User talk:Chaser/Archive 21

Archives
2006: Mar—Jun 19 | Jun 20—Jul | Aug—Sep | Oct—Dec 17 | Dec 17—31 2007: Jan | Feb—May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2008: Jan—May | Jun—Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2009: Jan—Apr | May—Aug | Sep | Oct—Nov | Dec 2010: Jan—Jun | Jul—Oct | Nov—Dec 2011: Jan—Mar | Apr—Jul 2012: Jul—Aug | Sep—Dec 2013: Jan—Dec 2014: Jan—Dec 2015: Jan—Dec

Google Translate

I'm not kidding, it's really good. I once used it to translate a French children's book and with the exception of one word and some slight tensing issues it was almost a word for word translation. I think it's because it's set up like a wiki: it's constantly being updated. Granted, that was a kid's book, but I was impressed anyway. HalfShadow 01:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom posts

Haha. If someone didn't know better, they'd think the headers were reversed on our posts. Usually I'm the one lacking diplomacy. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the difference between that and my normal style will convey how angry about this case I've become. I can't believe that it is being used to attack SH offsite and the committee is just ignoring what he's actually asking them to do.--chaser - t 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Toolbox

Done, but I've added it without removing the others (simply as a matter of choice). If you want to add anything else to that, please go right ahead. :) — neuro^(talk) 20:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, look, I failed to read the message at the top. I'm not very good at this 'doing stuff correctly' schtick. — neuro^(talk) 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thugin - image uploading problems

Thugin (talk · contribs) combination of random vandalism, bad image uploads (some which contain false license info) and other things. what to do. what to do. JBsupreme (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well never mind I guess someone else has blocked the account for 3 days, maybe that will make a difference. Or maybe three days later that person will return and just carry on doing what they do. JBsupreme (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Adify page deleted

Hello Chaser,

I was surprised to find that the article on my company, Adify, was deleted. Here is what is listed on the page now:

20:00, 22 May 2007 Chaser (talk | contribs) deleted "Adify" ‎ (spam; content was: '

Adify powers the next generation of focused, brand-driven advertising networks. Global Media 1,000 partners such as Time Warner, The Wash...')

I would really appreciate it if you could walk me through why the article was deleted, and would be very interested in your input on how to avoid having our page be deleted in the future. Thanks so much,

Courtland Smith Adify, Marketing

Don't re-create it. Let some dis-interested third party create a neutrally-written article about you and then don't edit it. If your company is truly big enough to have a Wikipedia article, someone else will write about it.--chaser (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme

Yet another lovely edit summary by User:JBsupreme. After two WP:ANI discussions, this behavior is still being tolerated? — Σxplicit 23:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You're reaching. He's improved tremendously since the first thread.--chaser (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He has improved, that's not something I'll deny. Still, he breaches WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and the history stretches back far. There seems to be no attempt to stop completely, and resorts to "NOTHING BUT VANDALISM FROM THESE JERKS OVER HERE" instead of something simple and uncontroversial like "warning user". Why is he on such a long leash while he continues to ignore two behavioral policies? — Σxplicit 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason we have these policies is that insulting people leads to a bad editing environment. Given the nature of drive-by IP vandalism and the fact that IPs don't even have watchlist, it's significantly less likely that whoever uses that IP will, first, see the message, and second, honestly think "jerks" is directed at them. Even if both those things happen, I'm less worried about people reacting to "jerks" than the things JBsupreme used to say in edit summaries. As you point out, "warning user" would be the ideal edit-summary, but our standards of civility, as actually enforced, are simply not that stringent.--chaser (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN Sotomayor promotion

You promoted the Sotomayor nomination to the ITN template without any clear consensus to do so. Please revert your action until there is consensus on WP:ITN/C to promote it. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that and I explained why at the linked page.--chaser (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Menshikov

Thanks for your note. Events have overtaken the matter. However it appears that there weren't any significant edits to the article by non-socks since it was created. Mostly just routine categorization, etc. The only major addition to the article since its creation was made by an IP in the same range as used by the sock puppet master previously, so that's hardly a reason to have avoided a speedy deletion.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Affect/Effect

Nice catch on the affect/effect in the Red Bull Cola article. I quoted it from the news article and didn't bother to check it over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 07:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. User Mhazard9

