User talk:DLJessup/Archive 01

Supreme Court templates

Alright. I think what I'll do is change back to the old templates, but instead of including them, subst them (and from now on, instead of making new templates, subst the templates and cut then down in the article). — Phil Welch 3 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

Alright. I agree: yours are better. Go ahead and replace mine (except for each Chief Justice I'd like to keep my templates there, as well as on the list). — Phil Welch 3 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Hey, I thought we were going to leave my original templates for the Chief Justice. What, are you going to go throw away all my hard work and take the credit for it yourself? — Phil Welch 3 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

I have so little idea how to respond to this, but here goes. First of all, I was not throwing away your hard work, I was using the templates you'd created as the basis for for a new set of templates which would:

1. have been a bit more compact — on some of the bio articles your link farms were twice the length of the actual text — and
2. not have required single use templates.

Second of all, I was not trying to "take the credit". It took me a while to figure out what you were thinking when you wrote that, and I think I've got it figured out. Take a look at my user page's history. The "Drafts" section is just that: a workspace where I put up information prior to exporting it out to article pages. In the recent past, I had information pasted up there for the individual U.S. Courts of Appeal, so that I could drop a completed table into the article in a single edit instead of having a partially filled in table in a live page. Similarly, for the SC composition link farm, I put up all of the templates done so far so that I could do a simple copy and paste of that block into a justice's bio and then simply delete the rows that didn't involve the justice.

In any case, I think that you've cut your nose off to spite your face: in deleting all the templates, you've destroyed much of your hard work in a nonrecoverable way. Oh, well.

— DLJessup 4 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

Supreme Court templates compaction

I've got three ideas to make the templates more reader-friendly:

1) What do you think about the idea of removing initials from the templates, so they become more compact? For example: Peter Vivian Daniel currently looks like this:

would become this:

Naturally, where there are two justices with the same last name (even when not serving together, e.g., Owen Roberts and John Roberts (or the Chases, Jacksons, Johnsons, Lamars, Rutledges, and Whites), their first initial would be included like this: O Roberts. And the Harlans would be something like Harlan I and Harlan II. This works very nicely for Presidents and other such folk.

—Mark Adler (markles) 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

2) Also, what about "nowrap"ping the years? It's protected (by whom, when, why?) so I suppose it can't be changed without some group consensus.

—Mark Adler (markles) 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

3) Finally, I think the CJ should be included on each line, even though he is at the top of the box. For example:

—Mark Adler (markles) 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

————

I have copied your post to Talk:List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition#Supreme Court templates compaction and responded to it there, as I think that that is a more appropriate place for this discussion.

— DLJessup (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Source for duty stations

I found a non-password protected source from UT Law. [1] I believe that the data is current to 2002. --Saucy Intruder 3 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

List of OT 2004 Supreme Court decisions

See User:Saucy_Intruder/sandbox. The list of decisions would be organized by broad subject matter and contain vital statistics and outside links. Any suggestions for improving the look and feel of this template? Would you be willing to help out with a portion? --Saucy Intruder 5 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been pulled in several different ways, and so I let this fall through the cracks. I just took a look, and you've already improved this immensely. A few comments:

• I don't see why you've got the table shifted over to the right edge, unless you're planning to have text fill in on the left side when the article is actually created.
• I would put the external links that you have immediately below the section heading into the table as the third row, and have it span the entire row.
• I noticed that each row had a cell spanning the final two columns. I combined the final two columns which is exactly equivalent.

— DLJessup 8 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

For your work on Supreme Court Justices.

Supreme Barnstar

DLJessup, I award you this barnstar for your meticulous labor with respect to the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. You are an inspiration! -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:54 (UTC)

• Even putting aside any work that has raised disputes, you have earned this honor - you have contributed good substantive additions to a large family of articles on law and politics, and I note that your work on federal appellate courts and U.S. presidential elections is equally worthy of commendation. -- BD2412 ^talk July 6, 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Your SCOTUS succession diagram and templates

Feel free to consult User:Philwelch for my Supreme Court templates as source material. I'd hate to see you waste your time duplicating my effort. — Phil Welch 8 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

As a show of good faith and apology for before, I went ahead and put the templates back on your user page and made templates for the Taney court. In fact, I'll finish the rest of them for you if you'd like and go ahead and put them on the appropriate pages. I'm sorry for being so stubborn before. — Phil Welch 8 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Thank you. It was stupid of me to use my user page as a workspace, and I've started using User:DLJessup/workspace as a workspace for when I'm editing other people's material, so that it doesn't look as if I'm claiming it as my own work.

