User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Mar

Secret pages

TLDR; can you provide a short summary of that rejection? It's seriously longer than some of the articles I've written. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It was close to the length of my BSc literature review for my dissertation - close to 4000 words. Good work! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the request for arbitration may be accepted after all—see the latest arbitrator votes and my most recent comment—in which case my voting statement is more-or-less moot anyway (although I hope people read it and it provided food for thought). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

NTL;DidR :P I hope more arbitrators took the time to articulate things in such a fashion. It makes for a very clear, beyond-any-doubt, understanding of what is being said. Thank you for doing it.--Cerejota (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your whatever

Sorry for using you in the edit summaries on AN twice, but I'm totally confused about what you have to do with anything. Looking at your edit history we have almost nothing in common through my user name, although I do occasionally edit Puerto Rican legal biographies (and cricket players) using my IP, and I watch US Supreme Court cases, but not usually US Supreme Court judges. If I think of an RfC on you, it means I've been injured, and I'm bored, so try not to take it personally. If I owe you an RfC for past wrongs, let me know, and, again, if I get injured, and I'm bored, and have cabin fever, I'll be sure to get it going. --KP Botany (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In voting on the MZMcBride arbitration case, I commented that once in awhile I've signed a guestbook page or played "find the secret page" myself. A couple of sentences from my comments were quoted in the ANI discussion as justification for the existence of such pages, so someone sarcastically said "I guess this means we'd better file an RfC on Newyorkbrad" or such like. I don't think I'm really actually being accused of having done anything (other than being long-winded in my comments), but if anyone disagrees I'm sure I'll hear about it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the user is really pushing hard for the RfC, so watch your back. Once is a joke, twice is, well, it seems to have more intent than that.  ;) --KP Botany (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I shall have to take my chances on that one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ty.

Thanks for the speedy, i know the dude in real life and he's a dick (Generic Non Offensive insult) , Have one of these on me :p

File:DSCF4361.jpg

mczack26 speaktome 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) has Given you a free beer of your choice to wiki drink. This user advises you don't get to wiki drunk or you could get a wiki hangover.
See WP:FREEBEER for more info

Thanks for the beverage. In terms of dealing with him on-wiki, better to ignore him than call him names. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is now open for business - let's get it organized and outline our tasks! bd2412 T 16:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Brad, belated post holiday thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here, but I wanted to tell you how honoured I was to get your support. WereSpielChequers 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider editing the injunction

I know that the Arbcom is close to the decision, but User:Kendrick7 continues to link years (including reverts of others), and then claiming immunity because he has been linking "dates, not years". Please consider revising the injunction to say "chronological items" as I described here. I would rather this minor change take place than more drama at some Administrator's Noticeboard page (meaning that I am leaning toward reporting said user because I have already asked him to stop his activities but he has continued). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix sourcing

Hi. Please see the bottom of Talk:Saxbe fix#Lead mention of 'no fix for Supreme Court appointments' regarding whether you can supply additional sourcing for one of the changes you made last night. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my books on this in front of me, and my edit was based in part on my recollection of what was reported at the time (I was just started in law practice and was following the appointment very closely). As far as I know, Bork was pretty much the front-runner for this appointment from the time Justice Powell's retirement was announced. However, feel free to delete the claim for now until I have an opportunity to return to this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the response. It's good to know even the most esteemed editors among us sometimes use personal knowledge in articles ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:NYB

On a light note...you often are called NYB by abbreviation, so I looked up User:NYB on a whim. It's quite amusing, and to think that if WP:NONCON becomes policy (see proposal, such pages will go the way of WP:BJAODN (not that there's anything wrong with that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.48.164 (talk)

Another choice would be look into usurping that account? Indulge your 'poetguy' side? (j/k) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think "NYB" was coined when I started working as an Arbitration Committee Clerk and needed initials for the open cases template. At the time, someone contended that the initials were too wide to look good in the template, but being skilled in the citation of precedent from my experience as a real-world litigator, I was able to point out that in a proportionately spaced font, the initials of one of my predecessors, MGM, were even wider. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant.
This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

You said you'd welcome comments on taking the case. I don't feel comfortable about posting on that page (try to avoid drama as much as possible!) so I thought I would drop you a note here.

I see an editor who sometimes acts rashly and who does not react well to criticism. (Admittedly these two traits do not go well together.) I also see an editor whose heart is in the right place and who is willing to improve. I don't see any abuse of the admin tools.

Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You may already know, but FYI, Aitias seems to have retired. I would ask the usual motion be proposed with regards to where an admin has retired in the light of controversy surrounding his administrator status. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, there may be no usual motion, but you know what I mean, hopefully. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No motion would really be necessary if this is what winds up happening. See discussion of last proposed principle and the Jossi-related items on the proposed decision page in the pending Scientology case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. If he still has them, I'm hoping he will not use his tools while I try to talk to him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to clarify what I meant here - awaiting your response. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)