensuring that article-writing effort is not wasted.  Most article content on WP is uncited at present; the best way to solve that is not to immediately blank all uncited articles.  Short of BLP issues, content that is improvable (as I believe we have here) is best preserved until it is improved.  postdlf (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not "namechecking", I am quoting policy in support of my actions. You say "not all of which was OR or uncited (which you do not contest)".  Actually, it was all uncited with the exception of one sentence.  I do not propose "to immediately blank all uncited articles" and don't know why you think think I do; in fact I spend quite a lot of time adding sources.  The bottom line is that you seem to think it a good idea to add hundreds of words of unsourced content about an arguably notable fictional animal on the grounds that it might be verifiable -- I don't.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability
A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Two judges per week.
Greetings! At WikiProject United States courts and judges, we have bot-created thousands of articles on United States federal judges. Of those 1,272 currently still have their bot-made cleanup tag. If just a dozen editors will each commit to cleaning up just two of those articles every week, we will conquer the entire list within the year. Most of the articles are quick and easy to clean up, requiring only a few minor adjustments of bot-created awkward wording. Please consider joining this effort, and committing to cleaning up two judges per week for the year. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Afrosoricidans
Category:Afrosoricidans, 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. Ucucha 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Father Guido Sarducci.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Father Guido Sarducci.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks
I would be grateful if you would ease down on the the ad hominem content of your posts. The following points are not relevant to the discussion, and do not assist either of us in reaching a shared understanding of the issues. I appologise now if I have got under your skin. If you have a personal issue to discuss with me, please do so on my talk page, which is the appropriate forum for such matters.
 * 1) "you need to figure out another way to participate, or to stop participating here"
 * 2) "You just repeat yourself as if you haven't read anything anyone else has written, or you haven't understood it"
 * 3) "Regardless of whether you are "mistaken" or not, how you are going about this is only disruptive and tendentious. So unless you have something new to say, I don't see you having a further role to play here"
 * 4) "you are apparently unique in that approach, so it's hardly a persuasive or relevant rebuttal to anything"
 * 5) please don't waste any more time; if you're not going to actually read what others have written, and actually participate in a discussion, then don't post anything
 * 6) This is really becoming tendentious on your part. You're not convincing anyone and you're not saying anything new, despite the various ways we have tried to address your comments and explain our own. So I think continuing this with you is a waste of time; I urge everyone else to move on as well

I would prefer if we just agree to disagree, in a civil and friendly manner. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You should know very well there's nothing ad hominem about these, Gavin. You thought the same of mine when you WQA'd me, and that was soundly rejected.  No one in the discussion has mentioned your character, they have only mentioned your behavior and your stance, both which are completely appropriate in talk page discussions.  --M ASEM  (t) 13:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And to add, that yes, these points are very relevant to the discussion. You are stalling it by insisting on the only evident minority voice for us to come to you with arguments that others have rejected, when everyone else is ready to move on and end it, and when we try to move on you draw us back. This is not consensus building, this is trying to make us cave to your demands. --M ASEM  (t) 13:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Merita Halili
Hi there, it seems like you deleted this 5 years ago. Could you please give me the prior version and allow me to restart it? It's clearly one of the finest folk singers in Albania. Thank you for your help! --  S ulmues (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was all just test edits, no content. Which also means that my deletion had nothing to do with whether "Marita Halili" merits an article.  postdlf (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Block COI
Blocks are prohibited when there is a conflict of interest over a content dispute, not for personal attacks. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt most other admins would interpret it so narrowly; when you are the subject of what you consider to be a personal attack, it's clear that your objectivity is questionable on whether 1) it actually is a personal attack, and 2) it is block-worthy. That seems like common sense to me.  Once again, I'm not commenting on the merits of what he said or did.  Just please take your complaint with him to WP:ANI in the spirit of fairness.  I also won't take it personally if you complain there about my unblocking; if you get agreement there that I should have left your block alone, you can say "I told you so," and I'll have learned a lesson.  postdlf (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: I blocked a user for incivility and harassment (by no means his first block, by the way), you unblocked him without cause, and now I have to take this to ANI? That is ridiculous. If you were confident enough to override my block, you should be confident enough to follow up and handle him yourself. He's still at it. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I unblocked him because you shouldn't have blocked him. I'm very confident on that point.  Please either resolve your differences with him in civil discussion or if that doesn't work, with a post at ANI explaining your issues.  I don't think that's ridiculous at all.  postdlf (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That, my friend, is the best example of WP:Wikilawyering I've ever seen on this board. It is an argument that only an American lawyer would make.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion, of course, just remember you appear to be in the minority. --Kbdank71 01:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
You explained that much better than I have/had in the past. - jc37 04:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_11

