User talk:Sneekypat

Appellate Division

Hi. Thank you for adding information to the article on the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court. However, the list of Justices you added relates to the Appellate Division, Third Department&mdash. It is not a list of all the Appellate Division Justices throughout the state—and if you did create such a list, it would duplicate our listing for the First Department, which already has its own article.

Perhaps you might want to create an article on the Appellate Division, Third Department, similar to the one we have on the First Department? If you care to start such an article, let me know, and I'd be glad to work on it with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

I rarely do this for "thanks" sent through the Echo system (not because I have anything against it—I rather like it in fact—but because it seems to me that it was meant to be used that way and any "you're welcomes" would be better sent through it), but I'll make an exception for this one.

I had actually added that picture first to New York Court of Appeals Building (yes, we have a separate article on it because it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places and there is a lot of history specific to the building) because the courtroom is one of its interior gems—Henry Hobson Richardson designed it for the capitol, and it was moved from there almost completely. I was surprised when I found the picture on Flickr, primarily because I would not have expected the Court to allow a still photo of the courtroom while court was in session. In turn, the Flickr user told me that he was pleasantly surprised that the court officials were so accommodating, since he too had expected the exact opposite based on his prior experience with government officials.

I believe it's the only photo we have of a court, much less the highest court in a particular legal system, hearing oral arguments. Daniel Case (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Leiter page (related to Philosophical Gourmet Report)

Thank you for your help editing the Gourmet Report page. I wonder if you can help with the page on the founder of the Gourmet Report, which has been extensively revised in a way that violates NPOV by the same editor. Compare the May 16 version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=662603591&oldid=662603414. The new version, by editor Epefleeche, has cited to blogs as sources, and introduced editorial commentary. It also removed information about the subject's work and positive references. On the "Talk" page, other users accuse this editor of engaging in retaliatory editing. I do not know if that is true. I work on entries about philosophers and have no experience handling these kinds of disputes. Thank you. Philosophy_Junkie — Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added something to the talk page on Brian Leiter's entry regarding the controversy section. Given the apparently tumultuous history of the page, I'm going to wait a bit and let discussion play out a little before making any edits to that page. For the record, I'm familiar with Epefleeche's editing (we have worked productively together on many of the same pages), so I'm not going to attribute any retaliatory sentiment to that editor. That does not, of course, mean that his/her edits on Leiter's page are past scrutiny or that we always agree (we don't), only that I think they were probably made in good faith. Sneekypat (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Glad to know that Epefleeche has a good track record. He is very quick to impugn the motives of other editors though, which is unfortunate. Philosophy_Junkie — Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued help. It seems like controversy is ordinarily not mentioned in the introduction of the bio of living persons, but if we do mention it, it should be from a NPOV. I have tried to revise it with that in mind. The controversy section still needs substantial pruning and needs to be checked against the sources.--Philosophy_Junkie Philosophy Junkie (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than retype, see the note I just made on your talk page. I think perhaps trimming the entire lede back to something super minimal is the best way toward consensus at this point. Sneekypat (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although there appears to be consensus to shortern the lede, User Epeefleche insists it is Wiki policy that the lede summarize the article. The issue of shortening the controversy section still remains, so that it is not out of proportion to its signinifcance or the rest of the article. I would appreciate your input. This article proves unusually controversial compared to most entries on philosophers, no doubt due to the controversy surrounding the Gourmet Report rankings.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment at the Leiter Talk page. Thank you for your help and sorry if I violated the protocol for the lede revision.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Format

Hi. At the bottom of your RFC here, unrelated refs appear. I tried to figure out what section they are from, and how to make them stop appearing in the RFC, without success. You may be more skilled (or patient) today, so perhaps you would want to have a look if you have a moment. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I missed that somehow. It looks like Kevin Gorman beat me to the clean up. Sneekypat (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sneekypat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]