User talk:Raeky/Archives/2009/June

In God We Trust

Your opinion does not represent that of the Federal Reserve Bank either . Because I consider it illegal , I cannot do it , but I do not think that you can state common practice contrary to the published policy unless you have successfully redeemed such a note at a bank . I will direct an inquiry to the Federal Reserve . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From studies like mine and others done at Where's George? we have a pretty clear idea of what they will and will not destroy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not have any examples of bills that have the motto stricken . Also , the bills on which the text of the bill is obscured by dark ink were all rejected . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In trying to determine why the bills defaced in light ink passed and those defaced in dark ink failed , I reviewed the fitness guidelines once more . The fitness checking is done by a machine , and the lighter inks might pass for discolouration . I already sent the previous inquiry to the Federal Reserve ; the response may clarify matters . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They won't respond, the WG? community has asked for specifics countless times. I'm going to object to the wholesale removal of the entire section you deleted, modification of the wording maybe would be acceptable but NOT wholesale removal. And yes, ask ANY lawyer, marking it out will be constitionally protected free speech. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that you are defending is a completely uncited and highly extrapolatory legal opinion . I am willing to leave it if I am allowed to add my own completely uncited and highly extrapolatory legal opinion : « It's very likely marking out the word "God" on currency is sufficient enough of a defacement for it to be declared unfit for recirculation according to the FRB's fitness standards . » . Otherwise I must object to its inclusion until it has a citation from a relevant court case . I am not alleging that marking currency in private is illegal . The issue ( and the point of the law , I believe ) is making a note unfit for circulation and then redeeming it for value , essentiàlly forcing the Federal Reserve to replace an otherwise healthy note at its expense . --Frank.trampe (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if the wording is worded that marking out the motto or modifying it could lead to the bills destruction, I object to it being worded that it is anyway remotely legally actionable or prosecutable, because it's not. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for the purposes of the article whether you think that it is legally actionable or prosecutable ; I just object to including this opinion in the article in absence of evidence . ( For other purposes , I do care about your opinion , though . ) --Frank.trampe (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I object to any wording making it sound like you could be prosecuted for doing so, wording saying it's perfectly legally may be a stretch, but so is saying it's prosecutable in any way. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Therefore , I do not think that the statement ought to stand as written . All we can verifiàbly say is that we cannot find any successful prosecutions for such actions . Even saying that prosecution is unlikely puts us in the position of giving possibly flawed legal advice . I think that we would all feel somewhat guilty if some fool took our uncited legal advice as a license to deface currency and did face prosecution for it . I propose that we change the last sentence to « Although federal law ( 18 U.S.C. § 333 and 18 U.S.C. § 475 ) prohibits defacement of currency under certain specific conditions , no documented cases exist of prosecution for such action . » . --Frank.trampe (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I need your source about the Secret Service agents talking about Where's George? . I tried Google , but a search for « Secret Service » and « Where's George » was not specific enough for obvious reasons . --Frank.trampe (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

source as found on Where's George? as reference #3. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That made my job much more pleasant . I have never liked writing citations . --Frank.trampe (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Operation_Crossroads_Baker_(wide).jpg

I'm afraid Wadester, who insisted on restoration, also chased most of the restorationists off. The best plan is probably to wait a few weeks, then ask Durova (she's better at photos than me). If she says no, I'll have a go as a favour to you, but only after the nomination closes, because I'm not doing it at Wadester's behest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored and unsuspended. And I chased nobody; they chased themselves. <tongue in cheek> wadester16 06:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. wadester16 04:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hillary Clinton

You said the background noise problem could be resolved. How do I go about doing that?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Post a request on Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop for someone to denoise the image, should be quick and easy for anyone with the proper software. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

POTD Notification

POTD

Hi Raeky,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 25, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-07-25.