I think I'll take you up on your offer to put the templates on the appropriate pages. If you need any help, let me know. Many hands make light work and all that.

— DLJessup 8 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

Circuit court biographies project

I am ready to start creating biographies for all of the current circuit court judges (and many of the former ones). Should we first create a preferred standard format for the these biographies? (preferred source, amount of detail, etc.) I have also contacted User:BD2412 and User:Saucy Intruder about this, please involve anyone else who you think may be interested. NoSeptember^- 02:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now, I am bereft of ideas for this project. If I think of anything, I'll let you know. -- DLJessup 04:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

POV on Rush Limbaugh

I'm just wondering what you found so POV about my edit in the Rush Limbaugh article? First of all, normal use of powerful painkillers rarely causes deafness, but it can be a common symptom of abuse. I was going to try and keep the bit about it being for his back, but that is simply repeating information later stated in the article. I think we can both agree that his overuse of painkillers was not because his back problems warranted them, but rather because he became addicted to them. It isn't an attack on him, and if there is to be speculation that his deafness is related to painkillers, it at least should be as accurate as possible. I look forward to hearing back. MicahMN | Talk 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No, you were correct; I screwed up. Limbaugh's page gets a lot of attention from people with agendas (both pro- and anti-Limbaugh), and "abuse" has more negative connotations than "used to alleviate his suffering of chronic back-pain", so I reverted the article by reflex. I will try to be more careful in the future. -- DLJessup 16:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that and making it much better. While I am personally anti-Limbaugh, I think it is important to be fair to the man. I think you did a fine job with that, and the article is better off because of it. MicahMN | Talk 19:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation error in Sandra Day O'Connor

In American punctuation usage, a comma or period always falls inside quoted material. (The reverse is true in England.) Given that Sandra Day O'Connor is an American, and all other punctuation within that article is using the American standard, I have re-corrected the erroneous usage. If you have questions, I refer you to CSM 5.10 "Periods should always be placed within the quotation marks, except when single quotation marks are used to set off special terms." In this situation, "Christian Nation" is not a special term. The appropriate exceptions are detailed in CSM 6.56 and 6.63. -- Cordial regards, David Hoag 22:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

First, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks:\

The Wikipedia style manual, like all of Wikipedia, can change constantly. As the page in question states, "[t]he following rules do not claim to be the last word." I could go in and change this rule, just as I could go in and change a description of the United States and say it has only forty states. That would not make it correct.

The Chicago Manual of Style -- and, yes, it's often called the CSM amongst editors because it was once called The Chicago Style Manual -- is a "higher authority" on these matters, in my opinion.

Having once been a professional editor, it is my experience that most people put commas and periods outside of quotation marks in the United States out of ignorance. Hence, any system which exacerbates such ignorance is subject to serious question and a remedy should be explored, in my opinion.

The real issue I see here, however, is in your conduct...

I will, of course, be returning the article to Wikipedia house style momentarily

In the future, your actions might not be so open to question -- and I note I'm not the only one to go there -- if you were somewhat less officious and more civil in your comments. Instead of saying, "corrected punctuation error by individual claiming to correct a punctuation error," you simply could have commented "changed punctuation to house style -- please see Wiki house style manual." In order for a community like Wiki to thrive, civility must of necessity rule out over officiousness and a personal need to feel superior. Objectivity must rule over subjectivity, both in content and in behavior.

The usage in question is in error in the United States. Therefore, your remarks, which could be considered snide by some, were out of place and rude, in my opinion. With regards, David Hoag 03:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the following, in the Wikipedia Resolving disputes section, which you might find of interest:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Considering your interest in preserving the standard of the Wikipedia Manual of Style -- which is only a "guideline" -- I'm sure you'll be as interested in preserving the Resolving Disputes standard, which is a more stringent and binding "official policy." With best regards David Hoag 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice note

Thanks for your very gracious note. Of course I read everything you posted. I'm not a take-my-toys-and-go-home sort of guy. Everybody has the right to get up on the wrong side of the bed at least once a week.

My problem with the quotations rule is that I find it neither follows the English nor the American standard. It sort of waffles between the two, which I think is more confusing than not. But I seem to be in the minority there. I posted a discussion on the usage page about this, and no one agreed with me.