Hi Chaser, I noticed your contributions to a discussion in an administrator's forum about User Mhazard9 last month on the subject of whether this user's edits are disruptive. Since you are familiar with his case, I thought this would be an appropriate place to raise my own concerns about this editor at this stage. I recently made a number of edits to The James Bond Dossier, some of them no doubt clearing away muddy prose contributed by Mhazard9 at an earlier stage. Within hours of my last edit I find that Mhazard has revisited the page and made a number of ungrammatical changes, mangling the prose and the sense of parts of the article. At the moment it reads as poorly as the results of most of his other contributions and as it stands, the article is now laughable. I'm tempted to revert the article back to the point before his latest edits, but I really don't want to get into an edit war. I think this would be inevitable because it seems Mhazard9 simply doesn't like having work he has done modified for whatever reason. I have not communicated with Mhazard directly because I have seen what happens when other editors have tried to do this. There is now a substantial backlog of poor edits building up over a number of articles. Anyway, I would appreciate your comments about where to go from here. Cheers Welham66 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that discussion, please? I don't remember it, offhand.--chaser (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:Mhazard9_-_possible_disruptive_editor.3F It's item 43. I'm not quite sure how to do an internal link to the specific section. Welham66 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. You got me pointed in the right direction. For future reference, to get the internal link, you just have to click on the proper section in the Table of Contents. Then that section becomes part of the link in the address bar of your browser. Just copy everything after wiki/ I've done above, and you've got your internal link.

As to the problem you're having, reading the linked conversation confirmed what I had feared to be true: there's not anything particular an admin can help you with here. We don't block people for bad editing. You can try asking at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, which is the best of mediocre options. Or I can look at this when I have more time this Friday at the earliest (I have a big assignment due on Thursday). It's up to you.--chaser (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions Chaser. Maybe if you have time on Friday. BTW, Mhazard9's most recent contributions include making a mess of the JFK (movie) article which currently has GA status, which it now doesn't warrant after Mhazard9's edits + an edit war with User:Rbellin about Literary Criticism, in progress as I write. It also seems likely he is using at least one sock puppet to restore or replace his verbiage when it is cleaned up by someone. User68.165.188.79 has edited both The James Bond Dossier and Literary Criticism to defend Mhazard9's edits and is clearly following this user around at the moment. I hope you get a good grade for your assignment. Welham66 (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

SCOTUS-related thread

Hey there. Any input here would be much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Free legal research proposal

Hi Chaser,

At the above page, I've made a proposal for making Wikipedia more useful for lawyers/students/judges/professors (by challenging Wexis head-on) and I'd like to invite you to read and comment. Thanks. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Chaser. You have new messages at Eastlaw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bill Verna

I didn't realize that the AfD was coming to an end, but I am concerned that the deletion took place during a content dispute. I had added information from a third-party print source that I feel helped solidify the claim to notability. One of the editors that wanted the article deleted removed the information and then recruited someone else to remove it once it was re-added. I am particularly concerned that two of the people who voted for deletion during the Afd removed this content, as I feel that it didn't give the article a fair shot due to this biased removal of sourced information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please email me a link to this article and provide whatever additional information about the magazine that you have. I don't think the procedural irregularity is enough to invalidate the AFD, but it's more important that we get the right result.--chaser (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Pretty much everything has already been said at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#User:GaryColemanFan. The article was nominated for deletion. I added a substantial amount of content showing that Bill Verna had been a main event performer in several countries and that he had been discussed in reliable third-party sources. The "delete" voters were unwilling to acknowledge that the substantial increase in content and sources meant anything. During the AfD, two of the "delete" voters removed some of the sourced content, claiming that the magazine that it came from was not notable, so the information from the magazine could not be used. I was quoting an online translation from Ash Shuja, which, as a commenter in the ANI stated, is "an Urdu-language publication, available at Cornell U, Columbia U libraries, & at the Library of Congress". The version I was quoting from can be seen at http://www.geocities.com/goodfaith747/aslam_pahalwan_editorial/. It's quite hard to provide sources for articles on older foreign wrestlers, so the substantial amount of references covering his long career represents quite a bit. At any rate, the AfD was closed in the middle of the ANI, and the ANI seems to indicate that there was no problem with the information that I added. Since the article was, therefore, currently being developed, closing it seemed premature to me. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's considerable coverage in that article, but I don't see enough coverage in the other sources to justify reversing myself. These two just have a paragraph apiece about the fights, and I'm not even sure if the second is reliable. Wrestlingheritage.co.uk has more depth, but appears to be a hobbyist's site (the contact email is a hotmail account). Regardless of procedural issues, we seem to have reached the right result. Sorry.--chaser (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

question Re supreme court wikiproject

Hi,

I'm relatively new to the Wikiproject and I have some catching up to do on our consensus / conventions. I noticed, for example, that you just fixed something in the "Outline" which I'd put there, unaware of the past conversations.

