User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Apr

Minorpublic

Did you perhaps mean Humanpublic instead of Minorpublic in this edit? Regards, alanyst 21:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes; thank you; fixed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Puppetry proceedings proved your previous prose a prescient portmanteau. Positively prophetic! alanyst 16:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

Could you have a think about the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories article, for starters the introductory text needs to be corrected. It seems to have been written by people trying their best but the subject is related to a legal system that few people understand. First, which list are they referring to? The list on the un.org web-site is of course covered by disclaimers like all the un.org pages that the information is not authoritive and people use it at their own risk. Any list published by the Special Committee is published by the Committee and is not a General Assembly resolution / pronouncement.

Second, people should understand that Whether a territory is a non-self-governing territory or a trust territory or a UN member, is a legal issue and not a matter determined by its name being on a piece of paper. The 'list' is a office protocol and not determinative on the legal question. The only body that has jurisdiction to give an authoritive opinion is the ICJ. Daeron (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this article, but I don't think your analysis is quite correct.

The List of Non-Self-Governing Territories was created as the result of Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter, which requires that Member States administrering non-self-governing territories report to the United Nations on progress within the territories each year. Soon after its creation, the General Assembly asked the Member States to advise it what territories they administered, and a list was compiled of the ones they mentioned. Thereafter, the list has been updated and revised from time to time as the result primarily of changes of status within the territories (such as those that attained independence), the admission of new Member States to the UN, and other event.

For the past several decades, the General Assembly has adopted a resolution each year reiterating its view that only the General Assembly can determine that a territory has attained sufficient self-government to be removed from the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories (other than in the event of full independence, which is self-explanatory). As a result, as of now, it is the General Assembly that maintains the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and that list is the subject of this particular Wikipedia article. The International Court of Justice has never played a role in connection with this list, or in determining the political status of any non-self-governing territory, with the single exception that I can recall of Namibia (Southwest Africa).

You are, of course, correct that just because a territory is included on this list does not mean that it is actually "non-self-governing" as that term is defined in international law, and just because a territory is not included does not mean that it is "self-governing." There are a lot of historical and political anomolies that have developed over the years in terms of which political units are or are not included in this list, and there are a lot of perennial and frequently very sterile debates about whether entities such as Puerto Rico should be considered "non-self-governing" or not. There are also some very specific disputes about the existing and the rightful status of some of the territories currently listed, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands as the most obvious.

Separate from our article on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories, Wikipedia has articles and lists about territories or regions that can be considered "non-self-governing" or "colonies" or whatever word one wants to use. These articles are the right place to discuss what the most reliable sources describe as the current political status of each such place. But the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories is a specific list, which frankly has limited real-world importance, prepared and maintained by a specific branch of the UN for specific reasons. The question of what entities are included on that particular list as of a particular date is a historical fact not subject to dispute and our article should accurately reflect this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for you guys to get to your decision about Cla68

"It's imminent" is not terribly convincing any longer. Do you think that it adds to your credibility to keep pushing this off? Waiting for ARBCOM (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• My views on this situation have been clear internally from the beginning. I anticipate that a decision will be announced soon. I'm sorry that you don't find "it's imminent" convincing, but until a majority of the Committee has reached a conclusion, that's the status. I agree with you that it would be better if it hadn't taken this long. P.S. Nice username. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GROAN

So, another admin deleted the User:Roger Ebert page as outing. I have left them a message [1] explaining why I believe this is comletely false. I would also note that this is the first time in about seven months that this particular admin has used the delete button, and of course if he really believed he was removing outing he should have contacted oversight... So anyway, I do not anticipate getting a positive response from them, I tend to get along poorly with these semi-retired admins who justt cowboy into a situation like this. As someone with infinitely more patience for this sort of thing who has already commented on it I guess I am asking you to do whatever you think makes sense here. I really was not looking for an argument here, I thought of it more as a courtesy gesture to help those who kne Mr. Ebert editied WP to find his talk page. As an arb I'm sure you will know what I mean when I say sometimes it feels like you just can't win, there is always some completely unexpected objection from left field and a "shoot first" admin willing to help make a mountain out of a molehill. I probably should have just done it and not commented on it at all... sigh. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view, but let's see what the other administrator has to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for your view

Hello, Newyorkbrad. I've never corresponded with you previously, but I did read your guest posts on The Volokh Conspiracy several years ago and believe you would be a fair and impartial voice on a question of Wikipedia policy, specifically, Civility policy.

