User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-01

Your thoughts
I am also writing Supreme Court articles and I would like to know your suggestions for how I can improve Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez. Thanks! Lord Roem (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a look at this article and made some small improvements. One thing that would be helpful would be to identify who Carmen Velasquez was — I'm assuming she was one of the lawyers who was challenging the funding limitations, but this should be said explicitly.  More details on the subsequent developments would also be nice.  I may be able to think of some more things after I've had a chance to let this sit and ferment for a while.  And, of course, more references, including some from good secondary sources.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the imput! Lord Roem (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts #2
I was impressed by your fine work on the articles on the citizenship cases and wondered if you might take a look at my efforts with Adair v. United States and Gong Lum v. Rice. These are is my first attempts proper to expand on court case-articles. As you see I've gone for a different style in relaying the content of the decisions, mainly using inline citations. I actually think your way looks better; part of the reason for this structure is that I'm usually reading the cases for the first time as I write their articles. If you could give me some pointers I would much appreciate it. Shoplifter (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing me. The first thing that came to my mind was that I would like to know a little more about Martha Lum — what school she actually ended up attending during and after the legal fight; whether she finished high school (somewhere) or dropped out once she had passed the upper age for mandatory school attendance; and also whether the case might have been rendered moot by her having graduated by the time the Supreme Court ruled.  Regarding Adair v. U.S., it would be nice to know about any subsequent Supreme Court decision that may have supported the right of workers to unionize (before or after Congress changed the law).  Inline citations of some sort are definitely expected in Wikipedia nowadays, and I believe the   style (which generates footnotes) is preferred, so that is what I would recommend.  You don't need to use cite templates in references, but I would strongly recommend doing this for the sake of uniformity of style across the encyclopedia.  Also, be aware (if you weren't already) that there is a wikiproject devoted to Supreme Court cases; see the talk pages of the two articles you've been working on for more info about this.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I used the phrase "inline citation" sloppily; what I meant to say was that I use plenty of quotes from the decision in describing the judgement. I did see though that you and others had cited separate pages from the decision when quoting it, I should probably do so too. I'm a member of the Wikiproject since yesterday and I'm looking forward to collaborating with other editors if there's sufficient interest. I think we should have an IRC channel for this purpose, always makes communication easier. Shoplifter (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have enough time to participate in an IRC channel. Also, in general, my understanding is that we are encouraged to keep discussions "on-wiki" (i.e., on talk pages) and limit use of IRC or e-mail to more sensitive things that shouldn't or mustn't be publicly visible on talk pages.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination Afroyim v. Rusk
I put your article on hold Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia writes with indelible ink. I placed it on hold at 19:39 and passed it an hour later, and the world will forever know that there was a brief hold. Racepacket (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In terms of FA, obviously do a Peer Review. I would add sections on impact and aftermath. You can also look at scholarly works and law review articles that critique and discuss the case. Racepacket (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
 Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Dottlebop123
You warned this user for an edit you apparently thought was either vandalism or a test. I don't see how it was either of those things. It was perhaps a somewhat clueless edit by a newbie, but it was not intended to harm or to test in any way that I can see. Sometimes there is no template for a given situation and it is best to simply explain things in your own words, as I am doing right now. Your templated warning is as likely to confuse and irritate this new user as it is to guide them toward being a good Wikipedian. Just some free advice for you to take or leave as you will. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for speaking up. With all possible respect, I honestly believed [ the edit] in question easily fell into the category of "inserting patent nonsense into a page" — which is one of the recognized definitions of vandalism.  Yes, it's true that the phrase "no money paid" could be thought of as one meaning of "free", but (IMO) there's no way even the most clueless newcomer could possibly see it as making any sense at all in the spot where it was put — especially since the article already includes "Something given or supplied without payment (gratis)" as one definition of the word, almost at the very start of the page.  If this kind of thing has been talked about before, and there is discussion or precedent which I should look at, I would very much like to do so (and I'd be grateful if you could point such material out to me).  Otherwise, I think you and I might just have to "agree to disagree" on this one.


