User talk:Postdlf/Archive15

Old court premises

I just looked at your user page, so, as you're a New York legal chap, I wonder if you could help with a query. I put that picture of the Woolworth building in the Learned Hand article: seemed appropriate because the photo was taken not long before Hand moved into the tower. It would make a sublime caption if it so happened that the building he moved out of is in that picture too. There must be a good chance. Trouble is, I've never been to New York, so I don't even know where Broadway is on that picture. Have you got any idea?

What Gunther says is: "When Hand took his seat, the federal trial court was housed in the dingy old Post Office–Court building at the south end of City Hall Park in lower Manhattan. The building had been unattractive even when it opened in 1875; by 1909, it had become a 'dilapidated' place 'disfiguring' the adjacent park ... Bar association reports urged that plans be made to replace the court accommodations 'universally recognized as disgraceful', but all the government would do for the judges was to rent additional space, on the twelfth floor of the nearby Woolworth Building. In 1914, Hand moved his chambers just across Broadway to this recently completed, handsome skyscraper, then the world's tallest. Eventually, all the district judges joined him there, but the courtrooms remained divided between the two buildings."

So, is the Post Office–Court Building on this photo, do you think?

Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the two angles of the Woolworth Building we can see in the photo, the more brightly lit side with which the tower is flush is facing Broadway. We can see Broadway itself rising from right to left through the gaps in the buildings in the lower right corner of the photo. This would make the squat building with the roundish dome (topped with an American flag) directly to the left of the Woolworth a good candidate, as that would be directly across Broadway from it, but I don't think that building exists any more so I'm not sure. Postdlf (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. See this link. Postdlf (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Genius! Many thanks! qp10qp (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Publication history

While I see what you're trying to do, since Wonder Woman is the name of a publication, the new header and article name are actually confusing. They text describes the history of the character, not the history of the publication.

Let's try to think of some clearer alternatives. - jc37 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You are correct about the Bauer article. I am going to drop the issue. It was deleted in the absence of consensus, and from the looks of it (again, hard to say, since it is hidden from view) the sourcing was not as horrible as advertised, but I am going to believe Doc that he had no knowledge of the suit at the time, which is the part I was protesting. Mr. IP (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo Treehopper

Thanks for your useful edits to Stictocephala bisonia. I wasn't to pleased to discover that User:Westermarck, had unilaterally moved the article without discussion (or rather, in direct opposition to the only other opinion expressed, that of the article's author: me). You seem to have experience with science articles. How do you feel about a unilateral move like this? - House of Scandal (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have some experience with animal species articles, but it's not my usual thing. I believe common practice is to title the article by the species' common name rather than its scientific name. Postdlf (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tastes like chicken

What does it mean that "categories do not show references"? I ask in the humblest way, and I hope it doesn't sound accusatory. I am trying to figure out how best to present the information I have gathered. I apologize that it appeared opinionated and non-factual, and especially that it could be construed as vandalism has left me embarrassed. I am new to composing content (I usually just edit grammar and links), so I would be grateful for any insight you could provide. Thank you! Owlgorithm (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't believe there was any vandalism involved. Categories are a tricky thing to deal with because they function differently than factual statements within articles. When you view the contents of a category, there is no way to see whether the included articles have references supporting their inclusion. Category tags also appear at the bottom of articles without annotations or explanations. This is why categories should only be based on obvious, clear, and defining characteristics of article subjects. This is true in this case, where there is not going to be any universally accepted statement of what "tastes like chicken." So if there are notable examples that can be attributed to some source, the best way to do that is to describe it in the article tastes like chicken, which is certainly short enough to incorporate a list. Postdlf (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this helps a lot. I have now received a vandalism notice, however, and I am very upset. I am afraid, due to the large number of edits I have made on this topic, that I am going to get blocked. What should I do? Owlgorithm (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just take a deep breath and a break from adding articles to the category, explain yourself, and read through everyone's comments on the CFD to try and understand where people are coming from. Might be best to read Wikipedia:Categorization too. Postdlf (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States nearing GA status

Hello dere! I could use a few eyes and maybe some additional facts and sources in Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States to fulfill the requests of the Good Article review at Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/GA1. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I really wish I'd seen User:Postdlf/courts before I started working on Courts of the United States. Care to pitch in on that one with the info you've gathered? bd2412 T 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I actually had forgotten I compiled it until your link change made it pop up on my watchlist. Who knows what other work is hiding in my user subpages...? Postdlf (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of all your subpages. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, looks like I was also working on a list of SCOTUS original jurisdiction cases and a list of SCOTUS securities fraud decisions. So that's what I was doing in 2006... Postdlf (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Obese people

