Jump to content

User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Aug

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Sorry for spamming you, but 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)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be glad to pitch in on this once I'm available again (see below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI...

DC 8 (talk)

--NBahn (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Aug,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll take a look at this when I'm available again in a couple of days (see below). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be 99% offline until Thursday evening or Friday morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about date delinking amendment (5)

Hi, I hope you're doing well. In the proposed amendment to reduce the remedy concerning John to an admonishment from a restriction, your initial comments indicated that not only would you agree to removing John's restriction, you would also bring forth another motion that might have broader ramnifications with regard to the parties of the arbitration case. Later, you said that you wanted to wait until what would now be early last week for someone who wanted participate in the discussion, but a week has passed since that "deadline", and I don't see any significant new comments made by a member of ArbCom (other than votes). Finally, in a more recent comment from three days ago, you said that although you had been caught up with other things, and that you would offer additional comments/motions "tomorrow" (now two days ago, July 28). I know that you've had numerous more important real-life and wiki obligations, but if I could know roughly when (if at all) you plan to follow up with these comments/motions, that would be great. Thanks for all you've been doing. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am recused, but I think I can still do math. There are 12 active arbs, 2 are recused, 5 have supported, and 6 is a majority, so if you either recused or supported, the motion on the table would pass. MBisanz talk 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(e.c. with Matt) Brad, Dabomb alerted me to his post here. Opinion has been expressed by Kirill and I recall one other arb that three months (and on another occasion, after the date-delinking bot has done its job – expected early September) might be a good time to review the whole matter, at the same time as the ArbCom review of the stability of MoS is to be conducted (by a Remedy whose number I can't remember). As RexxS has pointed out, the steam seems to have dissipated from the matter, and the decisive community approval for the running of the bot has surely further settled the matter and moved us further from the frayed emotions and difficult landscape that gave rise to the case in the first place. (While the absence of one party may be partly responsible for the calm, I think we've all learnt the value of civility from the case.)
On top of this is the feeling among parties I know that the editorial restrictions placed on them are not in proportion to the need to protect the project from disruption, either in scope or extent. I think this is a matter you yourself have commented on.
I know that ArbCom's wheels move slowly, since it's so clogged with high-pressure work; but I add my voice to Dabomb's—it would be great for us to move on from the case over the next few months. Tony (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Given continued incivility, here and elsewhere, for sure expect evidence to be submitted in opposition, Tony. ArbCom restricted you, inter alia, for incivility, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is still pending and I'm aware it's a priority. I have been trying to figure out an approach that would amerliorate the collateral effects of the sanctions without reopening the entire set of disputes, which I think everyone can agree would not be desirable. I hope to be posting something shortly, and I'm sorry about the delay, but I think we can agree it would be best to move toward resolution rather than another meltdown. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To MBisanz: I've already supported the motion re User:John. Is there another pending motion I've somehow missed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I lost your sig from the line wrapping due to your long, wordy, comment. MBisanz talk 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Two lines of text is not wordy. Certainly not for me it isn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you for your prompt response. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that John's case is being reviewed, but remain concerned that there seems to be no action on the amendment to revisit the sanctions on HJensen for his 'crimes' during the date-linking saga. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As you have probably seen, I have now posted a motion that would narrow the remedies against several users. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[Later note: Brad, WRT this and the next post, they might be redundant, and it's possibly faster for you to see the "Clarification" post by Carcharoth at the page in question; perhaps this has been resolved?] Tony (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Brad, I've now realised that your motion would further restrict me, in the opposite direction to the others. I am currently unrestricted WRT contributing to date un/linking issue on the project; the motion would ban me from such contributions. I do find it odd that a remedy is being made more severe for one party at this stage, and less severe for all other parties. Tony (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Indeed; that outcome would be no good at all. The blanket relaxing of restrictions should be just that: a “relaxing” of restrictions. It would be manifestly unfair and totally unnecessary for the “protection” of Wikipedia if any editor, such as Tony, had his or her restrictions increased if the motion passed; particularly after Tony has already demonstrated that he can positively contribute to Wikipedia while enjoying the liberties afforded to most any other contributor. This is a detail that will need to be tended to if/when the motion passes, Brad. Greg L (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Orrin Grimmell Judd

Dear Newyorkbrad, thanks for this. AdjustShift (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Henry W. Goddard

Updated DYK query On August 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry W. Goddard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 14:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Keep an eye on this one in the future: he's real trouble! [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Orrin G. Judd

Updated DYK query On August 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orrin G. Judd, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Modifiying your comments after people reply