 * Please be assured that I realize using a tool like STiki does not relieve me of personal responsibility for what I do with the tool — and when I tried it out this evening, I deliberately let many questionable edits go, because even though I thought they were not defensible, I realized they did not clearly qualify as vandalism . I did feel this one satisfied the definition of vandalism, and I stand by my call — though, as I said, I'm open to hearing alternative views or authoritative guidance to the contrary.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit it's open to interpretation, but if we AGF it is just a bad edit. If we don't it is vandalism. I agree it was unhelpful and deserved to be reverted, but sometimes very new users just don't get it and don't pay enough attention to our basic policies. Hanlon's razor seems apt, if a bit blunt. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You do have a point, and I'll try to be a bit less skeptical in the future. It appears that the "test/vandalism" edit summary verbiage in STiki can be customized (though I don't know if such customization survives from one run of the tool to the next, or even from one processed edit to the next within a single run).  The template warning on the user's talk page says "did not appear to be constructive", and perhaps a customized edit summary like "unconstructive" (instead of "test/vandalism") might be better in such cases.


 * Or, for that matter, possibly even in all cases. At one time, BTW, I resolved not to use "vandalism" or "rvv" any more in edit summaries at all — even in cut-and-dried, obvious cases — so as not to escalate a situation further or risk being accused of breaking WP:NPA.  But when I brought up this point in my recent (failed) RfA bid, I got criticisms that I might not be able (or willing) to identify vandalism even when it was obvious; can't win for losing, I suppose.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Humph and harumph! :-(" I edited STiki's "reverted edit(s)" message to say "unconstructive" instead of "test/vandalism".  And then I [ reverted] a piece of unquestionable vandalism, and the edit summary for my revert said "identified as unconstructive".  But the edit summary for the [ warning] on the user's talk page still said "User warning for addition of test/vandalism".  Apparently there's no way to tell STiki to refrain entirely from saying "test/vandalism".  I'll report the problem to the tool's author, but in the meantime, I agree it's probably best to use STiki only in the most obvious cases of vulgar or demented editing where no one can possibly imagine that any editor could ever have written the garbage in question in good faith.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article United States v. Wong Kim Ark you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Rich - This will be my first GA review so bear with me. Am doing the review as a tasking for my Campus Ambassadors training which I will attend next week at the Wikimedia Foundation. My task is to conduct the GA review and present the results at a forum next week. I have some familarity with Constitutional Law so it should be an interesting article to review. I may be asking some questions during the week. Thanks -- Mike Cline (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rich, take your time on the improvements as I plan to take a few more days reviewing the article before passing judgment. One of my gut reactions to the article is that it could use more independent secondary sources. All the case law and briefs are great, but in reality you are interpreting (or quoting them) which could be construed as OR.  So, for example if you could find an independent secondary source that discussed the District Court case, you would not need to find a vintage federal court case brief. Just some thoughts, keep up the good work. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've just done a major rewrite of the last part of the "Subsequent developments" section — creating a new subsection dealing with the criticisms and restructuring it to attribute various claims a bit more clearly.  The remainder of the article is currently unchanged, and the new subsection is a first draft, so comments are certainly welcome.  I'll do some more work on looking up additional secondary sources.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rich - FYI I am going to promote your article to GA status today when I get a sufficient break from work. Am on the road and sneaking in some WP work when I can.  Good Work. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mike, for helping me improve this article. Good luck with your presentation; I'll be interested in hearing what people have to say.


 * It looks, BTW, like the GA review talk page still needs to have the icons filled in. Right now, they all say  [[File:|16px]]  instead of the final    (plus signs).


 * Looking beyond today, what do you believe would need to be done to the Wong Kim Ark article in order for it to have a chance of eventually achieving "Featured Article" status?