I note that on 8 July you depopulated category:Obese people referring to CFD, e.g. [1]. However, you didn't provide a link to the CFD discussion in the edit summaries, and I can't find it. Please can you point me to the discussion? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Found two: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_3#Category:Fictional_obese_characters and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_18#Category:Obese_people. --Kbdank71 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, scratch the first, it was deleted per the second discussion as recreation of deleted material. --Kbdank71 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fayenatic, two good tips for finding relevant CFD discussions for deleted categories: 1) look in the deletion log, as the deleting admin often links to the discussion; 2) click on "what links here" for that category and it will list all relevant CFDs. Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's two useful hints - or three -- thank you both.

The world is indebted to user:Jnestorius for creating category:Extremely heavy people a week later. That seems distinct from the deleted categories and less likely to fail WP:BLP, so I hope it remains.

Another question: Why does one see "Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted" when recreating articles, but not categories? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "extremely heavy" is distinct from "obese" only in that it is more vague. What does "extremely heavy" mean? I don't see how it avoids the problems noted in the CFD; if anything, it propounds them.

I don't know the answer to your other question. Postdlf (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Extremely heavy" is so far being used for people who were one of the heaviest people of their nationality or other significant category (e.g. occupation). This is documented, verifiable, and a defining characteristic for the individuals. Seems a good category to me. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How about limiting it to people noted for their weight? bd2412 T 22:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with that in principle, and it could include people who were noted for losing weight too, as did the deleted category. But what would you rename the category? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion has been copied to Category talk:Extremely heavy people. If anyone has anything to add, please add it there instead of here. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review

Slp1 and I have now put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you have been watching and editing the page, so feel free to make any comments. I've asked the law project and a couple of law people if they will review the article, but I don't know if anything will come of it. Our biggest worry is that not being American or conversant with legal niceties, we may have dropped some terminological clangers. If you could give the article a check over on that score, it would be appreciated and would set our minds at rest. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UT

Kirchner

See Talk:Ernst_Ludwig_Kirchner#Public_domain.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Ernst_Ludwig_Kirchner. He died in June 1938. Work goes into the public domain at the beginning of the next full year from 70 years after death, i.e. in his case 1 January 2009. Ty 00:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Thanks for explaining that. Postdlf (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture Problems Concerning Acratocnus and Megalocnus

Would it be possible if you could articulate what you find wrong with my reconstructions of Acratocnus and Megalocnus beyond finding them "amateurish" and of "little informational value"? Are there any overpowering anatomical mistakes I made? If by "amateurish," do you mean that I have to be as good as professional paleoartists such as Mauricio Anton, and why is attempting to give the viewer even a vague idea of what the animals would have looked like in life of "little informational value"? Furthermore, why am I obligated to cite all of the sources and or references I used if no other paleoartist on Wikipedia are obligated to do so? But since you asked, I used this [2] and this [3] for references.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of problems. 1) They're your reconstructions, which makes them original research—your own speculation or creative interpretation. No one knows who you are or what your qualifications are, so we can't trust these to have any validity. 2) Without references, to the extent your drawings are not original research, we can't know on what basis you determined any of the reconstructions' features—how long the fur should be and where it covers the animal, coloration, mass and shape of the body, social interaction where multiple individuals are depicted in one picture, appropriate background vegetation. 3) Because the sketches are so rough, they don't even give any clear information as to purported musculature and other surface features. I'm going to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals for wider comment. Postdlf (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The current illustrations discussion

Re "Illustrated reconstructions of extinct species" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals:
Postdlf, IMHO your comments have been reasonable and constructive, and most of the comments from other Wikipedians have been reasonable and constructive as well. There are obviously some "issues" in Wikipedia's handling of such illustrations that should be ironed out. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

