User talk:Simon Dodd/Archive 2005-2008

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:04, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Nice work on Contract With America.

3RR

Hi Simon, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Nuclear option (filibuster) and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this block is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Simon, I've unblocked you early as a gesture of good faith. Please look for a compromise version of the sentence you're in dispute over. If there's more reverting, I'll protect the page on the version of the person who has reverted less. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments from A ghost

Simon, you seem well spoken and thoughtful, albiet from your point of view. Since I've stepped into the Nuclear option debate with both feet, you're welcome to contact me directly.--ghost 19:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, can you please agree to refrain to edit on Nuclear option again for 24hrs if, and only if, FuelWagon does? Of course you're both welcome to jump in only in the most extreme circumstances. I'm hoping if this pill is taken by choice, instead of being rammed down both your throats, it might be easier to swallow. I'm asking for this so that I have long enough to go in and do some serious work tonight. I think I can quiet the flames.--ghost 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provided that FuelWagon does not alter my revision of the 60% section at 20:04, 21 Jun 2005 and my placement of both sections into subsections at 20:07, 21 Jun 2005, I won't revert those edits. This compromise will be fully in line with the nuclear option: the democrats agreed that as long as they don't filibuster, the Republicans won't pull the nuclear trigger; likewise, if FW stops reverting my edits, I'll have no need to propose new compromise language.Simon Dodd 20:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. FW and I are distracted at the moment pursueing a vandal. Later this evening, I'll go thru the sections and make them as non-partisan as I can. Thanks again for being reasonable. It speaks to your character.--ghost 20:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Peer review I'm truely flattered. You're welcome to send me links. Fair warning: I have serious commitments to two others Intelligent design and Terri Schiavo that I need to catchup on, one of which is in Mediation. Let me know. :-] --ghost 20:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Constitution in exile

Have you looked at this article? Is it of any value, or should it be merged into a related article? NoSeptember 04:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia

I don't think this is a very good category to have, not only since most cases have multiple opinions (which would just result in a clutter of Justice-specific categories at the bottom), but Scalia in particular is one justice who almost always wants to have his say with a separate concurrence or dissent—this will largely end up being synonymous with a category of Rehnquist Court cases. The title is also a poor classification, because it doesn't specify what is an opinion of Justice Scalia—obviously not always the whole judgment the article discusses. "Cases in which Justice Scalia submitted an opinion" would probably be a better description, but then it just becomes cumbersome. Why not make an annotated list article instead? List articles have none of these problems that categories are subject to. Postdlf 01:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• FYI, this category has been nominated for cfd. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Opinions of Justice Scalia NoSeptember^T 9 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

To Bork

Per your addition to Robert Bork, I have reverted the second addition for two reasons (though they are intertwined): first, despite attempts at finding someone using some alternative form of the verb Bork, no one has shown one and the consensus seems to be exclusion on that basis; second, the addition was not entirely clear in its wording, so it is possible that there might be useful information included, but I have not understood. I would recommend reading the talk page and rewording your entry if you believe it fits into the consensus, as well as leaving a comment there. Thanks. Rkevins82 05:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response on Bork talk page. Thanks for your comments. Rkevins82 22:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

SCOTUS template

Brilliant idea - I've added links to lists of justices and related info. bd2412 T 15:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, you copied Template:US fed civ pro, which was one of mine. ;-D bd2412 T 16:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law is indeed open for all interested in joining! bd2412 T 16:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the Court demographics page was created largely in response to an editor who kept posting nonsense in various other pages about how the Court was (God forbid!) going to have a Catholic majority, hinting that this was part of some anti-protestant conspiracy between Jews and Catholics to keep down the Protestants. And some of it is interesting stuff. bd2412 T 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • HLS info would be good, but noted as part of a historical trend - some of the early Justices had no formal legal education at all. I'm particularly interested in geographic distribution, tho, as this was apparently a pretty big deal throughout the 19th century. bd2412 T 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Gonads

Just for your edification--gonads exist in both sexes. The ovaries are a woman's gonads.

And, incidentally, I don't personally care, either way, how the article is written, but the "s/he" form is not universally mandated, and one is not necessarily sexist to write "he" instead of "he or she" or "s/he". It can simply be a convention without intent. As for me, I've learned my lesson on such things with the differences between American and British English. I think I have better things to do with my time than worry about changing something phrased using someone else's conventions. I think the content of Wikipedia is more important than such trivial battles. Unschool 02:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello from ednet

Hi Simon, this is CN from ednet in my wiki-capacity. Saw that you had a wikipedia link, and I was wuite curious as to what you made of the revolutionary politics thread, in the end, since you didn't reply beyond the last one? best, Breadandroses 10:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Kozinski - Trivia

Simon, what is "night court?" I am not getting it. Thx. Crzrussian 20:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Judgewilliams.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Judgewilliams.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The image is a work of the federal government, and says as much. Controversy closed.Simon Dodd 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy not closed, as the image was deleted. Please re-upload and and include whatever source information you have so that overzealous copyright-paranoid wikipedians don't cause the image to get deleted yet again. This has gotten out of hand when public domain images aren't even safe on wikipedia unless every i has been dotted and every t has been crossed. DHowell 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Things in Common

