php-deluxe.net - description Postdlf Archive4

Postdlf/Archive4

Archive from , 4-14-05 through 6-20-05.

= =

I don t think this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the Playboy subject matter, but rather because you ve attempted to create an article by giving a play-by-play of one video out of a series of, for all relevant purposes, substantially identical videos. I don t even know if a valid article could be written on the Wet & Wild series as a whole, let alone one volume of it. Furthermore, your writing is a bit far from NPOV (i.e., she looks beautiful ). I m going to list the article for deletion, and I hope you take my comments into consideration for future contributions. 23:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It s enough on 23:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: Well I can t say that I ve seen all the Playboy videos but I have the impression that there has been a significant change in Playboy s philosophy in the production of their videos from the early 90 s to the present. In the early 90 s the Sexy Lingerie and Wet and Wild series were produced and very popular. The production of these videos has completely stopped and we now have videos such as Sorority Strip Party , Sexy House Keepers , and America s Sexiest Bartenders . It seems to me that Playboy is now more concerned with making a profit by producing these sleazy videos than producing tasteful, artistic, and erotic depictions of women. I hoped that in writing a detailed description of each of the Playboy videos one could get an impression of the change that has taken place in Playboy s view of women. I have taken your points into consideration and have removed the NPOV remarks from my article. I hope that other people will be able to contribute their ideas and improve the video articles. 01:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::That s actually an interesting perspective, though I d be careful of veering into 02:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= Deletion of Template:Stop =

While this content may well have been patent nonsense, it was TfD d before you deleted it. That confers a sort of immediate, superficial status. You have bypassed the process, and now nobody else can form an opinion -- either to contest or to support your action. I don t want to be confrontational with you, but let s not set bad precedent. — 17:12, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

= =

Please note that I have nominated 19:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= Discussion about Nanjing article. =

You said I m unaware of any policy that would support the creation of an alternate, image-free version of an article, any more than it would be alright to create an alternate version without objectionable or graphic descriptions. Unless you can point me to such a policy, I am going to list this for deletion.

While I don t know of any official policy, It occured to me that some people may want to learn about the Nanjing Massacre, but may not want to pictures of a dead woman with a sword in her vagina. I ve also seen it on other pages (e.g. Abu Ghraib, blow job, &c). If there s a better way to do this, I m all ears. -- 15:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :The only way to do it is to discuss it on the article talk page and see if you can get a consensus for the removal of the image. You re unlikely to get that simply on the basis that an image is graphic, however—the criteria is whether the image is integral to the subject matter. A subsequent failure to get consensus does not grant you the right to create a fork of the article to satisfy your own individual preferences. The fact that the images are on there means that consensus has decided that they are relevant to the content. I ve seen this many times regarding textual content of articles over which there is a dispute, but this is the first instance I ve seen of someone creating a fork because of images. :BTW, how on earth is an image of oral sex comparable to a depiction of graphic violence and torture Beyond both being pictures that have people in them, I can t think of anything that would make them remotely similar. Some people may not like the idea of oral sex for personal or religious reasons, but I hope you feel more than mere distaste when you view an image of torture. 15:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=Copyright Diagnosis Murder=

May I ask what part of the article is a copyright vio Its a serries. How do you expect one to talk about serries Why not delete entier 23:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Are you kidding me What part The whole damn thing, from the two URLs listed in the copyvio notice. Your original post (the bottom three paragraphs in the final version) is a character-for-character copy and paste from the TV Tome page for the show. The intro paragraph you later added is a character-for-character copy and paste from the second and third sentences of the first paragraph from the PAX TV page for the show. Who the hell do you think you re fooling 01:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Yes and the autor of the article granted me permission by email. I forgot to place links. Geez. -- 08:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Ok I am returning the article to original form. As I had permission to use the material, I was naive of me to declare ownership though. -- 09:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I reverted your removal because no one has checked out your claim yet—simply asserting you had permission is not good enough. I quite frankly don t trust you, because you first asserted that you had written it, and now you re asserting that you had permission, but on the 17:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::::There is an email. Mail it if you wish. I do not care if you trust or not mail the person. Read the actual material in the talk page. Mail the person and declare it copy vio only if she suggests it is, I already asked. -- 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::What part of there were two URLs that you copied from do you not understand Even if the text you posted on the talk page represents permission from one source, that still doesn t handle the other. I have e-mailed the TV Tome author to verify that claim of permission, but that still leaves the problem that you have copied and pasted material from the PAX website. 18:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=User:200.46.215.104=

You reverted, without explanation, edits by this anon to Japanese strategic planning for mainland Asia (1905-1940).

Please note that this user, while having poor English, has been a major contributor to this article, and Japanese nationalism. He has also contributed a large bibliography on Japan and East Asia. In short, please treat as a valued expert. I have cleaned up his contributions many times.

I am generally concerned about the lack of tolerance for contributions in poor English. I have had to fight to salvage this material from VfD, and from others (see what I have just written on ).

06:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :That s great that you have the patience to work through all that, but from my perspective, I came across incoherence from an IP that had only been active one day.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special:Contributions&target=200.46.215.104] I don t leave posted what looks like garbage with hopes that someone else will clean it up, or presume that the editor has actually made valid contributions under another IP. Are you even sure that all the edits under 200.46.215.*** were made by the same individual The demonstrated linguistic proficiency varies quite a bit. 06:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it s going to be the same guy. He introduced himself on 06:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) I ve made a referenence list of relevant articles - there are now 15-20, and more every day. The guy is prolific. Please consult 08:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= The Samurai Saga now continues =

You ve hit the proverbial nail smack dab on its proverbial head at this point. I ve tried extending an olive branch to the 19:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= Template for copyvio =

Hi, I noticed that you used the template I made to alert users of copyright violations. I just wanted to let you know I changed the template in several ways. Now you only have to enter two parameters, pagetitle and source and you do not have to use any brackets for linking, it is done in the template. Also, I added a sentence that directs users to wikipedia s copyright and fair use policies if they are unsure of them. You are welcome to make any changes to the template if you think it can be improved or if you see a mistake. Take care. — oo64eva (AJ) ( ) @ 20:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

= Reply about last warning =

I have no intent for vandalism. My modern contributions are thought of as good additions to Wikipedia. Also, I don t cosider all (just some) VfD articles to be vandalism. Can you explain what contributions are considered vandalism, if you do, I might have better contrast between bogus and acceptable contributions in the future. -- 21:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I really don t care what you claim your intent to be. My warning on your talk page clearly gave an example of your vandalism. I am watching your edits. 02:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= =

As one of the people who s tried to encourage this user to act more appropriately, I thought I d let you know I have opened an .

If you ll consider either certifying or supporting the summary, that would be appreciated. -- 21:42, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC) :Other than my one attempt to spank his indefensible position on the TfD template, I can t really say I ve tried to resolve anything with him. But I have observed enough of his disruption and defiance to support your summary. 02:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=The bizarre=

There is room in life and on the Wiki for more light hearted articles - and the bizarre is itself an interesting subject. It may not be rocket science but it is part of life.... 07:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :But it s not an article—it s a collection of stories. Stories which I happen to be amused by as well, but Wikipedia isn t the place for this kind of thing. 07:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I decided to be nice and list it on VfD instead of speedy deleting it again. I think the outcome is rather inevitable. 07:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= Thanks =

Thanks for commenting on my talk page. I now know the correct syntax for vfd. I am wondering if you can help me know what to do if I just want to bring attention to a page. Suppose i want to get a second opinion on something without creating a vfd page. What can I do I ve found that discussion pages don t really work because no one has the page watched. 08:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= Photography =

Hi Postdlf! I saw your little comment on your FPC, and I wanted to say that I genuinely thought it was a good photo. But as I said a little more spectacular subject would be needed for an FP (IMO). You asked for something to take a photo of, can I first ask you want sort of camera you use -- 03:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=Xiong=

Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong s behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at 08:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

= Pandeism vfd =

Postdlf, please consider framing the basis for your vote on 05:29, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC) *On second though, since its very easy for those not acquainted with religous details to confuse theism with deism - as demonstrated by the fact that most of the non-wiki-mirror references on the web do use pandeism to mean 06:45, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC) *Forget the above. I have found conclusive evidence of the use of the term Pandeism dating back to 10:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

= Burningdown =

You win. I ve deleted the article.

= Fisher s equation =

I live in Columbus, OH. Maynard Ave, maybe you have heard of it

:Near campus, isn t it 01:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, five streets north of Lane. Close to the Blue Danube restaurant. I am about to go to Char Bar, at the south end of the Short North. Peace out! ::That s why I know it... The Dube was always a favorite. 01:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

= Re/ =

The block placed on my account was placed properly and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. However, the block seems to have been put in effect for too long a period of time.

As a regular Wikipedia contributor who contributes to several categories, a block of 30 days or indefinite seems to be excessive.

Please note that I am not questioning the reasons for the block or the necessity for the block. I am only requesting that the length of time be reduced. You will also note that I have been further blocked today. I am not sure what happened to cause that auto-block as I have not made any attempt to edit today. It is possible that I clicked on a red link or edit page accidentally however.

Note also that the only page that I am accused of vandalizing is a page of my own creation, Aldeism. Although I continue to believe that Wikipedia would benefit from a NPOV article on Aldeism, it is clear to me now that it would not be appropriate for me to create such an article.

21:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note as well that I have spent the last few days sorting through the various policies on blocking, unblocking, banning and vandalism. The best suggestion for dealing with blocking issues seems to be to e-mail the sysop who blocked the account directly to attempt to resolve the issue. However, it is also suggested that a blocked user should not attempt to edit anything while blocked. Since I could not locate your e-mail address on Wikipedia, but would like to resolve this issue amicably with you directly if possible, I would hope that this message would not be considered as an edit for the purposes of block enforcement.