John Baldessari

The explanation for my reversion of the link which you reinstated[4] is that it was one of a number inserted by User:67.100.50.84, whose only edits have been to insert external links to MoMA.[5] It would seem these links have not been judiciously inserted for the benefit of wiki, but spammed for the benefit of the organisation concerned. It's normal practice to revert such links, until and unless other editors consider they should be present. Ty 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that it is MOMA, a major art institution, and they seem to have a large selection of his works on their website, I thought it was a useful link. Postdlf (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just explaining the context of its original removal. It needs proper evaluation, which it seems you have made. I've posted on the user's talk page to suggest adding content and using the links as reference, not just adding EL to everything in sight. Ty 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:List of tallest buildings in Columbus, Ohio concerning a page move which you perfomed in July. Please feel free to add your thoughts. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo Use

Hi Postdlf,

I work for a Production company in NYC and we're currently producing a show for the travel channel. Wanted to talk to you about possibly using a photo of yours we found on WikiCommons.

Email me and i can fill you in further... Mark

the photo in question is...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Albany_Rural_Cemetery_23a.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrowe73 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional works by L. Ron Hubbard

I would rather there be a subcategory to denote his works of fiction, some of which do not qualify as novels but are still works of fiction by the individual nonetheless. That is why the category is appropriate. However, I could see it being a sub-category of Category:Works by L. Ron Hubbard, so I will create that one now as well. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Ninja Dad

For those of us who don't read German, could you please clarify whether you're supporting deletion or not? Exploding Boy (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman's career timeline

Hope you don't mind me bringing this here since that debate was closed, and not entirely to my satisfaction. I think you made some very interesting comments yourself, comparing such a list to 2008 in the United States. On the surface they certainly appear similar, but there's one important distinction; one is protected by copyright and the other isn't. Now I confess I'm a layman when it comes to copyright law, and I'm willing, as I said at the debate, to be corrected, such as I can be, by yourself. I personally believe the legal position is somewhat different when summarising things that really happened as opposed to summarising things someone made up. That's probably rather simplistic, but I think that may be the point at which to begin. I guess where we diverge is on how that constrains us. Beyond that, I think you most likely have the upper hand. You're right, the main article topic Batman also doesn't have any express self-selecting criteria as to what information about Batman should be included that would exclude a description of Batman fabulously eating a jam sandwich, and I can only apologise that I was rather blinkered in my thinking. I'm glad you at least liked the sandwich. Hiding T 10:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I loved the sandwich. You're absolutely right that there are different legal issues involved when we summarize things that really happened as opposed to summarizing things that only happened within fiction. Actual events, i.e., facts, are not copyrightable. Fictional events are elements of creative expression, not "facts", and so are copyrightable. So any use of them has to be either authorized by license, or justifiable under fair use. I've actually had a hard time convincing people of this in the past.

Every Wikipedia article about a subject of copyrighted fiction relies upon fair use for its lawful ability to describe the contents of that fiction, whether it's a movie, book, or comic book character. Fair use is what allows us to comment on, explain, critique, etc., a copyrighted work, and to perform such educational and critical tasks the fair use doctrine recognizes that it is necessary to "use" (copy, summarize, etc.) some of the original work to do so. Then arises the questions of how much we use and how we use it as to whether we're satisfying fair use criteria.

So with every such article we must ask two basic questions: 1) are we using no more of the creative expression than is necessary to explain and describe the topic, or are we posting an excessive plot summary; and 2) are we sufficiently transforming the creative expression we do use through commentary, explanation, and real-world factual contextualization, or are we describing it "in-universe" so that we're basically just posting an abridged version of the original fiction.

Apart from the fact that the list was apparently copied and pasted from another source, I didn't think the Batman timeline exceeded the bounds of fair use because 1) it gave no more than a brief one-line description of entire comic book issues, which is really a minimal use and necessary to explain what happened in that issue; and 2) it was contextualized by real-world publication chronological ordering (not fictional chronology), and issue titles and numbers, and thereby served to show important developments and treatments of the character over time.

