User talk:Metal.lunchbox

Hello,, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Images
Hello, can you please upload images to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used on other projects? If you need any help, just ask. Thank you. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, wanted to welcome you as you seem to be settling well into WS, and actively participating. Much thanks for your contributions thusfar - glad to see someone looking to clean up the Newspaper articles as well, on a personal note. Though I did raise an eyebrow seeing my Pentagon Papers text listed on your userpage, didn't entirely understand what you were talking about deleting. Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 03:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Perth Gazette
Only the letter to the editor is complete. The others were copied from "Haig, Ross (ed) (1984). The Years of News from the West Australian and Perth Daily News, St George Books, Perth, Western Australia." rather than the original articles. Ross (1984) doesn't make it very clear which entries are complete articles and which are extracts from larger articles. Hesperian 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court
I am interested in adding cases to the Supreme Court and I will follow your header. But I have a question, what cases should we add? Should we add every single opinion of just some?

Also should we post cases from the Circuit Court of Appeals and state supreme courts as well?

-Wabbit98

I have noticed at the Griswold v. Connecticut article under the concurring opinions you have the names of the author but not under the opinion that was delievered for the majority. For that case it happened to be Douglas. Also we might need to add if any Justices sat out of considerations for certain cases. So maybe add a line to add show who authored the majority opinion besides any who authored dissents and concurring opinions.

-Wabbit98

So I am trying to understand when I would use the USScase2 template and not the first one?

-Wabbit98 11:05pm (PST) Demember 12th

Okay I am seeing it now. I will see how you use it in the future to learn more. --Wabbit98 11:12pm, 12 December 2006 (PST)

Griswold v. CN
Personally, I think USSCcase looks ugly and very bulky. There is also a standard on WS that all pages in the main article namespace have header placed on it, as per WS:STYLE. The point of the header is to attempt to standardize the display (to a certain extent) across the entire site. The very long discussions about the entire purpose of header can be found somewhere on WS (I can't locate them now, but I can drudge them up if needed when a few other users come online). The header doesn't have to replace other templates, but standard consensus is that is should be displayed on the page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm not filling in "author=" with the standard "| noauthor=" is because fairly soon, the header will be changed so that empty author values just do not show up. It's entirely fine to fill in the "noauthor=" parameter, but I'm just refraining from doing it to keep Pathosbot from having to regex on more template (which I realize is a drop in the barrel compared to the ~35,000 or so pages using it) but also to get me used to not using it when the change is made.


 * If you don't like the template, bring it up on WS:S. We every now and then have someone object to it.  I'm just executing the general WS consensus that we should have header on every page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the new design. I might tweak the cellpadding, though, to add a bit more space between the border and the text (I'll play around with the design to see if it looks bad or not). Would it be worth having links go to the author page of each judge who wrote an opinion? That way people could quickly discover which court cases a SCOTUS judge weighed in on very quickly.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. If you want any help, let me know.  I'm curious as to what issues you think might show up with linking to the author pages (I can't think of any, but that doesn't really mean anything).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we focus on perfecting the template first and what we want to see on it before changing any more cases over to this template. I mean if we are going to make changes to the template soon then I say we should wait a few more days to get the template sorted out in how we want it to read. -- Wabbit98 6:47pm, 13 December 2006 (PST)