Please reply to me on my talk page. I will log in later today to read your response. :I blocked you for a month because it was such a flagrant violation of policy. This isn t about you vandalizing...a page of [your] own creation —part of the problem is that you have continued to see the Aldeism article as yours . The Wikipedia community, following proper policy and procedure, decided that the article would not exist here. You knew this. The Wikipedia community then decided not to consider your request to undelete it, thus reaffirming the original VfD decision. You knew this as well, and you knew that VfU was the only proper way to get a VfD d article undeleted. Yet you reposted it. You say this is clear to [you] now that you shouldn t recreate it, but [a]s a regular Wikipedia contributor who contributes to several categories , and as you have already gone through the proper channels of trying to get the VfD reversed, you can make no believable claim that it wasn t clear to you before. This is especially true considering that you continued to pop up under various anonymous IPs to repost it even after you knew that was why your account was blocked. :I do believe that you will comply with Wikipedia policies when you return, and I recognize that you have made valid contributions, which is why I have not made the ban indefinite. But I believe that this will only hit home to you if you see what the cost of noncompliance is, and I believe a month is appropriate for such a willful and knowing violation. 21:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

= Refering to ships =

Whether or not to leave in the article has been a subject of some 10:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :I just read through that thread (rather than prepping for a final I have tomorrow evening...I have my prorities in line), and I m inclined to think it s a good idea overall to leave the in because of concerns of readability and avoiding ambiguous sentences. One of these days I ll go back through 09:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::The article is well done. Good work on it. Let me know when you feel it s ready and I would be happy to vote for it as featured. /// As was probably obvious from the discussion and my edit, I prefer to leave out the the when refering to a ship. It grates on my ears to hear it or to read it. A great deal of restraint on my part is the only thing from stopping me from changing it each and every time I see it. Typically I only make the change if I m editing something else in any case. 17:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

= Court case infobox (again) =

Would you have any objection to my dropping blank court case infoboxes into (Supreme Court case) pages that have none, in the hopes that they ll be filled over time -- 08:28, 2005 May 3 (UTC) :Depends on what you mean by blank ... Not entirely blank, I hope. ; ) But leaving some spaces empty shouldn t be a problem as long as you ve filled in the right case name, date, and hopefully the holding and justices. If you could keep a list of the incomplete ones you create, maybe on a temp page in your user space, I could come around later and fill them in for you. 08:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::I can do case name, year, U.S. reports citation, holding, and justices who wrote opinions for any of them. I can list all the justices for cases decided since Breyer s appointment. -- 08:53, 2005 May 3 (UTC) :::That s a good start. If you want to do any pre-1994 decisions, the SCOTUS site has a complete table of who served when,[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/about.html] which is how I ve figured out the membership of the court for older opinions that didn t list the whole bench. 09:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I use this one: [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/JusticesUSSC.html], but it s still a pain. -- 09:14, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

= User 24.30.73.63 =

I saw that yesterday you left a note on his talk page saying that if that IP vandalized again, you would block it. Just to let you know, today that IP vandalized 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

= =

I m trying to put together something that looks nice, but I have noooo clue how these things work - could you polish this up a bit I was also thinking, we should have one for the various types/levels of federal courts. What do you think Cheers! -- 07:00, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

= Accent Network Operating System Kernel =

I flagged this for speedy because it is an orphan that, in my opinion, is most unlikely to be used as an accidental link or to be typed in as a user search item. So, whilst I agree that it is harmless, I believe it to be redundant. Under what circumstances would you expect it to be used -- 09:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC) *Can t say. But harmless things I m willing to keep as redirects because, well, they re harmless. I m not sure how exactly a redirect can be redundant , but being unlikely to be used still doesn t make it a speedy deletion candidate in my view. Please use 09:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

= =

Could you please block 22:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :Just did. Thanks! 22:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

= Proposed RfC on =

Hi Postdlf, myself and Classicjupiter2 are about to post an RfC over Daniel C. Boyer, and I wonder if you would lend your support to our effort. I ve written up a preliminary walkthrough of the events of the past couple of weeks, but I am not going to add it to the RfC page until we have all the facts straightened out and every piece of evidence uncovered. If you could help me out by adding anything you can to 17:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :Thanks for your contribution. If you have anything more to add, it ll probably be a little less than a week before the RfC goes ahead. 19:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC) ::No prob...I m finishing up some more additions. We really need to make sure this is complete and well documented. We re not the only three who have had problems with him, and this needs to be shown more than it currently is. 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :::Well if you know of anyone who has had problems with him, let them know about it. I am only aware of Wyss so far, but surely there have been more. Let everyone know they re invited to contribute to the evidence. 19:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC) :Some good DCB evidence here on s talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wyss#A_Surrealist_Protests_.28Thread_closed.29 00:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I really haven t had any dealings with him, I d rather not get involved. 23:58, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

