User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Dec

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

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite

Hello Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look at this after the ArbCom election is over, if there is still time. Thanks. (I know no one may read this response, but I need to post it for the archival bot anyway....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

I have a doubt regarding Special:Contributions/Protozoan and Special:Contributions/TheSmuttyProfessor that they are sock puppets. Quoting:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pirate_Party_of_India. The Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting_a_CheckUser is little confusing, where should I request for a Checkuser? --JPF (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a genuine emergency situation, the best procedure is to fill out a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for quick reply:) its nothing urgent, will go for that! --JPF (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabe's question

You probably figured this one out, but Gabe's question is about you Hot Stop (Talk) 04:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I actually just realized that last night, while I was in the process of formulating an answer. I'll respond to the question, both as a generality and in terms of the specifics, later today. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope. And you didn't either until after he closed. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realise NYB had helped to block Peny until after the close. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And you felt the best manner of discussing this was asking a thinly veiled "hypothetical" question to Brad and 20 others not involved? Hot Stop (Talk) 13:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

You have been mentioned at WP:AN (not by me). Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've posted a comment responding to the mention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hank O'Day

I saw your comment in one of the talk pages I watchlisted. It's possible that O'Day can become an FA, but it would take probably months of work as many sources about him are not online. The sources that do mention him online or in recent books are mainly passing mentions type stuff, especially his role in the Fred Merkle controversy. Deacon White will be just as hard to write but Jacob Ruppert shouldn't be that difficult to make it to FA considering there is tons of sources about him and the Yankees. Thanks Secret account 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied on my talk, Brad. I am interested in this. I'll post a mention on the umps task force talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened on the umps task force talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that there will be a fair amount of additional information about O'Day becoming available online in the upcoming months as a result of his HOF election. I also have access to the New York Times archive and some other sources, as well as a couple of hard-copy sources. If my schedule breaks right, perhaps I will be able to spend a few hours in the famous library in Cooperstown as well, though I can't guarantee that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
That would be great! I'll try to help get the ball rolling on this, but right now I am also trying to see my Lions win in Green Bay for first time in my life. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Material on people elected to the Hall of Fame in my experience is strongly hit or mess, there might be some material coming on O'Day before the elections, but I doubt it would be on new books and such. Out of all the sources online, The Sporting News archives is probably the best help. It's under a paid subscription here, and honestly not worth the price of $20 a month as their Sporting News archives is like the only useful thing about that website, and it's owned by Google. Cooperstown library is your best bet with O'Day, umpires, even now don't get the recognition they deserve in source. Secret account 02:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think NYB might be right that in the coming weeks some features on him will appear, especially since so few umps get elected. I wonder if Sports Illustrated ever did a feature on him. Go Phightins! 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think O'Day predates The Sporting News and Sports Illustrated. I will want to check whether he's discussed in one of the early books of umpire interviews, though he may predate even that. Incidentally, the upside of picking a somewhat obscure figure to write extensively about, in terms of Wikipedia's educational mission, is that we would actually be presenting newly available information online that people can read, rather than just repackaging what they can already find. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's his SABR bio, which links to some sources: [1]. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Half the biographies SABR has are complete badly sourced garbage I wouldn't use as a source. That one however, seems fine for use considering it was mentioned or came from a well-known book from a respected author, see the source below. With The Sporting News, it was baseball only publication from 1887-1960s so O'Day should be mentioned plenty of times, so it is a good place to start. Sports Illustrated predates O'Day career. Secret account 05:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Also I find it very interesting that you have an interest in baseball. We can always use more article writers in that area, especially someone with your expertise. I could be of huge help if needed, considering that is my main topic area. Thanks Secret account 06:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I definitely have an interest in baseball, although thus far my baseball-related editing has just been gnoming (in fact, I haven't done much mainspace at all over the past couple of years as I've been tied up with adminnish/arb stuff), though I've been working to change that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll do what I can to help out as well. fwiw, tried questia, nothing aside from a few general books on the era and Merkle, so just passing mentions. Wizardman 03:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DC Meetup #33

December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill [talk] 14:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What MZMcBride said. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oversight problem

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Received and responded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation

1) "No one has come back to me in the past few weeks and told me that the very limited caveats to my close were causing any sort of trouble"