consensus on lists
I put together a short summary of the principles from the list RFC where there appears to be consensus. I wanted to invite a small number of people to look at it before figuring out a next step (whether that's to invite more people, to work on another RFC, or to scrap what I've written altogether). Take a look at User:Shooterwalker/Lists. Note the point of the summary I wrote isn't to re-open the discussion, but to ask "does this describe the RFC"? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not anyone's fault but my own, assuredly, but I really wish I had seen this RfC before now.
 * If, in the future, there is any discussion like this that you think I would like to be notified about, I would not consider it canvassing if you would please inform me. - jc37 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So you know, I've started the process of closing the list RFC at this section. Thanks for your participation! Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of European American and White American on U.S. Supreme Court pages
Greetings! In light of your previous work on these articles, please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 SCOTUS opinions
One can delete/remove info instead of deleting, reading the article the bottom section WAS up-to-date, and there are many lsits from forward years that are ready to go in the past. Its not that the whole article was off-base.
 * And furthermore, isnt there supposed to be a warning message so there can be discussion. It isnt difficult to remove out the other info. instead you deleted the info, and then posted a message.
 * Could you undelete per precedence and procedure so it can be get-set to go?(Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)).
 * I don't understand your questions. What you did was copy and paste text from one article into another title without attribution.  That new title further will not have any actual content until there is an actual opinion by SCOTUS handed down during its current 2010 term.  I have already created a ready frame for such opinions, at User:Postdlf/2010, which has all the correct dates, correct membership, etc., so as soon as there is an actual opinion, I will post it in the article space.  I don't see any reason for anything else to happen right now.  postdlf (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * because year-to-year article follow the same format, it was just prep, and the first opinion is hardly weeks away now. there is precedence set for these thigns on political calendars (election, terror attacks, etc)Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're really not "listening." You didn't do it right, and you didn't do it at the right time.  I have the "prep" ready and done right and it will be done at the right time.  I'm done repeating myself.  postdlf (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually youre not "listening" i said precedence does indicate prep, and if on wikipedia something is not done right it is corrected. Improvement is not ground for deletion, and the lower section was right on target and updated."
 * you have actually also not "done it right" without explanation or discussion. Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Term commenced

 * started Oct. 4th, so it is not outdated.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the term has commenced. BUT THERE ARE NO 2010 OPINIONS FROM THE COURT YET.  So there is nothing yet to list.  postdlf (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

National Geographic insert
I tried to give some suggestions in response to your question. Not sure how helpful it was; it is difficult when not knowing exactly what it is you are talking about. --Hegvald (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cabals
I see I am not the only person to use the term cabal in wikipedia. Not only do I not care about the cabals, I eventually read some of the discussions, (for humor, or for whatever). If Your Reasons pass the test for putting an article up for Cfd, (and it is not difficult to pick a reason, (though they may be difficult to read or understand)).. you'll find nobody to oppose you, or "everybody to oppose you". The fact you are doing the Cfd, pretty much means (to you) that all the "cabal" members will immediately side, and join, and vote. (If you think looking at a "List of introduced species" somehow satisfies, ISLANDS, mountains, plateaus, valleys... then good for you.) You'll find enuff fellow wikipedians to wade through an "inadequate" article... If there is not a list for: List of islands with Intr Spec. or Introduced mammals species, or Introduced domestic mammal species, then much needs to be done in Wikipedia... It will all be revised correctly in time. (Thanks for theoretically, completely reading the comments about my searches...) introduce-mountain-species-berry.... or introduce-valley-species-tree... there are some wonderful places/ Articles. (Maybe one in the category-(I just created) is "actually" on the "List of introduced species").... (This comment is Only about the Wikipedia use of cabals)(and the Cfd usage)Mmcannis (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