Would you be willing to take a look at the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:Civility and consider leaving your opinion, not as a member of whatever committee or special-tools user groups you are a part of, but merely as a reasoned Wikipedia editor?

I am of the opinion that a reasonable discussion of a content dispute is not really possible if one editor is allowed to hurl the uncivil and over-the-top accusation of "reprehensible" behavior on the other, and specifically, allowed to do so before any the content dispute discussion has been joined and the accused has had a chance, in the proper forum, to defend her/himself. It is of course unavoidable that editors will have different opinions and take different positions on matters of how best to improve the encyclopedia. But my sense is that reasonable and civil discussion will be most likely to yield a fair and impartial discussion/review of the content dispute, and that would best be done without coloring the atmosphere with uncivil accusations.

I am only asking for your view here on the Civility policy questions. I intend to take up the content dispute later, after the civility question is answered. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this when I can. (I'll have limited online time and access for the next couple of days because of family plans over Passover.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As you predicted, the incident you refer to at the start of the thread has now been archived. Would you happen to have handy a link to it on the archived ANI page? (If not, I'll take a look for it; it can't have gone far in the past few days.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to the behavioral ANI that I started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#.22The_ed17.22_and_civility. Was a bit odd that it got closed after only a few hours, and when only one editor even weighed in on the behavior/civility question re the editor I asked about; most of the other just jumped to the conclusion that the strong language (uncivil in my experience and cultural norms) was meant to invoke in the first place. And I never even got a chance to answer any questions/clarify anything in my defense after the initial opening statement; it was closed too fast. But I accepted that (quickie) decision with respect to that editor's behavior. Still, since that was so quick and such a small set of editors, I felt it worth discussing with the editors who watch the WP:Civility page. I'd still like your view on that, but I see after several days that civility "core pillar" of Wikipedia in practice is rather less than it sounds in the policy guideline, at least to my ears. Thanks for thinking about this, and willingness to take a look at the Civility discussion on WP:Civil, and consider weighing in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I would still appreciate seeing your view on the matter if you can find the time to go to the Civility Talk page and weigh in on the Civility question. I'm very interested in seeing how your view comes out on what sort of editor dialogue facilitates better content discussion between editors, who may very well have a content dispute. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay. Will review in more detail and try to comment tomorrow.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Brad. Just following up in the event you forgot. You had said you were going to take a look over there at the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Civility, just about having content discussions when (potentially perceived) uncivil actions and words are used. (not about the behavioral aspect of any particular editor; just about Civility policy.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Will.i.am, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Los Angeles (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) 18:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi Newyorkbrad! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Frank C. Newman

I recently created an article on a state supreme court justice: Frank C. Newman. I don't normally write such articles, and I was hoping you (or others so inclined) would be willing to look at it and offer suggestions and edit it and help improve it. The reason I ended up at a California state justice starts, funnily enough, with a FAC review at James Bryant Conant, which led to the James Bryant Conant Award (for educators), which prompted me to create an article for Frank Newman (educator) (back in January). I then discovered, while trying to tidying up the disambiguation issues at Frank Newman, that while we had Frank N. Newman and Frank Newman (footballer), we didn't have articles on the educator and the judge, who seemed to me to have far more potential as articles than the other two. Anyway, as I said, any comments you or others have would be much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a look. I know far more about the federal and New York state courts than California's, but I will at least do some copyediting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Does every US state have a supreme court, and/or are some more eminent than others? I wasn't quite sure where being a state supreme court justice 'ranked' in terms of how much you might expect to find written about someone. I was hoping more for a pointer towards more sources, possibly in legal/history publications, rather than copyediting, but that copyediting is appreciated, thanks for that. I found it interesting that the court convened a memorial session to remember a former justice - I'd not heard of that before. Is that a common thing for courts at that level and higher to do, or at least publish biographical articles/tributes? It reminded me of the way national scientific bodies and other learned societies will publish biographical accounts of deceased fellows/members. I was also hoping for ideas on where to flesh out things like the Jimmy Carter mention - I think details will be in the oral history source (which is long enough that I've not had time to read through it in detail yet), but my initial attempts to find out what this 'federal legislation for Jimmy Carter's human rights campaign' was referring to drew a blank. I see I've asked fair number of question here - it can be left until later (maybe at the article talk page) if you don't have time right now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, there are two separate court systems, the federal courts and the state courts. The federal courts are organized by the United States government (although they are largely organized along state lines), while the state courts are organized by each state.