Not exactly true. I raised a concern on 12 November, that you completely ignored. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Noted, but your concern was discussed on the mediation talk page, in the section set aside for discussion of the closure. No one but you perceived any sort of a problem, although you were roundly criticized for POINTy and disruptive behavior.
I have spent much of the day dealing with your questioning and overemphasis on this issue, and you have exhausted my patience. Any further discussion of this or any related issue will have to be with someone other than myself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you mean here, as we never discussed the issue above during mediation, except to discount the "avoid-dance" as an unworkable non-solution. We never discussed User:Tvoz's reverting and avoiding within 48 hours of your "close". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again, stop dragging my name into your obsessive misrepresentations and carrying-on about this. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So, when I tried to discuss the caveats with you two weeks ago you completely ignored me, now you are saying you will not respond to me again in this regard. You never discussed your closure with me and now you are refusing to ever do so. Perhaps this is yet another good reason to overturn your closure and recuse yourself from the mediation, now having been insulting and rude to the filing party of a mediation case which is still open BTW. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify, are you asking me to not post to your talk page again, your request is a bit nebulous. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

2) "another administrator warned that you could be blocked for disruptive editing if you did not stop."

Yeah, and that admin, Fut.Perf. was involved in the content dispute and mediation, having provided evidence and !voted, so any block from him would have been inappropriate, no? Also, the issue that FutPerf wouldn't let go was over two edits I made more than a week before he threatened to block me, which would have been a stale and inappropriate block, no? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you want a wholly uninvolved opinion here, GabeMc? I'm just a talk page watcher here, but your behavior is coming across as obsessive to the point of badgering. Seriously, three further comments/queries after NYB declared his part of the dialogue had ended? Please, just let it go. At the very least, leave NYB alone for pity's sake. alanyst 03:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop, but really, is it best practice for NYB to refuse to discuss a mediation with the filing party of the mediation? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
You do realize you just committed to stop and immediately continued to pursue the subject in the very same sentence? alanyst 03:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediator's view

In spite of the distractions, I think there remains some potential for fruitful discussion regarding the caveats in the closure. I'm particularly thinking here about "avoiding unnecessary mid-sentence use", which Gabe has raised concerns about. I am willing to lead this discussion if Brad would rather disengage. This is provided in the event that there is sufficient continued interest in this aspect of the case to support the mediation process. Otherwise, the results stand.

Whether Brad was too "involved" to have closed the RfC is a non-issue. He was unanimously approved as closer, and I am not aware of any concerns being raised about him during the whole course of the RfC. Trying to disqualify him on a technicality after his decision was rendered is a non-starter. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are significant concerns, shared by more than one person, concerning the substance of the closing, I'll be glad to engage in a reasonable discussion of them. I would prefer to do so a few days from now. This will allow GabeMc some time to hopefully regain his sense of perspective, will allow GabeMc to shepherd Imagine (song) on the main page three days from now without distraction, and will be after the ArbCom election is over so that I will have a bit more time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Brad, Gabe has asked me to weigh in regarding midsentence use, so I'll just say that, while I appreciate the thinking behind it, the caveat strikes me as undesirable, against the spirit of free-flowing prose. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rothorpe. --Lukobe (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Free-flowing prose trumps, not avoidance for avoidance's sake. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn’t want to see cropping up the sort of elegant variations of which journalists are fond, “the mop-topped quartet” or whatever, by way of euphemism.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I will just say that I see no reason to avoid anything mid-sentence or anywhere else, and any caveat that imposes that goes against the spirit of every vote cast in favor of lowercase. We should avoid only things that are grammatically incorrect, and what We have Just spent months of our lives establishing is that lowercase is NOT incorrect. The caveat also fails to mention what the criteria for an "unnecessary" use is, and who gets to determine what meets those criteria. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As indicated above, I'll be glad to return to discussing this issue in a few days. At that time, I will be interested if anyone can point to specific instances where the issue that's being raised here has actually raised issues in editing articles, as opposed to a more theoretical concern. In the meantime, I can emphasize that the overall result of the RfC/poll was clear, and my comment was not by any means meant to overshadow or supersede the basic result, nor do I think that anyone (on either side of the discussion) could reasonably read it as doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to comment (having been drawn here from your ACE Question page), as someone previously uninvolved and encountering the RfC closing ‘cold’, that any considered interpretation—but fairly obvious, to my reading at least, in the context of the principal point—would qualify it according to the concerns enunciated by the mediators regarding “constrain[t of] prose and “astonish[ing]” phrasing. In other words, it struck me merely as a suggestion to avoid unneccessary irritation of those readers who might expect (or even prefer) to see the capital T; I don’t see how it could be read as imposing a “rule” contrary to the intent of those remarks, and indirectly contradicting the main thrust of the summary. That said, I rather suspect the qualifications implicit in the recommendation would limit editors’ opportunities to act on it, but those who’ve had frequent occasion to compose sentences mentioning the band by name will be in a much better position than I to say just how much—while some editors might even welcome the challenge! Anyway, that’s my two cents’ worth … back to my ACE reading.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ping. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's reopen the discussion in an appropriate location in the mediation or the RfC space. Could one of the mediators, or another party, please do that and post a link here. Please note that I'll be offline much of the day today and tonight due to some pre-holiday commitments, but should be able to respond to anything posted there by tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Holiday Party and Wiki Loves Monuments Exhibition

Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't make this event, but hope it was fun. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally

... responded on my talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read the thread and the education pages. I frankly had not been at all familiar with the level of concern about these activities. I have no brilliant insights about the issues, but will continue to think about them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Domi arigato, Mister Roboto. Duly disambiguated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Vote count

Just a quick note: are you sure the latest vote count in the ARB request is "(0/4/0/3)"? My impression was the "3" was already meant to include your earlier comment, which somebody [2] must have interpreted as a decline in advance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right and have changed it accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of vote counts, damn Brad. 89% support. I guess you must be doing something the community likes! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    With the Wikipedia community being thousands of users strong, and only 20 users or so running and only 800 users or so voting vote counts means next to nothing. Users elected to the Committee are not necessarily the best of the best, they are the best of a very limited number of the candidates, and in the opinion of a relatively small number of voters. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.122.192 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    Was coming to say congrats, that is a pretty solid show of support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    arb4lyfe Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed. Congratulations (and, to some extent, condolances) on receiving such strong support from our community. — Richwales 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    You're the Ronald Reagan of Arbcom. Go Phightins! 20:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    As expected :) — ΛΧΣ21 21:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well deserved. Can't say I always agree with you, but I appreciate your consistent thoughtfulness, ability to balance both the big picture gestalt of Wikipedia and the situation at hand, and the skill with which you succinctly explain the reasoning behind your decisions. NE Ent 20:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • While I'm certain your reelection surprises absolutely nobody, I'd like to congratulate you on the incredible support you have gotten. You're obviously doing something right. I look forward to working with you again. — Coren (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank yous

To Beeblebrox: Thank you very much.
To 71...: I will do my best over the next two years to remain humble and think daily of the thousands of editors who didn't vote for me and have never even heard my username.
To Writ Keeper: No comment on that link, I think.
I meant it in a good way! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
To Go Phitins!: Um, not sure about that analogy either. But I'll do my best to promote a sound defense and to cut Wikipedians' taxes.
I meant popularity wise...but don't worry, read GHWB's lips, no new taxes. Go Phightins! 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
To Hahc21: Thank you.
TO NE Ent: My special thanks to you, for being the first one in this election to praise me for succinctness, of all things.
To Coren: It'll be good to work with you again as well. You can start by finishing the report you were drafting in December 2011. :)

My sincerest thanks and appreciation to everyone in the community who supported me. I may have more comments later on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • No, thank you. But the support from me and my socks comes at a price; I'll be emailing you shortly about what abuses I want you to commit. Well done, NYB, and thanks for volunteering your time and your sanity. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your addition to Supreme Court of the United States

