User talk:Minskist popper/Archive2

Talk page archive from Feb 2007 to March 19, 2007.

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WikiProject_Novels_announcements}} there.
While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/User WPNOVELS}}.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but other methods are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans and Democrats

Hello Wooyi. Thanks for your excellent work in creating infoboxes for US politicians. I'd like to point out, however, that Republican and Democrat or Democratic are not very effective links, as you will see if you follow the links. Linking to [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] and [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]] instead will take the reader to an article that explains what those terms mean in the context of US politicians. Thanks, and keep up the great work. Ground Zero | t 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire (musician)

Hi, just thanking you for the GA pass, and thanking you for how quickly you assessed the article! Happy editing. J Milburn 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Please revisit the deletion review of BattleMaster, the error is different than the nominator described, and your opinion should be changed to reflect the actual situation. GRBerry 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Abbie Hoffman

Hello Wooyi, thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your sincerity on this issue. But it's precisely because he's not "a 'criminal' in a real sense" that it would be wrong to label him with that infobox. Even though it may be clear in your mind that you don't really mean to imply any such thing, that fact would not be clear to readers. So regardless of your intentions, the label of criminality is what would be perceived. Especially considering that this crime infobox replaces the standard biog. infobox, it should only be used in cases when the person's criminality is his/her most notable feature -- which certainly is not the case with Hoffman. Cgingold 10:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

You recently put up Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for GAC, and I just wanted to let you know that it will fail unless the citation needed tags are not fixed. I would suggest either adding inline citations or removing the information for it to pass. --Nehrams2020 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin

I am placing the article on hold for the time being. It's pretty good and is close to GA status, but I do have some concerns, which have been noted on the talk page. -- Scorpion 14:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought I'd remind you that the article has 3 days left until its on hold status expires. As soon as your ready for it to be re-evaluated, contact me and I'll do it as soon as possible. -- Scorpion 18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack M Oliphant

Do you have any information about Oliphant. The feds have been reluctant to release FOI requisted on him. It has been a lot of years and the man is dead. Almost all the operatives he handeled are dead. I think they are concerned about his followers.

I think he was the most dangerous man that ever lived. Matt

Arlington High School

Yeah i go there, what grade are you in? If you attend there you should add the template

AHS

This user attends or attended Arlington High School.

NightRider63 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yea no prob. I'm in 9thNightRider63 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

I don't understand what the problem is. Do you want to upload the semple image on Wikipedia as well? If so, there's no need to, it's better to have it on commons. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can link directly to commons images, but I forget how, sorry. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted the problem for you, totally an WP:IAR job, but since the image on Wikipedia was Public Domain and because there was nothing linking to the work, I moved it to Wikimedia Commons manually under a slightly different filename, anyway, it allows you to use the image you want to use just by linking to Image:Semple.jpg. Now, I'm off to hide before I get a bollocking for doing things the wrong way. -- Nick ^t 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. --PhantomS 01:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Most of the fields at the bottom are not being used. In addition, it is questionable whether they are appropriate for a judge. Spouse itself is only being used on a dozen or so boxes. --PhantomS 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and profession could only be something related to law, since they are a judge. I would have kept the signature field, but not a single box used it. --PhantomS 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Oregon Supreme Court infoboxes, the people who worked on them had them as two separate offices that could run concurrently. They looked similar to the Edith Jones article. However, I don't think I ever saw one with chief justice on the bottom like Richard Posner. Nonetheless, it is a new infobox and conventions for that type of thing haven't really been sorted out. --PhantomS 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are they called justices or judges in the lower courts? --PhantomS 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the template itself seems fine to me. If there are any other features that you'd like, or things you'd like to change (such as color, etc.), feel free to contact me. Gracenotes ^T § 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Alaska palin.jpg

I guess other Wikipedia users may be able to help sort this out, but I would agree that pictures of both Knowles and Palin are needed. However, I don't think it's irreplaceable fair use since they're both still politically active and always making public appearances. To get a free image, anyone could just take a photo at a political event and release it on Wikipedia. (I didn't see any available yet on flickr.) Or perhaps publicity photos are available? I didn't check the campaign websites. I don't think the best solution is to appropriate copyrighted images. Calliopejen 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Wooyi

This user would like to wish you a happy St. Patrick's Day.