 * Thanks again.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Richwales, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Richwales/Drafts/Steve Irwin. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Irwin draft / script
Just getting to your message - good to hear you were able to run the DateFix script OK. Also good to hear the bug report. Not sure how to fix that yet, so guess it's a case of reviewing the preview more carefully, especially for things like "et sp. nov.". Automated processes will sometimes miss certain or infrequently-encountered text outcomes. Dl2000 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One way to fix the problem might be to look for a number on either side of something like "nov." before concluding it's a month abbreviation.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Automation
I'm glad you asked about that at Lear Fool's RfA; I was wondering about that myself. It seems that at your RfA, people were suggesting more automation, and at this one they're suggesting less. I would think the percentage would be completely irrelevant since you can easily see (and evaluate) the number of non-automated edits, so those opposes surprised me. Be nice to know what percentage we should be shooting for, eh? 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "automated edit counter" tool (here for Lear's Fool, here for me) is interesting — though it's not clear to me how to interpret the numbers. What you probably really want to do is figure out how many manual tool invocation events were involved, and then count each such event as if it were one edit (rather than two, four, or however many separate page modifications resulted from that one event).  I assume it should be possible to do that, at least approximately, but it would be hard, and I don't know how well this particular tool does it.  I'm guessing that, right now, all it does is count the total number of individual page modifications that are flagged (in their edit summaries) as being due to this or that tool.


 * I enabled Twinkle shortly after my failed RfA bid, and I've used it a few times. I also installed STiki a few days ago, and I've reverted a fair number of IP vandalism edits with it.  If I keep on using STiki, I assume my edit count will shoot through the roof pretty quickly — and in a future RfA, I would most likely be proactive and mention up front that I've been using STiki.  I'll be honestly interested in seeing how Pepper or others answer my question; this may be another of those cases where people disagree hopelessly on acceptance standards, but the more "out in the open" we can get it, the better.


 * FWIW, I've also been spending time lately on content creation. I took three articles I had previously done some work on, and I managed to get all three (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Vance v. Terrazas) to "Good Article".  I'm sure some people will still scoff that I have "only" three GA's, one DYK, and one ITN to my credit, but it's a start.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work on the GAs. I'm still trying to earn my first. I'd like to start reviewing GANs at some point, but I don't want to try that until I've got a GA of my own first. (I figure that until I can get my own articles up to spec, I've got no business judging others' articles.)


 * One thing that folks suggested during my (brief) RfA was to do more CSD taggings on NPP. The trouble with that, of course, is that it's all automated edits, so if I get really involved in that and keep doing the occasional anti-vandal Huggle session, my automated edit percentage will creep up, which apparently is something to worry about if I decide to try an RfA again. I actually started a spreadsheet to try to calculate how much anti-vandalism work I could continue to do given my normal non-automated content work, without creeping into the "danger zone" of 50% automated edits. It seems silly to have to think about it in those terms, but if people are opposing based on those percentages, I suppose it makes sense to keep a close eye on them. It's a lot to worry about just to get "write access" to update the DYK queues, but if that's the way it works, that's the way it works. 28bytes (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind my "'danger zone' of 50%" comment... looks like 33% is the new definition of "too many automated edits." I have to say, I learn something new every day... 28bytes (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WTF? ;-)
I know you meant well, but please take a second look at this edit. It certainly appears to be vandalism, but it wasn't. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You're right — I see that this was not in fact vandalism after all.  I'm not at all convinced that the concept of editorial integrity in Wikipedia demands that we can or should include vulgar or obscene material simply because it is an exact quote from a source, when it contributes nothing at all to the subject at hand, but that's probably a separate issue.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Review of LSC v. Velazquez
Hey! Since we last 'spoke', I have significantly updated the article Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez. I have opened a Peer Review of the article, but I would like to hear any advice from you (as you have also worked on SCOTUS cases). Any critisism/comments would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Aside from a few typos (which I fixed), the main thing I see is that the article needs more source references in the "Opinion of the Court" section. I believe, in fact, that any text in quote marks needs to be sourced by definition.  Keep in mind that standard North American usage calls for quoted text to be surrounded by "double quotes".


 * In "Subsequent developments", I was a bit confused when you said that LSC v. Velazquez led to additional challenges which failed; I was primed for reading about the case giving rise to other successful challenges. Perhaps a strategically placed "however" somewhere in that text would help.


