User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2013/July

Clarify option C?

Hi Dirtlawyer1. Very good job knocking the RFC into shape today. It's much better since you did that. Do you think we might have a bit more clarity about option C, though? As I understand it, Darkfrog24 intends it to mean that ENGVAR should stipulate that AmE articles must use AS quotation style -- no ifs or buts. He confirms this in this comment, but I think it isn't clear in the current formulation (what does "follow ENGVAR" mean in practical terms?), and people are overlooking what it really means. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Stfg. Personally, I doubt Option C is a viable option given the early headcount, especially since you and several other LQ users are supporting the article-level flexibility of Option B, and would not support Option C if it were the only alternative to mandatory LQ. Nevertheless, I will see if I can't tone it down a little, and see what I can do to better convey what I believe DarkFrog was trying to convey. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC

Yes, Stfg, that's what I mean. All style guides that 1. discuss American English and 2. are relevant to Wikipedia require American punctuation. Almost all of the professional-quality sources that we use on Wikipedia use American punctuation. If the article is in American English, then it should use American punctuation, just like it should spell "harbor" without a u. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, I have rephrased the brief introduction to Option C, and I have moved Darkfrog's original Option C description and comment to the discussion section, with an added explanatory note. I have replaced Darkfrog's description and comment with a brief, neutrally-worded, two-sentence description of Option C. Darkfrog's comments regarding the various inaccuracies, non-neutral phrasing and inherent bias in Tony1's original wording have now been fairly addressed throughout the RfC. Tony1 will no doubt object, but hopefully everyone else -- pro or con -- can accept the present phrasing as relatively accurate, neutral and unbiased. It's all a bit irregular, but then so was Tony1's original attempt at pre-empting an RfC by those editors who advocated quotation punctuation changes to MOS and WP:LQ. There still remains the matter of a signature on the RfC; if Tony1 will not sign the revised version, I will. Having addressed the concerns regarding accuracy, bias and non-neutral wording, hopefully everyone can live with the present RfC phrasing and we will settle into a normal pattern of !voting and comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well handled, Dirtlawyer1. I agree with all of this. --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope so, Stfg. I took a little bit of a pounding on the talk page, but I agree it needed to be done. I'm still waiting for Tony's objections to the clean-up we performed on his original phrasing. Maybe, just maybe, everyone recognized that some clean-up was required. The RfC is not exactly what I would have done (nor what I was working on), but I think it works passably well in its present form. Let's see where it takes us. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just so. I could see it getting to the point where we'd need an RFC on whether we should have an RFC to decide what RFC we really wanted, and we'd be here till the real pantomime season. Tony's approach may not have been perfect in retrospect, but I can see what he was trying to do, and we did need to break the cycle somehow. As you say, let's see. --Stfg (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles, etc.

I altered my proposal to add Duino Elegies to the expanded list in exchange for either the Kipling or Rimbaud work now on the list. Would you reconsider your opposition?

I found a resolution to that real estate question I raised via email.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Would you reconsider your opposition to Duino Elegies? --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Response requested. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA/E

It occurs to me that there are a lot of other political leaders who are more important than Bill Clinton (or W or Kissinger). As such, I've proposed swapping out Kissinger and W for John Marshall and Henry Clay, who, despite never being elected President, had a profound impact on antebellum American history. Since you are the primary proponent of Clinton being gone, you can propose his removal outright. I am a bit worried that the "pop-culture-and-popularity-over-actual-influence" crowd will shoot those two down. pbp 16:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA/E (b)

Hey DL1, there are currently a couple of dozen removal threads that are one or two !votes away from consensus. I hope you can make the time to go through the threads soon and add your !vote and/or thoughts. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ping. I know that all Wikipedians need a break now and then, but this is really not a good time to take a break from WP:VA/E. So, if you can please find the time your input would be greatly appreciated there. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you can find the time to weigh-in on this discussion thread. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Copyright Law

Dirtlawyer1, We need your assistance regarding a law-related dispute about whether works of the New Jersey state government are in the public domain, and thus useable on Wikipedia. Template:PD-NJGov states that pictures and documents from websites of the executive branch of the New Jersey government, and from public record requests (i.e., FOIA requests) are in the public domain. The disagreement lies in whether the works are truly in the public domain and may be modified, or whether they can merely be copied and distributed. Here is the template and deletion discussion in question. DavidinNJ (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

David, I'm a commercial real estate and corporate attorney, not an intellectual property attorney, but I have looked at several of these copyright/public domain issues on Wikipedia in the past. If you can give me two or three days, I'll take a look at it. Also, if you could link to the relevant New Jersey statute/code sections on point that would be helpful and save me the time and trouble of finding them. What's your level of urgency in dealing with this? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)