Contrast with Fictional history of Spider-Man and Fictional history of Wolverine, which consist of substantial amounts of plot summary, and don't transform that abridged fiction except for an occasional issue citation. I do believe those fail to qualify as fair use in their current states; the "in-universe" information drastically outweighs the real-world context and explanation. History of Superman is instead a good example of how such articles should look. Postdlf (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy response. What troubles me is the portion of the fair use defence which considers the effect upon the work's value. I'm thinking there may be a strong claim that there is an existing market for published time-lines such as these? If there is, that affects fair use, doesn't it? I've wondered if DC's reprinting of the Fleischer books is in part an attempt to establish a market... I'm not a lawyer, but if I was, and if I was DC's... WP:BEANS and all, but I hope you catch my drift? If by chance we ever meet, remind me to bring you a jam sandwich. As to deletion of the page, my rumage through what I could of the book didn't show so much a cut and paste as a very similar treatment. Searching for "DETECTIVE COMICS #60" returned, amongst others, the following text on page 134, a page which is titled "Batman Timeline" in a chapter "Batman's Career": 1942 February: The Bat-Signal summons Batman. (DETECTIVE COMICS #60). I don't think it's within transformation to tweak the wording, but I'd prefer to have seen the book itself to be 100% sure. Hiding T 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Kyle MacLachlan Dune.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rehnquist

I know you like the Supreme Court, so maybe you'll consider my "Good Article" nomination for William Rehnquist: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1&action=edit&editintro=Template:GAN/editintro&preload=Template:GAN/preload .RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Please block user Wallamoose from editing the Clarence Thomas article; he keeps trying to nuke the section on Thomas's sexual misconduct. Please also sockpuppet check him, as he's a new account making nothing but partisan edits. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New Court Box Template for California

Hi Postdlf, long time no hear. Anyway, I thought you might be interested to know that I "appropriated" your code to create a new Court Box Template for California. Tell me if you think I screwed anything up, as I am not much of a coder/programmer. --Eastlaw (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. User:MZMcBride is actually the premiere court case infobox coder 'round these parts; I'm sure he could help you with any issues. Postdlf (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Drawings derivative of copyrighted photographs

I will have to assume good faith unless there are any of particular concern. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

They're just names I've known for a while, I figure they count as general knowledge? Maybe not. Learning middle names is kind of a hobby of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tptan (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason for this revert? The user is within their rights to remove material from their talk page. Time will tell whether they're here for constructive purposes, and page history doesn't lie. Franamax (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Please respond to the RFC on Clarence Thomas. Wallamoose and other partisan editors are trying to decimate the section on Anita Hill and the other women who accused Thomas of sexual misconduct. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cybelle (Comics): A Friendly Head's Up.

Cybelle and the other Tunnelers had their own individual page, then they were merged and then someone unmerged them and this happened about three times over. There's someone, not me, very dedicated to keeping the pages apart. Just so you know. Lots42 (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New option for deleting images

Thanks for tagging images like Image:W-H-Auden Simon Fieldhouse 1.jpg as {{PUI}}. I'd like to let you know that there is a quicker option for images like that which claim to be released under a free license but have no verification. You can tag such images as {{subst:npd|quoted source}}, which doesn't require any follow-up listing and contains a warning template for the uploader. It also has a shorter waiting period than PUI. You might consider using this in future. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Birth and death year errors in infobox templates

Thanks for this. I was about to correct it, as I had seen the article in Category:Pages with negative age errors. May I ask if you picked up this error from that category? The other thing I wanted to mention (to someone) was how long that article was just plain wrong! Smackbot introduced the templates here (the birth and death dates were already mixed up). Without examining the template history, I can't tell when the calculation bit first appeared, but you would have thought someone would have spotted "aged -101" and done something about it! The depressing thing is that the error was present from the very first version of the article in February 2007. It really shouldn't take 20 months for something like that to be spotted. Maybe it was because it was at the bottom of the infobox and the people that read infoboxes lose interest before they reach the bottom? Oops. Sorry. Taking a gratuitous pot-shot at infoboxes there! :-) Anyway, hopefully most of these errors will be caught now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did pick it up from that category, after seeing your comments on it in the DRV. Maintenance categories are a good thing. Postdlf (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

They are, aren't they? I've only ever really looked at the large ones that are a bit overwhelming. The bite-sized ones like this, with clear mistakes and easy fixes, are much nicer. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

what you cant find

is [6] NG section "in science". It was so easy as googling for "string" ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.199.129 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't look on the National Geographic website for an article that appeared to be cited to the journal Science. But there also isn't support for the statement I removed even in that Nat Geo source. Postdlf (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:Antiheroes