Wow, I just found out out that we share interests with the Supreme Court and with Dream Theater. I never thought I would meet someone who was at the same time a Scalia fan and a DT fan. Anyways, I am extremely interested with the topics we have covered in our little "Senior status" debate at the SCOTUS talk page. Glad to have someone in wikipedia who shares interest with the court.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 04:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RKBA

I don't have significant problems with pointing out the centuries old history of a right to bear arms in the origin of the 2A section. And I guess I don't understand your question about 'bifurcating'. But if you are asking whether the 2A creates a right to keep and bear arms, I think the consensus is that it does not actual create the right, rather that it simply protects the right from being abridged by the Federal Government. BruceHallman 14:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just passing through

Don't mind me, just cleaning up some old mess! Cheers! bd2412 T 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court Retired Justices

Please see the discussion page of Supreme Court of the United States for a response to your thoughts about "senior status." Newyorkbrad 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked the mediation cabal to take a look at Ann Althouse

Simon, while we wait for the mediation cabal to take a look at the Jessica Valenti book issue at Ann Althouse, I propose you and I both refrain from editing the page further. I am also curious about what I perceive as a threat from you, your posting this message on my talk page: "Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Re your continuing smear campaign against Ann Althouse." Can you expand on that? Are you saying you will block me from editing by your own action, or are you saying you will submit that request to the appropriate people? While we try to mediate this between us, can I get you to agree to drop this threat? I am cross posting this at the althouse page to help ensure you are notified. Thank you.

Stop

Simon, after your latest post at ANI: you really need to stop now. Now. This is getting disruptive. By the way, it would also have been better if you'd informed us, when you first reported on your perceived problem, that you were in fact engaged in an edit-war with the other guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Minor Tag" abuse

Mostly what we're trying to say is that you're technically reading it correctly, but reading it wrong in spirit. What you need to do is step back and look at it as a situation of "this is the first time anybody is speaking to this user about this issue."

The act may be going on for some time, but there's basically no circumstance in which we'd give a user a "long-term" vandal warning right away. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me try and pose it to you this way: if you had read that template, would you have posted it on his page? Let me know if you want to keep further conversation on my page or your page... we should stop going back and forth if this is going to be a full discussion :) (and I'm happy to keep talking over things with you) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 01:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Namespace abuse

I have moved WP:Abuse to Wikipedia:Abuse. -- RHaworth 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WARN

The change you made to the lede of WP:WARN will probably be helpful for many people. I agree that it's easy to get the impression that the templates are part of a formal process when they are not.

As an admin, here is my comment about the role of templates: If you look through the blocking policy, you will see that warning templates are in no way required for a block. The most appropriate use of the templates is for simple situations with new users. Once a user is experienced enough to know the policies, the warning templates disrupt rather than encourage conversation. CMummert · talk 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I empathize with your confusion. Here is the way that I, and many admins, look at these things:

1. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and should only be given when the user is continuing some disruptive behavior after being asked to stop.
2. New users are often unaware of policies like WP:V and they ought to be given adequate warnings before being blocked. Moreover, the traffic on WP:AIV is too high for admins to investigate each case for a long time. Therefore, to get someone blocked via WP:AIV, you have to go through the process of warning them, and the easiest way to do this is with the warning templates.
3. WP:AIV is most appropriate for users who are vandalizing pages relatively quickly so that the need to block is obvious. Thus the templates are written with these people in mind.
4. Users who make edits that are not clear vandalism can still be blocked for disruption, but the process is much slower. The goal overall is to stop the disruption, not necessarily to get the person blocked. So the first step is to try to discuss the issue with the person. Try to find a neutral third person to discuss it (this is easier on article talk pages).
5. If you feel that the user's behavior is disruptive enough to warrant a block, and have tried to discuss it, then you should post at WP:ANI. Give a brief but detailed explanation of the behavior and the attempts you have made to discuss it. In almost every case, you will get comments on your post.

I see on your user page that you are a legal formalist; this may contribute towards your confusion here. In a legal system, the application of a law comes after the law is written. On WP, policies describe current best practice, but they often lag behind it. If policy and practice disagree, it is usually because the policy has not been updated but the practice has moved on. Since you have read WP:WARN and WP:BLOCK, you may want also look at the introduction to WP:POLICY and the essay on wikilawyering. These might help clarify the role that policy documents have on WP. CMummert · talk 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning templates

Howdy! As an uninvolved admin, I'd like to offer some observations and advice. First, the burden of understanding what a warning template says falls on you. The templates are supposed to be tools that can help give common requests/admonishments for things that happen regularly. But there is no requirement to use templates. In fact, for anything out of the ordinary (abuse of 'minor tags' counts here) it is far preferable to just talk to the person directly. Use your own words, not a boilerplate. Success on Wikipedia requires clear communication, and as this situation clearly shows, clarity was not on-duty during when you dropped the t-bombs on the users page. Second, when seeking community input on something, you need to be willing to hear an answer other than the one you're looking for. Reading the thread on AN/I, I'm left with the perception that you weren't getting the response you had expected, but instead of taking advantage of that opportunity to re-evaluate your position, you dug your heels in and fought harder. If you've made your mind up before posting, it's best not to pose your post in the form of a question, because you may get answers different from the one you've chosen. In summary, if you have to use templates, know what they say first, anything that happens afterwards is your responsibility if its predicated on your error, but talking to people is better than templates any day. Second, be ready to get an answer you don't like when you ask a question. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested reading material