USGS units
We have an editor who is not willing to create a top level article or list on the over 3,000 USGS units and then to create additional articles for the major groups. Instead they are creating categories instead of articles. A few articles have been deleted as I recall. But more are in the process. One estimate is that there are over one hundred that need to be deleted. The problem is that you can create this faster then it can be deleted so the hole just gets deeper. Not sure when this is vandalism or when it should go to WP:ANI but I'm not convinced the editor is outside of WP:AGF however the editor refuses to address concerns raised on their talk page so maybe AGF is no longer on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you just talking about ? I don't know whether the USGS units ultimately merit an article each, or should be grouped into lists, or just summarized as a single topic without repeating all the data of every one of the 3,000 units.  But anyone who completely ignores multiple people telling them to stop has become disruptive no matter how well-intentioned and regardless of the ultimate merit of the content.  Were you aware of the Levineps case?  On the content side, there's a definite problem with posting pseudo-articles in category space rather than in article space.  I'll post a warning to their talk page that they need to start talking and responding, or else.  postdlf (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw the block and removal. You may want to look at the history for Category:Laguna Madre Watershed which has the sole effect of making Category:Watersheds of Texas no longer empty and speedy deletable.  I'm not taking any action since I'm too involved in this mess. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

31st infantry survivors photo
My grandfather was a veteran of WWII and served in the 31st Calvary "Dixie Division", QMC. Would you happen to have any names of the soldiers in the photo you posted? My grandfather is Hobson Childress who resided in Robertsdale, Alabama. egbrew Egbrew (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just one; my grandfather, Harold Steele from Columbus, Ohio, eighth from the right in the front row. He's unfortunately long since passed away so I don't know anyone else to ask about the photo.  postdlf (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