Each state court system has a highest court. In most states, this is known as the state's Supreme Court, such as the California Supreme Court (formally, Supreme Court of California) or the Kansas Supreme Court. There are a couple of exceptions to this naming convention: in Maryland and in New York, the highest court is called the "Court of Appeals" (the New York State Supreme Court, confusingly enough, is a trial court); in Massachusetts, it's the "Supreme Judicial Court" (the General Court is their state legislature); and in Texas and Oklahoma, there are two highest courts, with the State Supreme Court handling civil appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals handling criminal appeals. (The top courts in all the other states handle both types of appeals.)

You can ask at one of the wikiprojects (or I can) if you wish, but my position would be that all current and former judges of a state's highest court are presumptively notable enough for an article, and that in the fullness of time all should have one. Indeed, if I were able to retire tomorrow from having to earn a living, I would have the time to create an article on each of the New York Court of Appeals' judges (there is a magisterial book edited by Judge Rosenblatt of that court that would be a starting point); and I should probably force myself to make some progress to that end anyway.

Although all state supreme courts are of equal rank, one might expect that those of larger states have more eminence or influence, and in general that is true, although there are a couple of exceptions (e.g. the Delaware courts have had and continue to have a great deal of influence in corporation-law matters).

In the federal system, memorial sessions for recently deceased justices and judges are frequent. They certainly occur regularly when a Supreme Court Justice (whether active or retired at the time of his death) dies, and quite often for Court of Appeals (intermediate-level) and District Court (trial-level) judges as well. The tributes are published, and they are often very informative and provide good (albeit, as might be anticipated, highly positive) information about the life and contributions of the deceased justice. Unfortunately, I don't believe they tributes are published online, or at least I don't know of anyplace where they are; but if you were to look at the spines of the United States Reports and Federal Reporter and Federal Supplement in a law library, you would find lots of black bands reflecting whether such memorial tributes were published. I do not know how common such memorial tributes are for state-court judges, but I will try to find out.

Another source that you might check for information on California Supreme Court Justices is the California Supreme Court Historical Society website, here.