= God Bless =

God bless us, Postdlf, we re done with law school. -- 22:37, 2005 May 11 (UTC) :I m not quite out of the woods yet. Two finals to go. One of them s a pass/fail though. So God bless us anyway. ; ) 22:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC) ::Good luck with what s left - we ll be lawyers soon enough. Maybe we should start an org for wiki-lawyers. -- 03:30, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

= HAGDatabase =

I hope i ve set this out like i m supposed to, i m pretty new.. I pretty much want to make my own Wikipedia so i can be Admin and make pages un-editable, etc. I don t think i did this very correctly as my page was very quickly deleted. Is it possible you tell me how to become an admin of one (if i can) as i really like the idea of Wikipedia. I saw this on another website which is a help website for OHRRPGCE (it is at http://gilgamesh.dnsalias.org:8080/wiki/ohrrpgce/).. Anyway hope i did this all right, i hate to make a bother. - GradyJ :Please read the links I left on your own talk page. Those explain the policies we follow, what standards we have for articles, etc. Above all, take a look around Wikipedia to see what is already here (hit the random page link several times, for example) so you can get a sense of what an article consists of. People do write articles about video games (see 09:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Ah okay, cool, i ll give it a shot that way then.. Would it be alright if i made an article with video game information and etc (i see what you meant now with Final Fantasy) Not one that s like a forum one i wrote and then people might contribute.. Something like that =) :Do you actually want to contribute to Wikipedia though I looked over what you wrote again, and it seems like you want your own website that runs like Wikipedia, right That s why you gave me the link—as an example. I don t know how those are set up. If that is what you are interested in, might be a good place to ask that question. :However, if you do want to contribute to Wikipedia, then it might be better to try adding to articles other people have written first. If there is something you would like to write about that you know we don t have an article on, then try to collect everything you know about it and then write that into at least one paragraph. If it s a video game, for example, who designed and released it, when, what platforms they did it for, and what the plot of the game is would constitute a good start. Let me know and I ll be happy to take a look at your edits and hopefully help you along. 09:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep thanks it is quite interesting to do this. I might learn to edit articles and make my own before i try setting up one as my own website.. I will eventually though, if i ever figure out how to set it up :P Well i finnaly did it this isn t to self-promote or anything but it s at Micro Maniacs.. Tell me if there is anything wrong with it please :) :Not a bad start. One thing to avoid though is writing in the first person (don t use I or refer to yourself at all) and don t express any personal feelings about the subject (such as your like, dislike, etc). 10:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah okay i ll fix that up, by the way that s not a edit i made the whole thing :P It took a fair hour :l

= Boyer RFC =

I just got your message on my talk page but see you ve already added the RFC.

A number of things come to mind.

# The real problem that Boyer poses for Wikipedia is that he adds misleading content that is very labor intensive to correct. While I do not remember any instance of Boyer adding purportedly factual material that was provably false, there are many instances where he has distorted the facts through omission of relevant detail or falsifying context or relative importance. During the deletion discussion regarding Daniel C. Boyer, for example, I found out that the movie he purportedly directed had a running time of three minutes and was, in fact, a student project. He didn t mention this, instead permitting the reader to infer from context that it was a commercial, feature-length film. He listed a book he published of his as one of his achievements, but I found out that it was not really published as the term is usually understood, having had a net press run of about 20 copies. In both cases I spent a couple of hours researching to get to the bottom of the matter, having called his publisher on the phone in the case of the book. This behavior is not limited to his self-promotion, because he pulls the same stunt in surrealism-related articles, adding references to books, magazines, artists, and authors that are fringe -- in the context of a subject where there are many widely distributed books, magazine, artists and authors from which to choose for reference material. # What are you hoping to accomplish Boyer has a three-year history of questionable contributions and pugnacious talk-page behavior. This has been pointed out to him many times and he clearly has no interest in changing his behavior. Yet, none of his recent behavior is egregious enough to warrant a slap from the AC. # No discussion of Boyer would be complete without some detailed consideration of what has happened to and several other serious editors, Boyer was able to sidetrack any serious work on it for two years, and continues to add novel content [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Surrealism&diff=9977825&oldid=9974080] based on two fringe POVs: 1) that the consensus viewpoint of art historians regarding surrealism is wrong, chiefly because surealism is somehow not an artistic style, school, or movement; 2) that surrealism is as alive today as it was in the 1950s. # Mention should be made of his creation and impassioned defense against deletion of Duchy of Pinica, Imperial Post, and Empire of Upper and Lower, fictional entities all, and familiar only to a handful of participants in some personal milieux. If you re trying to make a point about his consumption of the administrative resource, so to speak, those are valuable data points. # Finally, the deletion discussion you link to for the VFD and subsequent VFU are only the most recent. The article was VFD d and VFU d once before, and the discussion is presently archived at . The pages ended up there when his article page was moved to his user page at the conclusion of a still-earlier VFD, which concluded with no clear consensus. There has also been [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/005599.html mailing list] discussion and over a dozen related discussions and archive pages, many of which are now deleted.

15:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :I think the VfD I link to includes some description of those earlier events. Re: the broader surrealism POV edits, I don t have any personal experience with that other than what I ve seen of other complaints, but it would be great if you could supplement the RFC with those issues somehow. As for what I m trying to accomplish, I m not entirely sure. I think just getting everything together in one place will make it easier to deal with him in the future. I m also hoping that perhaps if it s all laid out and there is a community consensus behind a particular interpretation of events, that it may even have some constructive effect on him. Precatory, sure, but worth a shot. 17:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::I would just like to ask for cites about which books, magazines, artists, and authors... are fringe, taking into account that surrealism has always been a radical and countercultural movement. When you re talking about the mainstream sources are you talking about books about surrealism written by non-surrealists What, if any, primary sources would you consider not fringe -- 17:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

: Dan, we ve been around this many times. At this juncture in our history together, I am unwilling to spend half a day to come up with a list of references you ve used and then to write a rebuttal to the authority of each one.

: Regarding your other question, the idea that one must self-identify as a surrealist in order to write about surrealism is ad hominem and patently false, just as it would be for any other subject.

: 23:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::What you are really saying, when your say I am unwilling to spend half a day to come up with a list and references you ve used and then to write a rebuttal to the authority of each one is that you expect what you say to stand without argument. What you are saying is tantamount to my winning by default. You don t feel like countering what I am saying, you can t, what s the difference

::I did not say that one must self-identify as a surrealist in order to write about surrealism . My point is that systematic exclusion of the writings of actual surrealists (even, shudder, surrealists from 1966 until the present day!) when you or someone is learning about surrealism will prevent a very skewed view of the movement. By all means, for example, present what Mary Ann Caws said, but for the sake of NPOV you should acknowledge that her work has been bitterly criticsed by surrealists. In calling the writings fringe you are missing the point that surrealism is a fringe movement. Always has been. -- 00:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:The Empire of Upper and Lower never was an article. So much for UninvitedCompany s credibility. -- 00:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:If you d examine the evidence, you d see that the present period may not be the period of the greatest activity in surrealism, but that period has certainly been since the 1950s. Surrealism s greatest period of expansion was probably in the late 1960s. -- 00:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC) ::Could you please do this elsewhere I m not involved in this particular dispute. 00:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this image needs some source information for the retouched version. -- 21:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

=Panaphobia=

Hi. I noticed that you deleted this article. Was it VFDed or was it a Speedy I just ask becuase I have heard the term before and can find *some* Google hits so I don t think it is nonsense. Cheers 21:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC) *Speedied because its content itself said that it didn t actually exist, but perhaps I construed that too far. I ll err on the side of caution and restore it because you ve raised a question. 22:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

= Interwiki links for user pages =

Although this really concerns your ) 22:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC) :P.S. I hope you don t mind, but I simplified the links on your user page and on your ) 22:59, May 14, 2005 (UTC) ::No, I don t mind at all. Thanks! 02:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

= Vandalism =

What does one do when someone pretends to be a sysop and destroys your page

=Ariel Sokolovsky=

you said: It is considered vandalism. You know that your eponymous article was deleted because you participated in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ariel Sokolovsky. Postdlf 02:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Shalom Postdlf! I m a new user of WikiPedia.I don t yet know all the rules.I restored Ariel Sokolovsky page because I saw no reason for it to be deleted as I explained in its deletion page.

Ariel Sokolovsky

=RfC=

Thanks for letting me know about Boyer s RfC. Since the 13:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