Since I've become very involved in this project, if there are any conversations buried in the archives that you'd like to draw my attention to, I'd be grateful if you'd provide the links.

(In fact, it might be useful to create a box at the top of the discussion page, "links to important past discussions," with little summaries. If that becomes tedious, I'd be willing to help.)

thanks. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-stated things in my edit summary. The previous discussion I was referencing is here, but I don't find much support for what I actually did there. I still favor United States Reports because it's more specific, but it's nothing you should have known or that I expected someone to know. As to previous discussions, the archive TOCs are the best way to go. I know they can be a pain.--chaser (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. I realize I'm joining late, but my attention was drawn to the last three comments (between Postdlf, yourself, and scientus -- reproduced and collapsed below.)
• My own ideal would be to start with the ussc template -- but tweaking the code so that "487 U.S." links to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 487 (which itself contains a link to "United States Reports). I respect the reluctance of Postdlf for the first link in an article to point off-site, but in this case the principle is interfering with the usefulness.
• However, here is a compromise that might satisfy the purists: adjusting the ussc template to support a variable that would suppress the generation of the off-site hyperlink, such that {{ussc|487|412|1988|cite=no}} would generate "487 U.S. 412" (1998) (again, linking to our internal page for volume 487 of the reporter, but without the off-site link at the end.)
• My concern is that unless we do something like this, it will be a Sisyphean struggle to indoctrine newcomers into the proper usage and placement of the ussc template. Conversely, if we started articles out this way, then newcomers will be very quickly exposed to the existence of the ussc, as well as to its proper use. For example, it took me a long time to learn about the existence of ussc when I first started editing wikipedia articles; and when I finally did, I just assumed that it was an "innovation" that was intended to replace the link to United States Reports, so I started manually replacing these in the leads.
• thoughts? Agradman ^talk/_contribs 18:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• PS, I've been continuing this discussion at MZMcBride's page. PPS, I see you're a law student -- would you (or anyone you know,) be interesting in starting a "Student Wikipedia/hornbook editors" club at your school? (and are you interning this summer? I'm at the NY Attorney general's office) Agradman ^talk/_contribs 21:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as long as we have a link to the decision somewhere consistently. We should probably start a thread at WT:SCOTUS to get a broader consensus and then try to stick to it. I won't have much time for wiki once classes resume in a month; my grades were higher the semester I did not edit. Sorry.--chaser (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I've never liked having the first link in an article point outside of Wikipedia, which is what you have with external links to the full opinion in the article lead. A better practice might be to link to the article on the specific case reporter, which would go a longer way towards explaining the citation than the general case citation article. At this point we should have articles on all the main American ones, such as United States Reports, Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement...even the regional reporters for states, such as Pacific Reporter. Postdlf (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I like this better than my external link proposal above.--chaser (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC) thats not very good. Computers are much better at that, if you have to have a special on-wikipedia page then make it more like Special:BookSources where it actually find the information you are looking for. otherwise it should be removed and as googling it would be much quicker and less confusing to people. In light of the OpenMaps thing maybe Wikimedia could just host this stuff locally with public.resource.org as the collector.Scientus (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up RE my questions about citation style

Hi there,

I recently mentioned some questions I had regarding our citation formats, and you suggested that I share them at the Wikiproject. Alas, after (many) hours of "clarification" and "organization," my writing has become too convoluted to inflict on the public (don't scream...). However, the effort has helped me clarify my confusion, so I'd like to get your feedback on the principal ideas.

First, could you confirm whether I have the correct impressions as to the following:

1. we've reached consensus that however we do citations, it should be done via template, not manually (to avoid the need for "bots" to intervene when our policies change, or when newbies get it wrong)

2. most editors prefer for the wikilink to point to United States Reports, not case citation.