I hope this is helpful. If I have some more ideas for you I will share them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The memorial session for Newman is recorded online at the California Supreme Court Historical Society website (it is source number 8 in the current version of the article). I'm not about to start creating lots of these articles, but it is good to know that there are lots of sources available. Many of the California Supreme Court justices already have articles, but there are a number that don't, as you can see from List of Justices of the Supreme Court of California. The New York equivalent appears to be Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals and Associate Judges of the New York Court of Appeals, though the lists don't seem to be up-to-date. I'm looking at New York Court of Appeals#Judges and would I be right in saying that the following updates need doing to the list of associate judges? (i) Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick's entry in the list needs updating since she is no longer on the court as she reached the mandatory retirement age (as stated in her article). (ii) Judge Jenny Rivera (on the list of current judges in the court article) needs to be added to the list article. I would make these changes myself, but you or someone who knows more about that court may be better placed to make such changes. Going back to California, I did find this article - would you be able to access the full version of that? The other thing I noticed was that Newman was awarded the 1991 Medal for Excellence from Columbia Law School. Would Columbia Law School have more on that medal? One final question, would you know how easy it is to get hold of freely licensed photographs of people like Newman? Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and update the New York Court of Appeals article. (Last week, I updated the article on the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department which is the next-ranking court in the New York hierarchy; I'm not sure why I didn't think to update the Court of Appeals as well, now that Judge Rivera has succeeded Judge Ciparick. There'll be another new appointment in the next week or two as well.) I will check whether I can access the article you cite when I am in my office, and I will see if anyone at Columbia Law School can furnish more information about the medal. Regarding free images of California judges, I'm afraid I don't have much information, but a post on the talkpage of Wikiproject Law or Wikiproject Courts and Judges would probably turn up someone more knowledgeable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Following up with a few more comments. (i) Were you able to access that article: Justice Frank Newman: Some Reflections by Joseph R. Grodin, 3 California Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook 165 (1996-1997)? There is one other one that would also be helpful: The Newman Oral History: An Introduction by Jennifer DeMarco, 1 California Legal History 73 (2006). (ii) I found a number of articles by Newman in that 'heinonline' database, but am not sure whether an exhaustive or selective listing of articles Newman wrote is needed, and which other databases would be best to look in. (iii) I've not found much more about his California Supreme Court work, but it seems there was a big political thing going on about the death penalty, centred on the liberal wing of the court and Chief Justice Bird. It came to a head after Newman had left the court, when Bird and several other justices failed to be approved by the electorate (the approval votes took place during the election of the state governor). I'm trying to find a good source on that - would you be able to help there? There was also some rather technical point covered here (as far as I can make out, one of the justices made a formal complaint about something and there was a big internal argument over whether the court should give up its right to handle this, as opposed to an independent (lower) court, and Newman stood firm until he was eventually removed from this review panel, or something). To what extent that needs covering, I'm not sure, would you be able to help there? (iv) There is a fair amount of coverage of Newman's human rights law work, the main bit being Creative and Dynamic Strategies for Using United Nations Institutions and Procedures: The Frank Newman File. There is also a brief mention here, and there are several pages on Newman's work on human rights abuses in Chile here. There is more, but I'm going to have to put some notes on the talk page and ask for some more advice from others as well as you. I want to discuss some aspects of this before I do some additional library research, so I know what will be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to look into some of these sources. Unfortunately, it remains the case that I don't have a great deal of expertise in California state-court history; if this were a federal judge or a New York judge, I would be able easily to identify the most relevant sources. I am not sure that some of the incidents you discuss, such as the dispute over the composition of the special California court convened to look into allegations against some California Supreme Court Justices, have been the subject of any secondary literature, outside the immediate coverage at the time in the newspapers and the law papers. We lack coverage of such judicial review panels in general; for example, one of the tasks on my to-do list forever has been to blue the redlink at New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. I will make a point of seeking references to Newman out the next time I am in the law library, which will be sometime in the next week or two, and I'll also keep an eye on the article talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill ^[talk] 20:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation

So are you going to improve the article, or are you going to let it rot forever? I get so annoyed with people who say "keep, there are clearly sources, this is clearly notable" but don't bother to back it up. Prove that there are sources and that there are notability. PROVE IT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. It would be better if the article had more references, but even as it stands, it is serviceable and not at all in rotten condition. I am one editor, with multiple responsibilities both on and off wiki, and am not in a position to drop everything else I am doing and start looking up references for any arbitrary article selected by you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

99% fancruft is not "rotten condition"? How is that serviceable? All I see is in-universe fancruft. Remove the fancruft and you have a blank page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you should find something significantly more important to worry about. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Government of Curaçao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassation (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) 11:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but in this case I meant to refer to the introductory sentences at the top of the Cassation page, and there isn't a more specific page to link to instead, so the link as I posted it is correct. (I realize I'm responding to a bot, but just in case someone were to see this and were thinking of going to fix the link....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not legitimately subject to dispute?

When did statements like "The exact circumstances of Jack's death have never been made clear in official Trek canon" become "not legitimately subject to dispute"? If an editor has challenged material, inline citations are mandatory per WP:V. There's no exemption for fiction.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In this instance, it appears that the editor has "challenged the material" based on his opinion that the amount of in-universe fictional content in the article should be reduced, rather than because he actually doubts whether the assertions in the article are correct within the "official Trek canon." I don't perceive this as an actual challenge to the accuracy of the article content itself, and this isn't a situation such as BLP where supervening considerations apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A demand for a citation is a demand for a citation, and it doesn't need to be a BLP for a challenge to be made. I sympathise with the notion that TPH goes a little overboard at time, but certainly the same can be said about DF. Whether the article needs to be deleted is certainly questionable, but a demand for sourcing is routine and not something you should be removing. My normal reaction when I see an editor revert "cn" tags as you did is to revert them and to warn them that if they remove "cn" tags again without actually sourcing the material they may get blocked. I'm politically savvy enough not to block a standing arbitrator over this, but I still view your edit as disruptive, not constructive.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think there is genuine cause for concern as to the accuracy of the information or the need for sourcing, I think you should raise the subject on the talkpage of the article and see what others think. It might be better to defer that discussion for a few days until the deletion debate is concluded, but that is up to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the need for sourcing, I'm discussing the fact that you removed citation needed tags without providing citations or discussing whether citations were possible. The flow is not "someone adds cn tags, other editors remove them, then the editor that places them has to argue that others should not have removed them." The flow is "editor places tags, other editors provide citations where possible, and discuss the rare cases where inline citations are not possible." To have a standing arbitrator act so blatantly against WP:V's demand that an inline citation is mandatory once an an editor has challenged it sets a very bad example. Please restore the tags that you removed, as your removal was completely out-of-process.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The first out-of-process action in this sequence, in my opinion, was that an editor who thought the article should be deleted strewed it with "citation needed" tags while the deletion discussion was pending. Based on his comments during the AfD, that editor made it obvious that his concerns were with notability/"in-universe" issues, rather than with the in-universe accuracy of the sentences he had tagged. In my view, this was a misuse of the citation-needed tags and as such, it was reasonable to remove the tags. If an editor were to tag one or more sentences in the article asserting genuine doubt that some statements within the article are in fact correct, my reaction would be very different.