Trampton 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello!

I have reviewed your editorial review request. Take a look at it if you want :) AQu01rius (User  Talk) 04:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got some more questions at WP:ER. The Transhumanist 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look

Hi Wooyi,

After you contributed to the deletion discussion on the Helen Hollick article, the author herself put some references on the deletion page, and I think we now have adequate confirmation of notability from independent sources. I initially voted to delete myself, but I've been working with her to improve the page with more footnotes and more information. At this point I think the article is worthy of keeping, and I'm continuing to work on it with her. Please take another look at the page and consider whether you'd like to change your vote. Thanks! Noroton 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glassroth v. Moore

Hello! I noticed that you are the creator of the article of a court case Glassroth v. Moore. I have a question regarding the case. This case said erecting a Ten Commandment monument at a courthouse is unconstitutional. But in 2003 the case Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester County decided by Judge Edward Roy Becker of the Third Circuit ruled that a Ten Commandment display in a courthouse in Pennsylvania is OK. There is apparently conflict between the two cases. Has this conflict been addressed by SCOTUS or any other authority? Wooyi 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there has been a resolution of this conflict.

Well, having read, at least in part, the PDF of Freethought, I could argue that the court in that case had a different issue. In Glassroth, Chief Justice Moore had a large monument (essentially a large rock or piece of marble, I think) which weighed over a ton, installed right in the middle of the State Supreme Court entrance vestibule where everyone going into the building had to walk past. In Freethought the item in question was a 60-year-old brass plaque on the side of the building, and no real attempt to draw attention to the plaque had been made in decades. I think the issue in Glassroth was solved by moving the monument out of the building and onto a public park. So we still have a public display of the Ten Commandments on public land, but it's not in a place where it's being given attention to or where people otherwise have to go and are thus forced to see a government-sponsored religious display.

I think the issue is not of the government having a monument or display which references the ten commandments as much as placing it in an area where people who are otherwise forced to go there are required to be exposed to a government-mandated display of a religious artifact. Personally I think it's a stretch, but you could argue the Ten Commandments do have at least some legal relevance because of the prohibitions on certain conduct. Thus you can probably get away with the Ten Commandments but displays of a menorah and a baby in a manger are clearly improper. But even then, if the display is in a public park rather than on the grounds of city hall or the courthouse there might be more leeway given since people can decide to go visit the park or not; if they need to see their local representatives or sue or defend a suit, they have to go to the government building. This is probably why courts have found display of the Ten Commandments in schools to be unconstitutional because attendance in buildings of public education is compulsory.

It is arguable that there is enough difference between the two that the two rulings could stand. Take a look at the Lemon test and how the courts - specifically the Supreme Court - treat issues which may be both secular and religious in nature.

Now, if you were a city and wanting to allow a display of a baby in a manger, what you do is have some provision for allowing any group that collects some small number of signatures - say 100 - to be allowed to put up a display related to the holidays in December. They get a space of, say, ten feet by 5 feet. Petitions may be submitted any time, the period to display opens the day after Thanksgiving, and ends the last day of January. Petitioners must post a bond or deposit adequate to cover the cost of removing the display if they fail to do so, the deposit being refunded if they do remove all traces of their display, and there is no restriction on content as long as it is not in bad taste, obscene, etc. Now, as long as you allow anyone who complies with the rules to put up a display, regardless of content, you have a content-neutral display that would be permissible. But in that, if someone who otherwise qualifies wants to put up a satanic display, or an atheist one, they have to allow it. If it's content neutral, even though the content is religious in nature, the display would be permissible.

Personally, I think a display of the Ten Commandments represents a clearly religious-based display because of the provision of things related to the Christian concept of religion and should not be used on a government building. Now, if they only displayed the non-religious articles (which would probably reduce it to The Three Commandments!), I'd personally have no problem with it otherwise. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 06:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]