Brad, I noticed your edit here and it is good and useful information, but doesn't that new paragraph now overlap substantially with the subject matter of the second paragraph in that section? The section contains a short paragraph that introduces the concept of Circuit Justices, then one that deals with the duties (past and present) of the Circuit Justice, then one about which circuits the CJ is assigned to, then your new paragraph which goes back to the duties (past and present) of the Circuit Justices, then the table showing the assignments. It seems a little choppy. I was trying to figure out how to merge the paragraph that you wrote into the previous "duties" paragraph, but an elegant solution was not immediately apparent. I'm also wondering, when the Circuit Justices formerly decided bail motions and habeas writs, do you mean they decided them as matters of original jurisdiction, as District Court judges (and magistrates, at least in the case of bail) do now? I wasn't aware of that. The distinction between the past and present roles is interesting; it seems to me that all of their current Circuit Justice duties are ancillary to their roles as Supreme Court justices, for example if a prisoner is about to be executed, the Circuit Justice's decision on whether to grant a stay is going to determine whether the full Court ever gets to decide the inmate's case. Although I seem to remember a case in which some lower court decided that the execution of a prisoner would not create irreparable harm for purposes of deciding a motion for a stay. I'm hoping I read that one wrong, because I never quite figured it out. Neutron (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this and I'll respond in the next day or two (I need to pull some links). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've copyedited the article to clean up the section and eliminate the duplication. Please check whether I've addressed your concerns. I still owe you a response to your substantive questions, which I'll get to asap. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Vote count

Just a quick note: are you sure the latest vote count in the ARB request is "(0/4/0/3)"? My impression was the "3" was already meant to include your earlier comment, which somebody [3] must have interpreted as a decline in advance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right and have changed it accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of vote counts, damn Brad. 89% support. I guess you must be doing something the community likes! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    With the Wikipedia community being thousands of users strong, and only 20 users or so running and only 800 users or so voting vote counts means next to nothing. Users elected to the Committee are not necessarily the best of the best, they are the best of a very limited number of the candidates, and in the opinion of a relatively small number of voters. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.122.192 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    Was coming to say congrats, that is a pretty solid show of support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    arb4lyfe Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed. Congratulations (and, to some extent, condolances) on receiving such strong support from our community. — Richwales 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    You're the Ronald Reagan of Arbcom. Go Phightins! 20:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    As expected :) — ΛΧΣ21 21:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well deserved. Can't say I always agree with you, but I appreciate your consistent thoughtfulness, ability to balance both the big picture gestalt of Wikipedia and the situation at hand, and the skill with which you succinctly explain the reasoning behind your decisions. NE Ent 20:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • While I'm certain your reelection surprises absolutely nobody, I'd like to congratulate you on the incredible support you have gotten. You're obviously doing something right. I look forward to working with you again. — Coren (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank yous

To Beeblebrox: Thank you very much.
To 71...: I will do my best over the next two years to remain humble and think daily of the thousands of editors who didn't vote for me and have never even heard my username.
To Writ Keeper: No comment on that link, I think.
I meant it in a good way! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
To Go Phitins!: Um, not sure about that analogy either. But I'll do my best to promote a sound defense and to cut Wikipedians' taxes.
I meant popularity wise...but don't worry, read GHWB's lips, no new taxes. Go Phightins! 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
To Hahc21: Thank you.
TO NE Ent: My special thanks to you, for being the first one in this election to praise me for succinctness, of all things.
To Coren: It'll be good to work with you again as well. You can start by finishing the report you were drafting in December 2011. :)

My sincerest thanks and appreciation to everyone in the community who supported me. I may have more comments later on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • No, thank you. But the support from me and my socks comes at a price; I'll be emailing you shortly about what abuses I want you to commit. Well done, NYB, and thanks for volunteering your time and your sanity. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well deserved

I know I'm only one Wikipedian, but I'm glad you decided to run, and further am glad the run was successful for you.

I've seen what being on arbcom has been for others, and I hope that such stress and negativity never darkens your doorstep : )

congratulations, and I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind words and wishes. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Brad, so glad you're still willing to subject yourself to the abuse and nonsense continue serving, as you have so ably, and that others agree that you're an excellent Arb. Thank you, sir. KillerChihuahua 23:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Congratulations and thanks for running again; while I may not agree with you always, I've always looked for your voice in any arbcom discussion that I've followed. (On a side note, judging from the numbers, it appears that the entire support for the reform party was derived from your opposes, so you now know how to get back to the near 100% of your earlier (s)election). —SpacemanSpiff 02:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Bravo! Best wishes. --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Lutefisk for you

Flatpack self-assembly fish-drying rack £375, all major credit cards accepted
Flatpack self-assembly fish-drying rack £375, all major credit cards accepted
 Krunch! Wham! Biff! Urkkk!