WP:PPP explains rather well how Wikipedia policy works and is created. If you find other policies that are confusing or have holes in them, please let us know so we can fix them. >Radiant< 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that, but from where I'm standing it appears mostly to be a failure to understand one another because of differences in language used. People who deal a lot with process on the Wiki tend to use a lot of jargon and phrasing that may have a different meaning in "normal" English. Such people tend to deal with a hundred issues per day, and thus have a tendency to be brief in responses, which may easily be taken for bluntness. Note that we have about a thousand admins, and you've had a bad experience with four or five of them; it's not as bad as you think. Wikipedia's lack of strict rules can be confusing at times, but in effect it means that as long as you mean well, you can edit where you want and not worry about the rules. And that is why you were not actually in danger of being blocked. Happy editing! >Radiant< 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And for the record, [1]. >Radiant< 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy

Hi Simon. You asked where the "policy" of not writing something you do not mean is written down. That in some sense was my point - it is not a written policy, but a basic principle that I would suggest applies throughout life, not just in Wikipedia. Even if placing that tag were policy, I wouldn't do it unless I thought the wording was appropriate - for one thing, if it were not appropriate, the policy probably isn't the appropriate one to apply. In contrast, many of things you referred to, while written, were not in any sense policy. That is why I think there are two things behind this whole fiasco. Firstly, the bad wording at WP:WARN, and secondly, your understanding of what WP policy is. There are relatively few policies on WP, and legal formalist ideas simply do not apply in a WP context, as there is nothing that really corresponds to a legislature of judiciary. In particular, things such as asking someone to use edit summaries do not initially require a formal procedure, and there is no reason why an admin should be involved. In fact, the first formal procedure in such a case would probably be a request for comment, where whether someone is an admin or not is completely irrelevant. I suspect that you do not think this is a particularly good system, but I hope I have thrown a bit more light on it. JPD (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple misunderstandings

Simon, I'm sorry you felt some of my ealier comments were uncivil, so I'm going to try to explain some things here for you in a more neutral manner. All these are based of things I've seen you post on other talk pages (slightly paraphrased). First is wanting to delete WP:IAR. Affraid this would be seen as a bad faith nomination, it's one of the WP:5PILLERS, the Five pillers of Wikipedia, our most important set of beliefs. It exists to explain one important thing: We are here to write an encyclopedia. Some things, while having good intentions, get in the way of that. If you feel it justifiable, you can ignore it. Just be sure that while doing that, you stay within the boundaries of not being a WP:DICK. Your comments that when the spirit of a rule and the text differ the text must prevail is directly contradictory to this, and that view must changed if you dont want this escalating to disruption at some point. WP:WIKILAWYER is there because no ones supposed to get hung up on the rules. It follows the same idea as the previous example. We're here to write an encyclopedia, all else is secondary. A good Encyclopedia has NPOV and doesn't contain OR, to rebut something you said on ANI. Also, there is no formal warning/block process one must go through. Someone can be blocked at any time for any reason. If its one that raises hackles, the user will be promptly unblocked and the admin admonished/brought for discipline, but theres no rules set down. My prime example for this is WP:3RR. Many times if a users gaming 3RR repeatedly (staying within 3 reverts in 24 hrs, with the 4th coming usually a couple minutes after the 24 hrs is up) they will be blocked at a minimum for a 3rr violation, and often a bit harsher for gaming the system.

In the end, the rules are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves, and thats the issue you seem to have a bit of trouble grasping. I dont mean this in a horrible way, but have you considered if a project with more rigidly defined rules (maybe Conservapedia?) might be a better fit for you? -M^ask? 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your note

You're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment charge

Hi Simon, I'm having a bit of difficulty here. If you get a chance, would you please take a look? Thx.Ferrylodge 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Simon, you may want to set up your Wikipedia email, by using "my preferences." In any event, I would very much like to communicate with you, regarding this. Thanks.Ferrylodge 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Daisy Does America

Hey Simon, do you have any copies of the Daisy Does America show? I have been trying to hunt them down now for a long time. Thanks! Curt1s28 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

• A1. Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of Terre Haute

I noticed you took pictures in Terre Haute. It's been bugging me that I'd like to see more pictures of Terre Haute (I went to ISU from 2002-2005), but with gas prices it would hard for me to make the 180 mile trip just to go one way to there. If you could take a few pictures of certain Terre Haute landmarks, I'll award you with an Indiana Barnstar in appreciation. In particular, the Debs home, Indiana Theatre, Terre Haute Masonic Temple, downtown Wabash Avenue, and a few ISU buildings (the commons, plaza, and library especially).--Bedford ^Pray 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)