Hi! should go on the talk pages of the works, not on the page itself. See WikiProject. Thanks. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Influential Books
This portal is still in it's baby stages. My goal is not to provide a subjective list but rather an objective list based on the affect each book has had on the world. For instance, The Origin of Species revolutionized biology, leading to the creation of many new fields of study, and the Communist Manifesto had a large part in the Cold War and the spread of communism; no one can really refute the influence of books such as these. Other books may be more subjective then others and these should be removed. My hope is to have active discussions on the talk page which users discuss these things. If you think a book is not worthy of the list, join the project and voice your opinions. Pbarnes 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS work on various Wikis
Hey Metal, sorry your idea here is getting such a poor reception. Eventualism usually works out quite well, but it's difficult when there are two resources and only one space for linking in the silly template. I like your idea of changing wikipedia's redundant findlaw links in the ext links section to source where there are cases here already. I'm interested in helping with the Wikiproject here, too. I'm too busy to contribute much to even WP right now, but I should be here more in the future to help out. Cheers!--Kchase02 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term
In case you have not known this, please visit American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term at Meta where I have prepared a petition to the United States Congress. This is based on your talk at Possible_copyright_violations.--Jusjih 08:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. Your edit did not stray from what you meant. At English Wikipedia, I have some talks with w:User:Lupo about the American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. By the way, I would like to ask you if it is really a good idea to gather Wiki site usernames when the petition is finalized? I think that it may not be good enough as many nicknames may not be powerful. If so, using http://www.petitiononline.com/ may still be better than gathering signatures at any Wiki site.--Jusjih 11:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message again. To protect the privacy of Wiki site users who do not want to link their real names and usernames, I have cautioned people not use use my planned discussion area to disclose their real names against their own wishes. I hope that people will go there to discuss the content of the petition, but I am unsure why so quiet. Probable reasons may include being too busy elsewhere, including administering other Wiki sites, unwilling to register usernames at Meta, and possibly more.--Jusjih 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The petition is active now. When visiting Meta, you will find the link to the signature form.--Jusjih 15:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Denormalization
Hello metal lunchbox. Please do not remove parameters from pages, [ as you did] on Author:William Paterson, even if there is no value for them. These templates are "normalized", which means that they are used exactly the same way on every page. This makes it very easy for a bot to make automated updates or edits, and makes it easy to create a new page simply by copying the format of an existing page. :) — {admin} Pathoschild 22:29:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

United States v. U.S. District Court
Thanks for putting in all of the work on these Supreme Court text files. I have long wanted a text companion to this page I started. I was wondering if you would consider changing or modifying how you put the wikisource link on the wikipedia page. I would propose using the notification icon  instead of/in addition to the  link you are currently using. I have read the comments on the project page. I first stumbled upon wikisource after noticing the icon on a wikipedia page. It jumped right out at me, so to speak. The better we inform others of the availability of wikisource material related to the articles they are reading, the more informed the reader will become. That seems to occur best if they notice the wikisource icon sooner rather than later. Sometimes people just don't linger on a wikipedia page long enough to absorb all of the quality information. Its a tag that has more eyeball grabbing power.Jmcneill2 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Message to talk page
Hello,

Message should be added to the talk page, not the user page. Regards, Yann 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs Wikisource
I am glad you said this now (before I finished transferred all the arias to here). Those arias were originally from Wikipedia and I transferred them here, they are many more in there. This is based on our (active members of Project opera) discussion in Wikipedia:Project Opera that arias will have to be transfered to Wikisource. I will open this discussion "again" in our project forum. If they better suited there, I will transfer them back. - Jay
 * Is it acceptable if I removed the commentary and leave the aria (original text) without the English translation? And when you said it is “home to source material as it was originally published”, do you mean that only the entire libretto (libretti) is (are) acceptable in here? I posted the issue in Wikisource:Scriptorium, we can further discuss there. Thanks - Jay

CSRT Summary of Evidence memo for Abdul Ghafour, Captive number 954 moved to CSRT Summary of Evidence memo for Abdul Ghafour
You moved CSRT Summary of Evidence memo for Abdul Ghafour, Captive number 954 moved to CSRT Summary of Evidence memo for Abdul Ghafour with the edit summary "Other similar pages are named like this".

Over on the wikipedia I was challenged over naming some articles about Guantanamo captives names like Abdul Ghafour (Guantanamo detainee 954). My correspondent argued that even if some disambiguation was required, the disambiguation I had chosen was overly precise.

I'll put a summary of my explanation for the longer names over on Talk:CSRT Summary of Evidence memo for Abdul Ghafour. Would you please read it, then offer your view as to the best names for the articles about the Summary of Evidence memos for these guys?

Thanks! Geo Swan 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times/Sporting Intelligence
One of the sub-headings for this article has "Dispute as to whom is the Victor." This should have "who" since it is the subject in a noun phrase. Can you check the original to see what it really is, and if it is indeed "whom" mark it (sic!). Such a grammatical error seems uncharacteristic of the NYT. Eclecticology 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Active?
Are you still active on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases? I have some questions. stephen (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)