I question your speedy deletion of Category:Antiheroes at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_16#Category:Antiheroes. The CfD in question that you believe would prevent recreation of this category occurred some two years ago. Not only can consensus change, it appears that it already has, and allowing the CfD to go to conclusion would likely have confirmed that. Furthermore, the corresponding List of fictional anti-heroes provides nearly 200 sources supporting the characteristic as defining in general and for the 100 or so characters listed. I will ask you to reconsider your close, and reopen the CfD to allow reconsideration of the category as it currently not exists. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and request. I respect your difference of opinion, but I do not believe that consensus has changed regarding this category, or others like it. Instead, there remains a strong consensus to delete or listify categories that attempt to classify fictional characters by such broad types as they role they supposedly play within fiction (see, e.g., this recent CFD) rather than by more concrete, specific traits. Lists remain preferred because, when it's a matter of literary analysis, it matters who is identifying the characters as such and why, and such labels are often applied inconsistently or contradictory, as List of fictional anti-heroes itself explains (see also recent DRV comments as to why simply citing to this or that reviewer or critic may not be sufficient for an objective statement of fact). If you decide to take this to DRV, my suggestion is to focus on the reasons given in the prior CFDs here and here, to explain why those reasons no longer apply, as my close was merely predicated on those CFDs remaining valid, and any comments I make in a DRV discussion of this close will likely repeat my comments here in reliance on those prior CFDs. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Antiheroes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Antiheroes. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I was just in the middle of trying to un-FUBAR that CFD page myself. Good catch. Otto4711 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD Late addition

Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 21, where you gave an opinion on Category:Reading Abbey, I have since discovered and added a second cat - Category:Saint Michael's Abbey, Farnborough - to the nomination for precisely the same reason as the original, but as you did not have the opportunity of looking at that one when you left your comment, I thought it fair to notify you that the entry is now different, in case you wanted to make any changes. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I felt it was relevant was because England claimed to have taken the first picture of the Okapi in the wild, when that honor belongs to Jerry Smith. I refered to the book because how else

The reason I felt it was relevant was because England claimed to have taken the first picture of the Okapi in the wild, when that honor belongs to Jerry Smith. I refered to the book because how else was I to prove this claim. England took the picture with a motion camera, Jerry Smith rode his motorcycle diagonally across Africa trekked through wilderness and took 3 photos of the Okapi. To prove it his pictures are registered with the Library of Congress and one such picture is on page 171 of his book. If I did not refer to the book, how else would it be proof that America beat England to that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellaVistaTravel (talk • contribs) 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD clarification from deep space

The alien overlords assumed that all earthlings would "get" the To Serve Man allusion, but the link should only help infect the few humans untouched by this meme. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And meme infection is what we're all about here, isn't it? Postdlf (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Green Goblin's Last Stand

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Green Goblin's Last Stand, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Goblin's Last Stand (2nd nomination). Thank you. GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Kineograph.jpg

Image:Kineograph.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Linnet kineograph 1886.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Linnet kineograph 1886.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rufus Wheeler Peckham

First: Congressional bios are badly researched, badly written, and inaccurate in a general way. Please always take them with a grain of salt. Second: Please see the article New York Court of Appeals, the historical sequence is very well described, with sources. In this case, congress-bio (or you reading and interpreting...) mistakes the day of election for the day of taking office. ----

CfD nomination of Category:United States education by state

Category:United States education by state, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Cgingold (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated Infobox SCOTUS case

Hi. Your thoughts here, specifically as to whether you think the one or the two-column layout tested here works best, would be much appreciated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dancer in the Dark movie poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dancer in the Dark movie poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks like it was caused by simple vandalism. I've reverted the edits to the article and image description page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

commonscat

Hello, commons:Category:Paintings by Pieter de Hooch in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam might seem overly narrow, but commons:Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is (still) overly full. So if you don't mind I'll resort them under their previous category. Thanks, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is it hinders navigation in the artist categories, which are not overly full. Any issues with the museum categories should be fixed without making the artist categories more difficult to use. Postdlf (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, I thought of that, but that's easier said than done. For exemple Category:Baroque paintings in the Rijksmuseum wouldn't work, because the larger part of their collection is from that period. To see how this problem is solved in other cases, for examble Rembrandt, have a look at commons:Category:Paintings by Rembrandt. This might seem laborious, but it could work, since all paintings by De Hooch can be classified under "Genre paintings". Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo Use for Small Nonprofit Event

Hello Postdlf, I am a volunteer with a Denver nonprofit that would like to use a photo of yours for an upcoming event. The image is posted on WikiCommons .

Please email me and I can give you more information. - Andrea Grunny1 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)