3. some editors do this via {{scite}} rather than {{ussc}}, because {{ussc}} indiscriminately generates an offsite hyperlink, which is inappropriate especially in the lead.

Based on these (mis?)impressions, I have some thoughts:

• Regarding 2, Have we considered making "430 U.S. 113" link to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430?

• If the info there is thought to be inferior to the info at United States Reports, we can add more for the benefit of the layperson (probably via bot + transclusion).

• Regarding 3, My feelings towards {{scite}} vs. {{ussc}} are as follows:

1. I think our Wikiproject should strive for consensus around a single, and simple, citation format.
   • This is because our principal priority should be to "scale" our WikiProject so that its methods can be learned by as many law-student-editors as possible. My job on student government next year is to recruit law students around the country to this Wikiproject, and I don't expect to have trouble rousing up the interest; we must prepare for the flood ...
2. This single template should support the ability to create off-site links, even if it's not implemented everywhere (i.e., it should be used only in the body text (not the lead) of articles).
   • Two weeks ago, at my request, {{ussc}} was rewritten so that {{ussc|487|654|1988|pin=675}} produces 487 U.S. 654, 675 (1988) -- i.e., the text "654, 675" now hyperlinks directly to the pincite. Naturally, in two weeks this feature hasn't yet caught on; but I think it will be critical in the long run, if we're to provide meaningful competition against, e.g., the Lexis "headnotes" which annotate the text. (For my first awkward attempt to demonstrate how this would work, please see the "Structure" section)

• Taking these ideas together, I wonder what you think of something like the following:

1. by default, {{ussc|487|654|1988}} should not generate an off-site hyperlink. Instead, the only link should be from "487 U.S.", pointing to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 487.
2. To generate a hyperlink from {{ussc}}, you will have to specify the pin. e.g., to produce 487 U.S. 654 (1988), you must type {{ussc|487|654|1988|pin=654}}
3. While I believe strongly in "free as in freedom", I cast a reluctant vote in favor of restricting the offsite options to justia only, because pinciting is available only at justia and findlaw, and findlaw seems to be deprecated by consensus. (true?)

Thoughts? Agradman ^talk/_contribs 04:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. My only question is whether pinpoint citations are consistent across sites. If Justia goes out of business tomorrow, will the next site to emerge have the same pinpoints? I would hope so.... --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook

I'm about to copy-paste the text of this invitation to members of Category:Wikipedian law students, WP:LAW, and WP:SCOTUS. Before I do, will you take a look at the invitation, the task force, etc., and give me your feedback/critiques? Thanks.

(In particular, do you think the name is unwieldy? I'm thinking of renaming it to "JD Curriculum task force," but retaining the redirect from WP:Hornbook.)

Agradman ^talk/_contribs 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already changed the name, which I think makes it more inviting to the many lawyers that might contribute. I added a couple of links to make contacting you easier for the uninitiated. Other than that, it looks good. Well done!

BTW, I haven't forgotten about your msg above. Sorry I've been slow in responding.--chaser (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States FA-drive

In light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

in light of the contention ...

In light of the contention surrounding Scite / ussc , I wonder if you'd take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases#Recent proposed changes to the outline, where I've proposed creating a styleguide task force under WP:LAW so that these discussions are inclusive of all the law-related viewpoints, and not just the Americans/interested in the Supreme Court. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

2012 Election Need Your Feedback

I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Holtzman v. Schlesinger

Hey there. Can you take a look at the infobox for Holtzman v. Schlesinger and fix it a bit? Apparently there were no argue date / year, so I guess those fields can be removed (might need to be replaced with submit date / submit year). And I couldn't figure out what to put in the opinions section. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Many double negatives here. It looks like the article is about Marshall's August 4 decision, in collaboration with other Justices, so it should be styled as Schlesinger v. Holtzman and citations and so forth modified accordingly. The other decisions are unambigiously being made by a single Justice, and are background appropriately placed in this article. I think the holding is "The reapplication for a stay is granted. The court stays, pending further review, the district court's order enjoining the Defense Department from participating in military activities in and over Cambodia." If you agree, I'll implement. Otherwise, let's keep talking.--chaser (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your holding sounds very good. As for the page title, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 414 indicates that both forms were used, though this specific citation seems to indicate that it should be reversed, as you note. Feel free to make the changes and thanks again for taking a look. :-) (I'm slowly getting through Category:United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes.) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)