==Abuse of RfC==

Your listing the issue of Allison Boyer on RfC is a clear-cut example of combining two issues on RfC, which is an abuse of RfC. Please either remove references to Allison Boyer from RfC, start a new RfC on the issue, or remove the RfC on me. I hope we can reach an understanding on this point without my having to go to RfC on you. -- 19:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :If you want to get narky, the issue is your conduct on Wikipedia in general . There are many facets to that issue, one of which if your promotion, mostly of yourself, but also of people and products you are connected with. You are taking the RfC guidelines too literally. 19:52, May 16, 2005 (UTC) ::I m going to get narky . [Y]our conduct on Wikipedia in general is not one issue, by any definition, as it is so global in scope there wouldn t be room for another issue. In any case, if the issue is self-promotion (and that is one issue; I don t dispute that), clearly Allison Boyer is not my self . The RfC should either be revised and started again from scratch, mention of Allison Boyer should be removed from the RfC, or a separate RfC should be started on the issue. What Postdlf is attempting to do is abusing RfC by bringing up multiple issues seriatim, ignoring my responses on the old issues (as well as advising you to do so) and bringing up new issues instead. -- 20:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :::(Hope you don t mind, I fixed my spelling mistake) :::You re bringing up insignificant issues of semantics and completely disregarding the general idea of our problems with you. In fact, your continued arguing of these issues is making it worse for you, since that s exactly one of the issues we brought up in RfC. Now, regarding what you actually said... sure, Allison is not you specifically, but you are connected to her in a way that makes it impossible for you to neutrally contribute any content to the Wikipedia wherein she is the subject. Instead of taking a hard-line, literal interpretation of the word self (after all, your works aren t you specifically, either) how about you instead think of the spirit of our issues and attempt to address them You re not doing yourself any favours by arguing about trivial things. 20:15, May 16, 2005 (UTC) :::I explained why references to Allison Boyer were included on the RFC talk page and I stand by that explanation. The reference to the Maori Wikipedia article was also included as cumulative evidence that the IP in question was used by you. Once again, you re free to disagree and see if anyone else endorses your view. I didn t contribute to the RFC to endlessly debate with you. I present my view, you present yours, and then the rest of the community decides if they want to endorse one of those views. 02:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ::::You did not explain the references at all, so there is nothing to stand by. I am adding to Candidates for RfC . -- 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :::::This is, yet again, a really frivolous attempt on your part at distraction and/or retaliation. Furthermore, though I have already explained why those references to Allison Boyer are included and why they don t constitute a separate issue[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Daniel_C._Boyer&diff=13750918&oldid=13750835] (whether or not that explanation was to your satisfaction), I also think you re misinterpreting RFC policy on a single dispute. In the statement you rely on— This must involve the same dispute or concern the same disputed type(s) of activity, not different ones. —I think that this , in context, refers to what two more users are joining in certifying to. What it forbids is certifying to a dispute that you have not been involved with on the basis of another dispute with that same user. At a minimum, the statement disputed type(s) of activity indicates that the boundaries of disputes are not to be drawn as narrowly as you insist. Good luck finding a second person to certify to your RFC. 20:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :::::Daniel, if we shared your interpretation of the sentence you cite from the RfC guidelines, we would have to list about 400 seperate RfC discussions on you. It does not say that you may only use RfC for one single issue against a person, it says that the people who bring that RfC against someone must be talking about the same dispute. The Allison Boyer issue falls within the scope of our RfC and is one part of a group of dozens of issues that are shared by myself, Postdlf and Classicjupiter2 . 21:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC) ::::::You admit that the RfC covers dozens of issues . You have characterised the dispute (which I ve offered to resolve with you, but which you have as yet had no interest in doing) focussing on your counter-RfC on me so broadly that there is literally nothing it couldn t encompass. This is clearly well beyond what could possibly be a single dispute, and if the dispute is over self-promotion, Allison Boyer is not myself, and therefore isn t even colourably within the scope of the RfC. If you had or would revise the RfC to reflect whatever incredibly broad dispute you re talking about, I could accept that Allison Boyer lies within its ambit ( promotion of things and people he is connected to in some way , though that would have to be carefully defined as connexion is a somewhat slippery concept), but as it s been done it s focussed on multiple, incredibly-broadly-defined disputes, some of which are dead as I do not dispute them. -- 19:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

==Roe v. Wade==

Is the initial characterisation too broad It didn t state that any restriction on abortion was impermissable, did it -- 20:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :Ick, you re right. That is an incorrect generalization in the intro paragraph. Roe established a trimester system: no restrictions in the first trimester, some restrictions permissible in the second, any permissible up to a total ban in the third. I think that s the gist...it s been awhile since I ve read the court decision and I haven t ever really read the article. 02:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ::This is what I was getting at, if too vaguely. -- 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :::If you re interested in the current state of the law, see 21:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Thank you; this is what I was looking for. -- 19:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

= colloquialism =

Where is this forbidden 05:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :Try looking at it first from a different perspective—where in other articles do you see colloquialisms or slang being used That should indicate something. 18:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

= A completely random request =

Howdy. There s a bit of a debate over at 22:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

=Dear Postdlf, I need your help=

Postdlf, I sent the same message to Plattopus regarding help that I need in fixing my talk page that was vandalized by Daniel C. Boyer s friend, 22:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

:Your claim that Bleedy is Eric W. Bragg is a bald assertion for which you have offered (nor, I suspect, can you offer) any support whatsoever. -- 22:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Plattopus, I need your help. This is Classicjupiter2. There is a friend of Daniel C. Boyer who goes by the user name, Bleedy, his real name is Eric W.Bragg and he is vandalizing my talk page, by removing sections of discussion from the sections of my talk page. You can see the edit removals he made here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Classicjupiter2&action=history and here, (cur) (last) 21:18, 19 May 2005 Bleedy. I don t know how to approach placing a large portion of the material he took out, back in. This guy is a surrealist friend of Boyer s, who Boyer is now trying to get an article on here, from the Requested Articles page, Boyer is using this guy Bleedy s website, http://www.surrealcoconut.com as a reference to a requested article submission made by Boyer, see Requested Articles, go to Surrealism, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Surrealism#Surrealism 19:43, 15 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requested articles/Surrealism (Austin Surrealist Group) Anyway, I don t know how to place all the subsections of dialogue that Bleedy removed back in, without ruining the formatting of the whole page. My talk page is a reference that is listed on the RfC page on Boyer, and now that Boyer s friend Bleedy vandalized my talk page, by removing sections, I don t know what to do. I need your help.Classicjupiter2 21:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Plattopus 22:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

:Would you please provide a cite that I am trying to get an article on Bleedy I find this highly doubtful. And what on earth does any of this have to do with the Austin Surrealist Group -- 22:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

= Graduation present =

Congratulations on your graduation from law school. -- 14:52, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

= Rolando Viera =

Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you; it s Little League season and I work with a local league.