You're way beyond getting whacked with a wet trout. Bishonen has walloped you with a rack of dried stockfish. Better take this seriously. She wants you to know she'll send her boys next time.

Brad, I'm delighted to see the acclaim with which you were re-elected, it's totally deserved. But what were you thinking when you posted this unnecessary provocation? This glacial "I'm not gonna say, but watch me saying it anyway because I know how to express these things"? As soon as I saw it, it came to me in an absolute flash what would follow, with the inevitability of the rest of Oedipus Rex following once they'd exposed the baby in the wilderness. It wasn't like you. :-( In the equally inevitably following ANI thread calling for a Malleus block for personal attacks oh dear oh dear, Monty845 rhetorically recommended blocking several named players in the ACE thread, not including you, and asked if he'd missed anybody.[4] Yes, he had. As a mark of distinction, and because you actually pushed the start button, and because I haven't seen anybody else say a word to you about it, you're getting db's lutefisk instead of a trout. With best regards from your slave on the triumphal chariot. Man, I feel like the time I blocked FT2 [holds out hands ready for the cuffs]. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

I don't think that's fair, Bish. What Brad said there wasn't provocative; Malleus's comment was immensely offensive and Brad simply pointed that out while still choosing to interpret it in the least negative light possible (which, I should point out, would hardly be a good light even then).

I've looked in your edit history, but I didn't find the corresponding trout for Malleus after he not only directly accused the people who worked on the election of the worst possible malfeasance, but implied that electoral fraud was a given? — Coren (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I must point out that lutefisk and stockfish are not the same thing! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (much prefers stockfish)

My hope in posting that comment was that Malleus Fatuorum would see that his comment was either ill-worded or misplaced. Whatever the pros and cons of Malleus's, um, directness of expression, at the core of many of his comments there is some discernable grievance, actual or perceived. In this case, the grievance was the delay in posting the electin results, but the way he worded his gripe about the issue made his concern sound far more sinister, and I sincerely hoped he hadn't meant it that way. Frankly, I thought that by writing what I did, I might head off a much nastier reply than the one I wrote. The election officials had been working hard for a week to get the results done, and it wouldn't have surprised me if someone had said something far earthier than what I said in response to the allegation Malleus was making, if indeed he was making an allegation.

In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better for me to have ignored Malleus's comment and hoped against hope that everyone else did the same. I certainly neither anticipated nor welcomed the direction the discussion took although, perhaps in retrospect and in the words of Mr. Parker Pyne, "it ought to have been foreseen." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


— ΛΧΣ21 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— ΛΧΣ21 05:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

Child safety

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADelicious_carbuncle&diff=529102119&oldid=528816134 In the thread referenced in that link, an editor ([User:Claritas]) says that he notified Arbcom of the issue and that Arbcom did not respond. It is a matter of record that Arbcom did not respond, though not that said editor notified that body. I have some questions

1) Did Arbcom receive said notification from [User:Claritas]?
2) Do you feel that AGK's agressive message to Delicious Carbuncle was appropriate, given that, without DC, there would be been no action and children would have been endangered.

I note that this is not the first time that DC has been targetted for making wikipedia look bad, when all he did was present information that made this place better. In fact, there has been a long history of agressive and censorial actiona against DC, when each and every one of his general concerns has proved to be correct. And so I put it to you:

1)Do you accept this state of affairs?
2)What are you going to do about it?
3)No, really, what if you had a daughter? Are you going to take AGK's ridiculous posturing in defence of an online multiplayer game in preference to actual child safety?

101.118.26.92 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Although addressing this type of allegation is considered an Arbitration Committee responsibility, it is not an arbitrator task that I have personally specialized in. It is unfortunately the case that occasionally an e-mail to the ArbCom mailing list will "fall through the cracks" and not get a response, and perhaps that is what happened in this instance, although given the nature of the allegation I won't say more than that. Following the year-end transition of arbitrators, I will suggest that the Committee review its internal mail-handling procedures, as we do from time to time. I do think the Committee's overall record of responsiveness is better now than it has been in the past, but it could always stand to be improved further.
Beyond that general comment, I'm not going to discuss this type of allegation on-wiki with respect to any individual editor, nor should you ask anyone else to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A steady hand on the tiller