Hello, Newyorkbrad! Please do not modify your own comments after people have already replied, per WP:REDACT. Thanks! --Mythdon talk • contribs 23:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline you quoted is about substantive changes that make it impossible to follow the flow of a thread or tend to distort the meaning or intelligibility of the subsequent comments. It has nothing to do with minor typographical, copyediting, or clarification fixes such as the one-word interpolation that your sharp eyes spotted my making in that particular thread.
Mythdon, in general, I think you have a tendency to focus far too much on the literal wording of rules and rulings, and less on the reasons that underlie them. This leads to all sorts of miscommunications and unnecessary confrontations, of which this is a petty example. I say this not to be critical, because at times I have very much the same fault, but it is something you should be conscious of. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, WP:REDACT does indeed forbid the edit you made to your own comment after someone has already replied. --Mythdon talk • contribs 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You have missed both of the points that I just made to you, completely and entirely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Because I really don't see how WP:REDACT allows such an edit, and I actually see the point behind it. Please do not modify your comments after someone replies next time. Thank you! --Mythdon talk • contribs 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Brad here: WP:REDACT says: "It is best to avoid changing your own comments." That does not equate to "You must not change your comments". And besides, Brad did not change his comment, he simply clarified what was already there. The clarification made the comment clearer to understand the meaning of mailing list, in this instance, which could have been confusing. Additionally, please do not revert somebody when they do this. If you really have an issue with it, leave a note on their talk page instead. Majorly talk 00:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:REDACT is a guideline that editors must follow. Newyorkbrad did not follow it, but instead changed his/her after somebody responded, and even if it is simple clarification, still robs the reply. I hope this clears it up. --Mythdon talk • contribs 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really. NYB didn't change the meaning of the comment, only clarified something that was there already to make it clearer. That is not the same as changing a comment, or deleting or adding new or changing information. And it doesn't rob the reply. None of the responses mentioned the mailing list. So what's the problem? Majorly talk 00:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Confusion for people reading the comments on the page. --Mythdon talk • contribs 00:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would there be any confusion? Majorly talk 01:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Because after people have already responded, and if the comment has been modified, people will be wondering "I just seen the comment this way a few minutes ago, why do I see a difference?" --Mythdon talk • contribs 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Most people would either not notice such an insignificant change, and if they did it would be clear from the history that it had been changed. I'm still not understanding how this is even close to a problem. Perhaps it is just you? Majorly talk 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There is some serious irony in this edit, as Mythdon changed the format of my comment in a thread where he is raising a frivolous complaint about Brad clarifying the meaning of his own comment. I laughed out loud when I saw it. UnitAnode 03:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed my comment back to normal. Please stop messing around with it. --Mythdon talk • contribs 17:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I only reformatted the comment, which is what you said was allowable under WP:REDACT. The reason I did so was to illustrate for you how your interpretation of the letter of the law -- while completely ignoring the spirit of it -- was unhelpful and unproductive. Please explain, in detail, how anyone could have possibly been in any way "confused" by Brad actually clarifying the meaning of his post. The answer is, they couldn't. Please let this drop now, as it really wasn't, in any way, a problem needing to be addressed. UnitAnode 18:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, when confronted by a street vendor shouting "look at me, I have something great to sell you," you might wander over and check out the product. If you're not buying what he's selling, just move along. It is rarely productive to argue with the barker about the color, style or quality of the merchandise. Thatcher 18:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fall 2009 Meetup in Providence?

I'm trying to schedule another Providence Meetup for the Fall. Please drop a note at Fall 2009 dates? expressing interest and preferences for dates/times. --mikeu talk 13:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL

I'm running out of cake. (thanks for your support)    7   talk | Δ |   15:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
September 12, 2009
Time: 3 pm
Location: University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Case

Hello Brad, I hope this note finds you and yours well. To the point: I noticed that several of your peers were in search of input regarding the Webhamster-Noloop case. I don't know if this is a case that should or should not be undertaken by ArbCom due to the fact that I am not particularly well versed in those matters. In my opinion there is a touch of pot/kettle consideration going on here, but again, I'm not the one who must deal with the matter. Several other attempts have been made to address the situation(s); however, it appears to have had a negligible affect. My perception has been that when others have attempted to assist in these situations, that they often feel discouraged by those who defend what I consider to be some very negative aspects of our project. While the recent Wikipedia:Civility/Poll garnered considerable input, there are some established editors who discourage warnings and sanctions of those who (in my opinion) breech these items of CIV and NPA. Personally I find many of the interactions of the parties involved to be very distasteful, but I do understand that you and your peers must often deal with such things. If it would be of any assistance, I'll offer a couple links in an attempt to address that quest for input. I hope that you may find some small value to them:

I believe that you already have been provided some other links in the request as well. Best of luck, and Cheers. — Ched :  ?  13:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your post here. It would be best if you posted this on the arbitration requests page itself, so that all the other arbitrators and the parties could see it as well. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not particularly interested in becoming involved in the case, I respect your judgment, and have posted as suggested. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to let me know. Kind Regards and best, — Ched :  ?  05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Humor warning

Dear Newyorkbrad: Your edits, as in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jake Wartenberg, have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you run the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you. -- — Sebastian 17:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reminder. Someone on Wikipedia Review once commented that I appeared to lack any sense of humor. I may be overcompensating. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)



"Seriously, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so don't make joke edits".[2] Toxic Avenger the Template Handwriter 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Thanks

Hi Brad. Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon proposal at ANI

This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Brad. List of United States district and territorial courts is at featured list candidates. Your input would be valued there, since this topic seems to be your expertise. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I did see the listing, but thanks for the reminder; I'll see whether I have any useful input to provide, especially as I just updated an entry on the list. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Nero's tryin'
ain't no lyin'
but I'm spyin'
He ain't the Lion'
These kids that try
To catch our eye
I can't deny
But do ask why?
I like the rhymes at RfA
So I'm here just to say
Older folks still like to play
When it's done - we rule the day.

Hello, Brad. I would like to remind you that RFA is Very Serious Business. Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All right. I have turned over a new leaf. For a Very Serious !Vote, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3#Support #5. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3

Thanks for taking the time to write that very thoughtful statement, even in a losing cause. I expect that it will have a depressingly small impact but still, it's important to keep trying. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing arbitration talk page archives

Hi Brad. Over on the Abd-WMC PD page, you said: "See the long discussion a couple of months ago on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests regarding blocking/unblocking protocols, which I unfortunately cannot now locate in the archives, for an example that is worthy of further attention." That archive page hadn't been kept updated. See here for the update I made (the archive bot started a new series of archive pages after Kirill re-organised the page structure). I think this is the discussion you were looking for. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

YOUR BACK!

I CANT BELIVE IT, WHEN DID YOU GET BACK?

August 2008. Where have you been? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ITN IAR

You sir, are my hero! I have never used IAR either, but feel this is a perfect case of its implementation!! — Kralizec! (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, in the ANI discussion, a couple of people have suggested that the Kennedy item fit within the regular criteria for ITN on the mainpage, so that IAR wasn't required at all. My goal was to cut through the debate by invoking IAR "if required" so that this item could wind up on the mainpage where it clearly belonged. But it's interesting to note that my posting of it on the mainpage was reverted, while Juliancolton's a little while later, which was based on his determination that consensus for inclusion had now been achieved, stuck. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You may call it "interesting" but it made my jaw drop. I do not recall ever seeing an invocation of IAR so casually reverted before, especially without substantial policy support. As much as IAR drives WP:PI-people like me nuts, it is policy. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Kralizec. That was one of the few times I've seen IAR legitimate invoked to improve the encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My speech at Wikiconference New York

For anyone who might be interested (whether because of the subject-matter or because of insomnia), a video of the keynote speech I gave last month at Wikiconference New York is now available here. The somewhat grandiose title of the talk was "BLP, Wikipedia, the Internet, and the Future of Privacy". The talk lasts about 50 minutes (excluding a few minutes of introductory announcements).

Please note that the video does not include a Q&A session that was held later in the day, in which I discussed a few topics that I didn't have time to cover in the main talk because I ran out of time. If that is posted later I will update the link.

I am sorry that I am not qualified to answer any questions about the format of the video or what software is needed to play it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is there a way to stream the video rather than download it? I'm really interested in watching it, but I'd prefer not to download it if I don't have to - If worst comes to the worst I will do though. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I have the same question, actually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Pressing the Ogg Theora link in either Chrome or Firefox does it for me.--Harthacnut (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I think the arb committee should be aware of the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion related to the Lawrence Solomon article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Raul654, William M Connolley, and KimDabelsteinPetersen on the Lawrence Solomon BLP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the discussion and will keep an eye on the situation, which I know is also being reviewed by others. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship discussion

In case you want to follow: User talk:SandyGeorgia#Saddens me to say it .... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've followed the discussion. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate and makes me unhappy. I probably shouldn't say any more, in case this comes back before the committee. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Understood. Just unsure where it should go next, and hope things calm down before someone brings it back to Arb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Aug&oldid=1141078412"