Rolando Viera was apparently released just before the 2003 season. I found this on [http://www.allstarstats.com/scb/lm/reports/player.aspSport=BB&leaguenum=0423&X=0&Y=8509] (a fantasy league stats site):

Red Sox released LHP Rolando Viera. Viera, a Cuban defector who was chosen in the seventh round of the 2001 draft, had been pretty disappointing since joining the Red Sox. He had a 4.89 ERA as a reliever in Double-A last season. Source: Boston Herald Apr. 2 - 1:54 pm et

The Sons of Sam Horn Web site (Red Sox fan talk) still has an entry of Viera in the Arizona Fall League in 2002; he finished that fall with an ERA of 7.20. Apparently he did no better in spring 03 and the Sox felt he was expendable. [http://p086.ezboard.com/fsonsofsamhornfrm24.showMessageRangetopicID=358.topic&start=21&stop=40]

I attended quite a few Bears games in the last two years but only saw Viera pitch in four games. (I also saw him pitch in one game for Trenton in 2002.) Last time I saw him pitch was 22-May-2004 at Somerset; he won that one, allowing 2 runs in 5+ innings as the Bears beat the Patriots 6-2.

I never knew (or realized) his story. Thanks for sharing it on Wikipedia. 01:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Your edit on Star Wars IV =

Hi, I concurred with your change delinking voice of Darth Vader on SW IV: A New Hope. I did the same on ...Jedi . As well as changing the cast listing Performing Yoda which also doesn t link to anything. Some anonymous user keeps changing them back. In the long run it isn t that important to me but it does seem to impede the useful functions that Wikipedia is so good at. I also apologise for bothering you with this. I am relatively new to Wikip and am not sure to who should be made aware of this. I thought that maybe you might know who the main person/people are who oversee the SW pages and could alert them to this situation. Thanks for your time. 19:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= At The Hip =

I was just editing the New Pages list. I didn t know. Sorry.

=Thanks for your support=

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some 08:18, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

=Undelete Quirkyalone=

(15:40, 9 Jun 2005 Postdlf deleted Quirkyalone (recreation of previously deleted dicdef) ) 11:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Fair enough. I ve tried several times to undelete the history, however, and keep on getting an erorr—I ll have to try again later when the system s running a little more smoothly. 20:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Thank you =

Thanks for the revert to the 22:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Wikiversity =

Would you please reconsider your speedy delete vote on this page. I ve checked the deleted version and what s currently there is not a recreation of the deleted content. The deleted content was: Wikiversity is a proposed project to provide something which is neither Wikipedia, nor is it a conventional university. What exactly it is going to be is still under discussion.

Here (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity) is its homepage. - 09:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

=Anon unblocked=

Hi Postdif. I ve been talking to 21:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= radio stations categories =

Hi - A while ago (quite a while ago) you replaced all the references in subcats of ) 23:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) :It was to avoid the automatic categorization under the template that placed the radio subcats directly in the state subcats; I instead put them in state media subcategories. Looking back at it, I don t know why I didn t just edit the template to make that change...probably just because I hadn t worked with templates directly and may not have understood how they worked. 23:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that I ve updated the template and applied it to a couple categories, I remember why I dislike template-applied categories—there is some glitch with updates, so that if the template is edited so as to change or remove the included categories, the update doesn t seem to show up on the articles or categories to which the template is applied until those articles or categories are themselves edited and saved again. 23:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Yeah. There s the weirdness where the template shows up in the category as well. When I did this I didn t know about subst. It s a trivial amount of text to yank and put (although annoyingly repetitive) - how about if we just add the text inline in each cat -- ) 00:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

= Electoral roll =

Postdlf, the creator of the original nonsense at the 23:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC) *Oops - someone s already done it - thanks anyway. -- 23:30, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC) **Actually, better this way - now the nonsense history is gone as well. -- 23:44, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