X-American lists
Since you brought up the current state of X-American lists - and the possibility that they will grow to enormous lengths and such - I wanted to show you something. I truly hope the future of X-American lists (which have been hotly contested for years now and subject to numerous RfC and deletion attempts) will be like the following: Hungarian_American (though obviously prettier, better organized, and with pictures and stuff). You may not notice immediately, but everybody listed on there (perhaps with a few exceptions I'm still working through - Darabont and Pulitzer have confusing histories) can unmistakably be considered Hungarian by means of either being born in Hungary to ethnically Hungarian or culturally-Magyarized parents, or by being born in the States but growing up with Hungarian culture or Hungarian language. Also, everyone on that list established part of their notability by work they did in the United States - which is significant enough to make them notable Americans and not just notable Hungarians. Also, the reason for their notability is listed. Finally, it's a relatively compact (though some pruning wouldn't hurt) list. Everyone else... who is merely "of Hungarian descent" but has no other connection, like Drew Barrymore (can she even point out Hungary on a map?)... gets an "of Hungarian descent" category and that's that. If all the lists could be deleted and then converted into something like that... it would save wikipedia a lot of pain, and prevent new users from randomly going on the lists and adding Abigail Breslins or Demi Lovatos. Bull dog123 12:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely good to include that information if we can. Barrymore's mother was Hungarian, which makes that a pretty significant part of her ethnic heritage, so I would include her in a list (and I personally would love to see all of the "of X descent" categories deleted in favor of lists); I imagine the opposing argument is her parents divorced shortly after her birth and she wasn't raised by her mother, so there was no influence? On random entries, I don't know if you had a chance to look at the sortable list templates I whipped up at User:Postdlf/X-American actors test, but that kind of formatting would also discourage drive-by entries by making it a much greater investment of time to add someone, and making it easier to see those for whom there isn't (yet?) anything to say on the heritage. You didn't really give your thoughts on my sublist/article indexing approach, other than to suggest that you don't think there should be lists of people by ethnicity at all, let alone sublists.  In a lot of ways, I think the ethnicity lists are no different than listing the people born in 1910 together, or list of people from California, in that they index articles on people who may have nothing else in common other than that shared biographical detail, which may also not related to their notability, but it's encyclopedic and verifiable.  There are different inclusion problems, but those are surmountable and the ability of lists to annotate and cite sources makes a degree of fuzziness/flexibility tolerable (contra categories).  I was recently looking at the Kirk Douglas article, and wishing there were a list of Jewish American actors so I could see what other actors of his generation came from a similar background, anglicized their names, and got away with assimilating (perhaps also, as he did, to have a renewed interest in their heritage and/or Judaism later in life)...  Certainly the similar heritage and occupation would be more of a connection than to any other random person born in 1916. And again, I think there's much less reason to be upset if a list is overinclusive than a category (assuming it's still verified, NPOV, etc.).  You can ignore lists or entries on a list if you want much easier than category tags; see for instance the six ethnicity-related categories on Vince Vaughn.  If Vince Vaughn were in six hundred ethnicity lists, the only way that would affect the article would be in "what links here".  postdlf (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, there is very little indication that Drew Barrymore's half-Hungarianness has absolutely any influence on her existence, making it little more than interesting trivia. Your love of ethnicity lists is of great concern to me, because I've witnessed what horribleness lists can create over the years -- making this encyclopedia really look like a cesspool of "ethnic pride enthusiasts" and "trivia regurgitaters" and dwindling its reputation. Your User:Postdlf/X-American actors test proposal is certainly better than the list is now, but I get the feeling once we start trying it... you'll find how impossible it is to find anything relevant to put there (or you'll argue that my standards are too high for inclusion). For example, the Irish American Academy Awards don't appear to be notable enough to even have a Wikipedia article (joke... in case you won't catch it). We'll also end up doing a lot of unconscious OR because of this... but the list was kept, nothing I can do about it now. Also, this want to limit ridiculous categories really doesn't seem to apply to your want to keep Category:Jews who emigrated to the United Kingdom to escape Nazism for some reason. You really think GROUP who emigrated BLANK to escape BLANK is a wise category-intersection to start supporting? I also don't understand why you can't even bring yourself to !vote delete on a clear case of OCAT such as Category:Jewish inventors. Sometimes it looks like you just don't want to agree with me - always maintaining I'm wrong. Bull dog123  11:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I've never changed my XFD comments to spite another editor. It's always about what I think should happen in a particular instance, not about who else is commenting.  I largely agreed with you in the last two AFDs we both participated in, at least as to what the final result should be.  And I have always shared your concerns about the documentation of ethnicity in Wikipedia.  It does have a tendency to descend into trivia, and it does have a tendency towards "ethnic pride enthusiasm".  But I disagree with your approach, and I disagree with the weighing of harms that you've implicitly undertaken for you to conclude that it's better just to delete the lists than to constantly wrestle with the quality issues.  The information is too important, as a matter of individual biography and of cultural history, not to document, and it's very valuable to have indexes of articles about individuals with common backgrounds.  postdlf (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna lay low for a while and see if over the next few months, there's any improvement whatsoever to the X-American lists. If not (which I'm pretty sure there won't be), I'll support your formatting proposal above, and start filling it in on smaller lists -- like maybe List of Albanian Americans or List of Danish Americans. Right now though, if you try it on Irish Americans, you're probably just going to be reverted. No other way to do this except baby-steps. Bull dog123  15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Needed help?
Hey! My main interest here on Wikipedia is to work on articles relating to the law and important cases. You seem to be managing many of the case pages. Is there any where articles need improving or some list of pages to improve? Thanks! Lord Roem (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the only one who creates the term lists (such as 2010 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States) and the justice opinion lists, though others sometimes have helped update them. You can look at the left column here on my user page to see what opinion lists exist; most of the justice opinion lists still need summaries of their opinions added.  2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito and 2004 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia show pretty well what those can look like when they're more fleshed out.  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases occasionally has postings regarding efforts to improve articles.  Thanks for your interest.  What's your background?  postdlf (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll be sure to check out that Project page. - I'm just someone interested in this field. I'm an avid reader of many legal blogs which brought me here through postings about Wikipedia (specifically these posts and.
 * I look forward with working with you to expand Supreme Court articles and write new ones. I appreciate your help so far. :) Lord Roem (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2000 term opinions fix
As I'm going through the cases under this, I saw a minor error in the table. In Gitlitz v. Commissioner, a few below Bush v. Gore, Breyer wrote a dissent and so he did not join the opinion of the court. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch; thanks! postdlf (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)