User talk:Newyorkbrad

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with several aspects of your analysis. I could say more here, but I hope that Jim649's record going forward will speak for itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. As I said, I hope Doc future record proves me wrong, but wiki history isn't supporting that. PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Lawyers on Signpost

Signpost had a brief mention of this article at Lexology, encouraging corporate lawyers to edit Wikipedia on behalf of their clients. I would have thought that a lawyer representing his client who did NOT put his client's interests above Wikiapedia's (e.g. NPOV), while editing here would be committing a violation of legal ethics. Any thoughts welcomed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and a platonic apology

Thanks for your courteous responses. So far, Burnett and Marshall's introductory essay as captured in part at Amazon, Foreign in a domestic sense (my copy is in the mail) does much to reassure and calm the bickering spirit among us. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. The anthology's essays are paired to examine several facets of each element studied.

By my reading, much maligned of late, -- according to Burnett, there IS scholarship (inconclusive) supporting Bkonrad -- just nothing for his dismissive personal attacks; I wonder why he does not appeal to the scholarship as you did? p.19: reflects my understanding from my previously cited sources -- which Burnett says is inconclusive: "Supporters of the compact theory insist that the adoption of the Constitution of Puerto Rico was itself a sovereign act of the people of Puerto Rico and, as such, that it effected a transfer of sovereignty from Congress which Congress may not rescind." And later,

"This debate continues unabated." -- among scholars -- So the issues surrounding Burnett's judicially "unincorporated" colonialism requires a nuanced narrative to write in both sourced views, rather than summarily reverting entries without sourcing --- if we were to take Foreign in a domestic sense as our guide for the WP article, as Newyorkbrad suggested, or did you? When I point out an editor is using snippets without sources, the answer is that my using direct quotes and linked sources is 'snippets'. You may understand that I am not sure what you wrote recommending 'Foreign in a domestic sense' to me.

As you may have determined, I am from the wrong side of the "digital divide" -- I have not figured out how to wiki-fence to effect, -- frustrated by endless non-sequiturs -- Subject: extent of US federal republic: DC in US jurisdiction since 1790s, directly governed by Congress, has not a population in the federal republic until it has an elected self-government and a delegate in congress, 1972 -- Nonsequitur: I said DC was not in the US until 1972 ? -- and generally, misstating of my views as strawmen -- but I cannot tell you how grateful I am to have sources to explore rather than personal attack -- the research is 60% of the joy at Wikipedia as a hobby. I fear my last at "unincorporated US territories" in trying to meet Bkonrad-0uw did not measure up to your standard. I may be artless but I am not blind to the difference between the two of you on the page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Candidly, I think it might be best if you focused on another topic area for a couple of weeks, as some of the discussion on that talkpage is getting a little too heated for my taste. I'm glad to answer any more questions you might have about the sources. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SCotUS naming standards

Hey Brad, I responded to your note on my talk page. --Bertrc (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How would a gun designed by a lawyer work?

Answer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No comment. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Oops, when I reverted your edit about the sitting schedule last month, I completely failed to notice your edit was to a quotation in a {{cite web}}, so my edit was based on sense and not form. This morning I looked at it again and realized you changed a quotation, and on that basis reverted it. Just wanted to apologize for not noticing that last month and therefore basically making the same edit twice for different reasons. jhawkinson (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are right that we can't edit a quotation, but what I recommend is that we rephrase and drop the quotation. What's stated on the court website technically isn't correct; for at least the past 15 years, the practice has been as I've described it (four judges go to Puerto Rico and sit in panels for four days, while other judges sit the same week in Boston). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my concern with your edit last month. The judges who hear the cases in Boston are not a single "panel" proper, bceause multiple different 3-judge panels hear cases in Boston during the same week. The same is true in Puerto Rico. E.g. in March, Lynch, Torruella, and Selya sat on March 4 and Lynch, Torruella, and Lipez sat on March 5. Those are two panels. So it would not be correct to say "one panel" sat in PR. If you want to rephrase and drop the quotation, I have no particular objection, other than to make sure what is said is correct. I reverted your first June 23 edit because it was incorrect (on the definition of a panel), and your second June 23 edit because I (belatedly) realized you edited a quotation. I have no opinion on the spirit of your edits, my objections were to technical accuracy and form. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Away

I'll be mostly offline for the next few days given the US holiday. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Note on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision

S-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y. Enjoy the 4th. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC).

WMF employee joking about burning a wikipedia editor alive

I can't see how this is acceptable. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51423#p51423

1. wikipedia-en-admins on 26 June wrote:

01:12 < TParis> Ironholds: You silly guy 01:12 < TParis> You gotta revdel the edit in the middle too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =561596433 01:12 < TParis> *shakes head* Can't ever give you OS tools... 01:15 < Ironholds> TParis: oh, sod off. Kiefer needs his rubdown. 01:15 < TParis> Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there. 01:17 < Ironholds> only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter.

I'm pretty sure making lethal threats, even jokingly, on wikipedia is grounds for immediate blocking. I'm also pretty sure that doing this in an wikipedia admin IRC channel is grounds for immediate de-adminning. I'm fairly certain that the WMF doesn't condone this type of harassing behavior by its employees.

Your thoughts? TalkingToBrad (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)