My bottom-line concern, I guess, is that I think some American users -- particularly school kids doing papers -- will pick up "bad punctuation habits" and not understand why something is done the way it is done here. Best regards, David Hoag 21:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Consolidation of low polling candidates

Why have you gone through and removed all of the lowest polling candidates in all of the US presidential elections?!?! Was there some sort of vote to do this!! If not I'm going to have to suggest that all those pages be reverted!--The_stuart 13:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, first of all, I have not removed low polling candidates from all of the U.S. Presidential elections, nor even most. When I have consolidated some candidates into the "Other" category, it has been on the following bases:

• "Write-in" or other votes for "non-persons" are put in the category "Other".
• Any candidate who has less votes than the "Other" category gets put in the category "Other".

-- DLJessup 14:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, could you add talk threads posting your complaints to the specific articles you're upset about? That way, more people can get in on this discussion.

Thanks,

-- DLJessup 14:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

mystery mu

Thanks for solving the mystery. Behaviour patterns are always better indicators of identity than ascii codes, clearly! <g>. - Nunh-huh 04:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court

The following two postings were written to my main user page. I moved them here. The gentleman in question apparently couldn't be troubled to write to my discussion page.

-- DLJessup 23:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Please do not change the pages for the supreme court back. The information here should be as fresh as possible. In the event Judge Roberts is not confirmed, the next nominee can be entered. But the encyclopedia should be current. Notice that the entry indicates "pending confirmation". If he's not approved, Pres. Bush will nominate someone else, and that entry can be inserted. But the pages should not be left stale with known-to-be outdated information simply because it is pending. There is going to be a change in personnel at the Supreme Court, the only question is whom. Paul Robinson 13:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court Entries - Second Request

The way you are editing these items shows that you do not know what you are doing. Before you change something back without even bothering to look at it, it might be worthwhile to see why it was changed. Look at the entry List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States. Go to the bottom of the pages where it lists justices by chief justice. All the entries are now consistent. That was my change.

With your reversion of my change, only the from Jay through Vinson are consistent. Starting with the Warren court, the entries are all over the place. I made a change to fix this so all of the entries from beginning to end would be consistent in size. You simply changed it back without bothering to check. Why do you feel it is necessary to roll back changes so that you cause damage to entries? I have comments on my home page going back before you showed up here; I have done thousands of edits and I know what I'm doing. If you're going to make a change, understand why the change is made and try not to make things worse.

For example, on the change regarding the retirement of Justice O'Connor, while I'll grant that it may be reasonable to indicate her retirement is pending, you broke the setting for the line, causing it to split half-way across instead of going across the line. It would be helpful if you would make sure things remain consistent before changing them.

Please try to do things in a way that is not damaging to things. Paul Robinson 14:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

History of terminology

I've restored the facts you deleted from the Senior status article and made a note of sources on the talk page there.

While the fact that "senior judge" was the original designation of what since 1948 has been a "chief judge" of a circuit court of appeals is not listed in West's like the title's sudden 1958 debut in its modern meaning,one can discern this from Who's Who in America entries for judges who were the "senior judge" of their circuits,for example.I don't have the statute that retitled them "Chief Judge" handy. The 1958 transition however had an asterisk on every list of a court's "Senior Judges" footnoting to a reference to the long-reprinted note about the statute authorizing the use of this term.Before that they were called "Retired Judges",before that "Retired Judges -- 28 U.S.C.A. (paragraph symbol) 375" (the relevant statute became 28 U.S.C.A. 371,probably prompting the deletion),and before that they were footnoted in the rosters to "Retired under Act [number of Act] 1919".

I also pointed out the example of a retired Supreme Court Justice frequently assigned to sit in a non-Circuit court and never assigned to a Circuit Court that prompted my clarifying comment.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Epstein:

Thank you very much. I very much appreciate you taking the time to source the material.

I will also be e-mailing a similar comment directly to you.

— DLJessup (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election, 2000

I question the logic of your recent revert on U.S. presidential election, 2000. To quote the 12th Amendment "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed...." The DC faithless elector should not be an issue here, and 269 is not a majority of the whole number. NoSeptember 23:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Dern it, you're right. I've gone back and reverted my edit. It's going to be a very long day.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

We don't thank you enough for all the great "technicality" corrections you make, so let me say Thanks :-). Btw, the chart seems incomplete with the one EV vote missing. Shouldn't that vote be included in the Other line, or in a new Abstain line, with the total reported as 538? NoSeptember 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. As you've probably seen, I've gone ahead and implemented your suggestion. — DLJessup (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

working on it

Hi there:

Could you please provide a cite for the grafs you added to the general election campaign section in U.S. presidential election, 1980?

Thanks,

— DLJessup (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I discovered today that the site I originaly got my info from may not be on the level.

however the site refuting the first one isn't on the level either.

I'm going to work on this issue now.

grazon 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)