 * Additionally, in the "Analysis and commentary" section, be consistent in the use of verb tenses: you're currently switching between the past and the "historical present", but you should stick to one or the other.  Also, instead of "distortion principal", I think you meant to say "distortion principle"; go review the difference in meaning between "princi pal " and "princi ple ".   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha. Principle :) Thank you very much for going through it. I really appreciate it. I will make the suggested changes. Cheers, -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

United States v. Wong Kim Ark article
Hi, I apologize for diverging from WP:MOS. Sometimes old habits are hard to break, but none of the edits (which are invisible as you point out) were meant to affect the article in a negative manner, as I am sure you realize since you didn't accuse me of being a vandal. As far as I know WP:MOS is silent on my quirky editing but please feel free to revert any edits you find objectionable. I know that the article in question is one to which you have contributed heavily and in which you have an understandable interest. (It's a great article, btw.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I've contributed heavily to the article, but I don't claim to WP:OWN it.  I do feel inclined to revert your set of edits, reinstate the handful of noncosmetic portions of your editing, and take it from there.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't mean to imply you feel you own the article. We've both been around long enough to know that's a no-no. Good night -- I'll be offwiki soon as it's past midnight (here in New York). Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind I took care of it. BTW: I added a few substantive edits to the United States v. Wong Kim Ark article which I believe improve the article slightly. They shouldn't pose any MOS problems/issues. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi.I just came across this website while I was trying to find more examples of naturalized United States citizens who lost or renounced their U.S. citizenship for the List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States. Very impressive site. I used to work for the INS before it became the DHS in Manhattan (26 Federal Plaza) until I retired. Mostly boring stuff but sometimes you come across something interesting (almost always, though, anything interesting was beyond my pay grade). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did most of the work on the above site in the mid- to late 1990's.  I recently decided my efforts along these lines would probably be better spent trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject; I've ceased active maintenance of my old site, and my goal down the road is to convert my site into a portal outline directing readers to the pertinent Wikipedia articles.


 * I reverted one of your Wong Kim Ark changes. In the brief description of Afroyim v. Rusk, I changed "held to have forfeited his U.S. citizenship" back to "alleged to have lost his U.S. citizenship", since your wording unintentionally made it sound as if the final judgment of the Supreme Court in Afroyim's case was that he has lost his citizenship.


 * I'm having a terrible time tracking down exactly what you changed elsewhere in the article. It looks like you spent a lot of time changing the spacing after periods in sentences from two spaces down to one — something which is permitted (MOS:PUNCTSPACE), but which is completely unnecessary and which may serve only to confuse other editors (because Wikipedia's builtin tools for comparing versions are unable to highlight changes in spacing).  In fairness to other editors, I would urge you not to make this sort of change if that's really all you're planning to do with a given piece of text.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't. I was making the substantive changes, but if or when I see, I don't know how to explain it grammatically, but say 'the end.' or 'the end,', then I do move the punctuation mark outside the quotes. It's just a habit which I thought was grammatically accurate. I am surprised you attach much importance to it. I agree it would be a waste of my time and the time of anyone who was wikignoming to have to sort through if that were all I did, but almost all my edits are normally quite substantive, if not sometimes quite bold. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't notice any instances of your changing the order of punctuation and quotes. Did you do that in the very last part of the article (I probably didn't notice any such change in punctuation in that material; see below for my comments about Wikipedia's revision comparison feature)?  Regarding the order of punctuation and quotes, the WP MOS does actually recommend putting punctuation outside quotes unless the punctuation is part of the quoted material — essentially what you explained you prefer to do (see MOS:LQ), and what I also generally try to do.  What I had been talking about was something different — namely, the situation where a period (full stop) was followed by two spaces and you apparently changed it to just one space after the period — something which the WP MOS says doesn't matter at all one way or the other, because the MediaWiki markup rendering software collapses multiple consecutive spaces into a single space anyway.


 * One other thing which, apparently, horribly confuses Wikipedia's "compare two revisions" tool is when people either add or remove a blank line after a section heading. In your last edit, you took away an empty line after the "Criticisms of Wong Kim Ark and birthright citizenship" subsection header, and this completely broke the revision comparison for the rest of the text.  That's a failing of Wikipedia's revision comparison tool, not your editing, though it may be a reason to be conservative in changing existing wiki markup.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)