I am delighted to see you have retained your seat on ArbCom. Your fairness is legendary, I am glad that you are still willing to devote so much time, energy and thought to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate the kind words. Best wishes for the holidays. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Though I'm not as festive (or template-skilled) as some of my fellow Wikipedians who have littered your talk page with various fancy banners and whatnot, I wanted to express the same sentiment as them, Merry Christmas! Go Phightins! 16:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Long belated congratulations

Just wanted to say that although I'm very, very late to the party here, it was really encouraging to see that you're an Arbitrator now. I always had a lot of respect for you, and it really means something that you're not only still active, but still as level-headed and well-spoken as ever. So, please accept my belated congratulations, and my hope that you stick around as long as you can. InShaneee (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much and welcome back. (But geez, you have been away for a long time: I've been an arbitrator for five years!) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm also glad to see your well deserved success in Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind, but I recently removed the bumper sticker that had been on my user page for the past five years. I'm looking forward to working with you again. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Newyorkbrad! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


Availability note

I'll have somewhat irregular online time and access between now and the end of the year.

To-do list/aide-memoire:

Best wishes for the holiday season to all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

<snerk>
  • You're never going to resolve that objection. You know it.
  • You think you're going to write an FA and get it passed in a month? Well, perhaps if all the specialists pop in and help it along...
</snerk>
I like the blog! Risker (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. (This edit mostly to defeat the archive-bot!). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your addition to Supreme Court of the United States

Brad, I noticed your edit here and it is good and useful information, but doesn't that new paragraph now overlap substantially with the subject matter of the second paragraph in that section? The section contains a short paragraph that introduces the concept of Circuit Justices, then one that deals with the duties (past and present) of the Circuit Justice, then one about which circuits the CJ is assigned to, then your new paragraph which goes back to the duties (past and present) of the Circuit Justices, then the table showing the assignments. It seems a little choppy. I was trying to figure out how to merge the paragraph that you wrote into the previous "duties" paragraph, but an elegant solution was not immediately apparent. I'm also wondering, when the Circuit Justices formerly decided bail motions and habeas writs, do you mean they decided them as matters of original jurisdiction, as District Court judges (and magistrates, at least in the case of bail) do now? I wasn't aware of that. The distinction between the past and present roles is interesting; it seems to me that all of their current Circuit Justice duties are ancillary to their roles as Supreme Court justices, for example if a prisoner is about to be executed, the Circuit Justice's decision on whether to grant a stay is going to determine whether the full Court ever gets to decide the inmate's case. Although I seem to remember a case in which some lower court decided that the execution of a prisoner would not create irreparable harm for purposes of deciding a motion for a stay. I'm hoping I read that one wrong, because I never quite figured it out. Neutron (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this and I'll respond in the next day or two (I need to pull some links). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've copyedited the article to clean up the section and eliminate the duplication. Please check whether I've addressed your concerns. I still owe you a response to your substantive questions, which I'll get to asap. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience; I've finally had the opportunity to pull all the links I need to respond to this.
A set of references on Circuit Justices' authority and decision-making, under current practice and in the past, is contained in In-chambers opinion, an article that I recently created and am currently working on.
With respect to bail, the In Chambers Opinions reprint series includes a couple of dozen in-chambers opinions in which a Justice either granted or denied bail, and there must be hundreds if not thousands of other examples in which a justice did so without writing an opinion. One relatively well-known and somewhat recent example is Chambers v. Mississippi, 405 U.S. 1205, 2 Rapp 525 (1972) (Powell, Circuit Justice), and there are others. However, the Stern & Gressman treatise and Daniel Gonen's article both report that the practice of a Justice's granting bail has become obsolete, and there is some question whether this authority survives after the Bail Reform Act of 1984.
With regard to habeas corpus, the history is even more interesting. During the nineteenth and twentieth century, there are numerous opinions of an individual Circuit Justice granting or (more frequently) denying a writ of habeas corpus, which could be granted under the statutes of the time by a Justice or a Circuit or District Judge either in or out of court, although (as Rapp states in her introduction), no later than the 1940s the practice had developed that a Justice would refer an application for an original writ of habeas corpus to the full Court. Famous single-justice habeas opinions include Justice Bradley's denying habeas relief to Charles Guiteau, and Justices Holmes' and Stones' denying it to Sacco and Vanzetti. At times in the nineteenth century, as you speculate, it was not always clear whether a Justice ruling on a habeas application was doing so "as" a Supreme Court Justice or as a judge of the Circuit Court sitting on circuit; since the Circuit Courts were abolished, of course, that issue does not arise. For further discussion of this whole subject, I recommend Gonen's article, or Matetsky's article and the sources cited in it at p. viii. (COI note: Matetsky is me.)
Regarding irreparable harm and stays of execution, I'm not aware of the District Court decision you refer to, but Gonen's article also discusses the irreparable-harm standard as applied in stay-of-execution cases, as does Edward Lazarus in a memorable chapter of Closed Chambers.
I hope this is helpful, and I'd welcome any help you want to provide in polishing the paragraph of the Supreme Court article as well as integrating this topic into related articles: I've been working on locating unpublished Circuit Justice in-chambers opinions for a long time as one of my non-wiki, non-work scholarly projects, and I may have gotten a bit too close to this material. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I will do some work on it when I can. Neutron (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You have mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regarding a t-shirt nomination :) Jalexander--WMF 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Received and responded. ("I edited Wikipedia for seven years, and all I got.....") Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Offline