= Eggshell... whichever =

Eh, let Google decide. Whichever gets the most hits wins. -- 00:15, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) *Here s what I get: *5,110 for Eggshell skull . *413 for Egg shell skull . *360 for Eggshell plaintiff . *53 for Egg shell plaintiff . *35 for Eggshell skull doctrine . *1 for Egg shell doctrine . *215 for Eggshell skull rule . *164 for Egg shell skull rule . *55 for Egg shell rule . *383 for thin skull rule . *49 for thin skull doctrine . Based on this, I say just make it Eggshell skull and have everything else redirect to it. I ll fix all double redirects. -- 00:20, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) :That s fine, particularly since Black s agrees. I always thought I had a lousy torts professor... 00:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::LOL - should ve come to 00:25, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) ::: 00:48, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

= Colin Roberts =

I just noticed the deletion of 05:50, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC) :It was essentially just an advert for the website—including the name of the website s editor didn t make it any less of a link platform. I don t believe anyone would have voted to keep it. 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Me neither. I was just trying to understand the (speedy) deletion criteria. Thanks.-- 14:05, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

=Quite an impressive brag list=

On your user page, you list an impressive quantity and quality of articles you ve created. Reading over it reminded me of something from months ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Federalist_Papers&diff=8355988&oldid=8353978 Step into the wayback machine]. 06:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= =

I think the actors from California category will be useful because there are currently over 400 people in 18:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Please hold off on creating any more CA occupation categories—I think there needs to be discussion over the best way to handle the people state categories. Currently, there isn t any clear criteria as to who goes in which state, so subdividing the state categories by occupation, to the exclusion of the national occupation categories, is not a very good idea. How much of someone s life has to spent in a state Categories for any state someone has lived or worked in would get rather ridiculous (an article about me would include four and I m not even 30 yet). Even if we could pin down a standard of what qualifies as a significant enough attachment, what relationship does someone s state of residence have to their occupation If they ve held political office, the relationship is pretty clear to their career as a politician—they were a state governor, member of the state legislature, etc). But an actor No one identifies acting with a state-specific nexus. True, acting for many may be an international profession, but someone s nationality is still a much more obvious and natural way to group someone as opposed to their state of residence. :Even if , because it s natural to separate actors by what medium they have acted in. I just can t say the same for someone s state affiliation. :So why should anyone think that being from a particular state is that important of a characteristic to classify an actor by, if they re not primarily known for acting in that state What other occupations were you thinking about creating state-specific categories for, and why do you believe that practicing those occupations has a significant nexus with a particular state 22:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussing things beforehand is the antithesis of 00:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Grouping them together as Actors from California is neither meaningful nor useful, as I ve explained above. No comment on that 00:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Actually, discussing things beforehand helps to avoid edit/revert wars, the resulting anger from both sides, possible blocking, etc, etc. That said, the question of criteria hasn t been answered. Who gets to be in the category Actors from California I m not saying this isn t a problem that should be looked at. But perhaps there is a better solution -- 17:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Copyright vio =

I have started a discussion about the 21:01, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC) :I ve posted an answer on 22:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks, that s a much more complete answer than I was expecting. It certainly clears things up. I hope you do not feel that I was attacking you, I just wanted to be sure that things were on the up-and-up. -- 03:32, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC) :::Don t mention it, happy to assist (plus it s my profession, anyway). 03:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= My Rfa =

Thank you for supporting me! -- 13:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Grand Canyon link deletion challenge removal =

Hello. You said you would discuss the misplacement of my link removal rebuttal on the user s talk page. Is this the page you meant I ve also looked and found what a sysops is, looked at the list of sysops, and have found that the person who gave the summary judgment of my presentation as nonsense (as regards Grand Canyon, btw, he said the Grand Canyon, which is itself improper) is also a sysops. Maybe being a sysops has gone to his head. In my short exposure to Wikipedia I have already come across comment about high-handedness from him on a different page. Anyway, I would like your input. I d never visited a Wikipedia page until a few days ago when trying to track down where outside links to the presentation were coming from that were helping our rankings in the Grand Canyon categories, and it turned out to be the Wikipedia fractals page(s). Please give me the heads up on what I should have done instead, even though there are probably some really good reasons that my presentation shouldn t be on the Grand Canyon page, because the math agenda conflicts with the spirit and focus of the page. It was the non sense, or lack of sense, in the way the link was removed that I was rebutting. :No, I meant discuss it on the talk page of the person who removed your link, and see if you can better explain yourselves to one another and hopefully persuade. 20:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Admin Assistance Request =

Could you deal with the copy vio on the Cape Henry Collegiate School page The creator has rewritten it on the temp page so that it s no longer a copy vio. He seems pretty steamed about the whole thing, so I was wondering if you could speed up the process. Thanks. 23:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I suppose I could; the author has effectively conceded that the original was a copyvio, though in general I wouldn t worry too much about a copyright infringer getting steamed. Not like it s our bad. 05:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Coolcat and copyvio =

Above you state no one has checked out your claim yetsimply asserting you had permission is not good enough. , and I d love to know where we are hiding this little policy... I ask because it would be terribly handy in dealing with people who insist on uploading copyvio, and non-disclosed source image and whom fight their deletion with I said so handwaving. -- 07:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)