If there's a template somewhere for This editor has a nasty cold, and will be offline until he can stop sneezing on his monitor, one of my TPWs is welcome to post it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Alert me too. I hate colds! Go Phightins! 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A brief history of "the"

A revert war is developing on The Beatles. There has been a discussion on the talkpage regarding use of "the Beatles" or "The Beatles" in the article. There was no consensus in the discussion so the options were outlined, which included reference to the WP:CONLIMITED policy which says that wider community consensus cannot be overruled by local consensus. The wider community consensus, supported by the majority of reliable sources, is that band names should be written with a lower case definite article, so "the Beatles" would be the approved use ... [I] chang[ed] the article to usage of "the Beatles" (which was the longest standing usage in the article until editors had begun to introduce "The Beatles" based on a belief that [a] trademark notice indicated that usage should be "The Beatles"). My action was reverted. I restored it and explained my action on the talkpage. My restoration has also been reverted. Editors involved in this issue have said they do not wish to discuss the matter any longer, so the end result could go down simply to those who fight the longest rather than those whose case is the most appropriate. This is one of those really trivial matters that Wikipedians seem to fight hardest over! I would be grateful if some neutral heads looked at this and made a binding decision so editors can concentrate on more productive matters. I wish I hadn't been asked to get involved, and would like to now disengage.(emphasis added)

Food for thought. I hope you feel better soon and please don't feel rushed by us, this nonsense has gone on for more than 8 years, it can wait a couple more days, weeks, months ... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I promise it will be neither weeks nor months before you hear from me. I've almost stopped sneezing now; one more good night's sleep and I'll hopefully be good as new. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


CURTAINTOAD! TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Newyorkbrad! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Armenian American politicians

An edit war broke out on List of Armenian American politicians. An editor is not listening to others, refuses to accept references on the talkpage demontrating that his position on politicians includes appointed office holders, Justices and sheriffs. To get his way (or to think as much) the editor has moved the article to List of Armenian American office holders without any discussion. I am requesting that the article be moved back. I can only do so with a copy paste back to the redirect which loses all history. Is it possible for you to revert this action or suggect the proper course to take here?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The procedure for addressing move disputes is explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves. (I'm sure my talkpage watchers may also be able to suggest other relevant pages; it's somewhat surprising there isn't more guidance at WP:MOVE itself.)
One question that seems relevant to me in connection with the name of the article is how parallel articles involving members of other groups are named. I haven't checked, but I assume there would be a list of Group-American politicians, or office-holders, or whatever, for lots of groups other than Armenian-Americans. Is there a practice or a naming convention for these articles? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Good questions. Certainly a direction to go. Also, thank you for the suggestion on "Requested moves". If the stalkers wish to address this further please do.....I have watchlisted the page and am now an offical Newyorkbrad stalker. (still picture him wearing dark horn rimmed glass)--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The nudge to get me looking has produced some results that I found interesting. Because of that, I am going to look even further. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Dec&oldid=1142538636"