Stepping back from the specific to the general, we all know that not every factual assertion on Wikipedia is cited to a source, by a long shot. Beyond that, despite the laudible overall goal of improving the level of referencing, we also all know that if every statement in every article had a source footnote, articles would quickly become unreadable. For these reasons, it is not possible for every unsourced statement to be either tagged or sourced, and there is a need to prioritize. The appropriate prioritization (apart from the special case of BLP and the like) is for us to focus on tagging and sourcing statements whose accuracy is actually subject to reasonable dispute, rather than on focusing on the merits of tagging for its own sake. In any event, I think we are all in agreement that more sources are a good thing, and I'm glad to see that knowledgeable editors are looking to move the article in that direction. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of that section can be cited to the appropriate section of The Star Trek Encyclopedia, which we have an article on, and is online at Google Books. The specific sentence seem unnecessary - in general, one can't prove that information doesn't exist, and this doesn't seem to be a major issue, as we don't have completely specific canon details on how lots of characters died, were born, married, or breakfasted on any given Tuesday. So I did the first and removed the second. Feel free to thank me or block me as seems appropriate. --GRuban (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In case I'm banned

Hello NYB. I'm asking this now, as I won't be able to if/when banned. I don't have (nor understand or trust) e-mail & so I wouldn't be able to contact Arbcom in April/May 2014, in that way. Therefore, would I be allowed to create an alternate account at 'that time' & use it to contact (and only contact) Arbcom? I would 'of course' immediately reveal who I was (i.e GoodDay). If the ban was repealed? I would then immediately request that the alternate account be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are banned, I will make sure that you are able to access your talkpage when you are entitled to request a return to editing. At that time, you can post a message on your talkpage using your existing GoodDay account. I have your page on my watchlist, so I will see your message and make sure the other arbitrators see it as well. Thus, there will be no need for you to create an alternate account. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

standing strong
Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people: "there was and is a human being who contributed his time and efforts to the project", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (20 September 2007, 13 October 2008)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 99th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. You spoke up in 2010, words of wisdom and understanding. - Now I miss the one who threw diamonds in the pumpkin sky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

note

re your question here, re: arbcomm page on jerusalem

my answer would be:

• nope. :-)

hope you don't mind me leaving you a note here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hi there. I left a note for anyone in Arbcomm, here at this page. feel free to write back if you wish. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a Golden Editor!

Good as gold!

Considering Gerda's recognition above, I hope you don't feel ganged–up on.You hold two of our most contentious jobs, being both an admin and an arbitrator. Nevertheless, you have gained the respect of the community and upheld a strong reputation. In recognition this and with a nod to your real–life profession, I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, and advantages of and in, the Golden Editor Award. This new award is to be presented to Wikipedia's finest and I firmly believe you fall into that category. I am grateful that I have been able to meet you and I would hope that Wikipedia is also thankful for your presence on the Arbitration Committee. Congrats and thanks for your work here, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I also do present you this userbox, and with it convey all rights, both real and personal, concerning the matter of displaying said userbox on your userpage at your prerogative. (How close was I?) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your RFA removal

 Looks like a duck to me - User:Cmach7. --Rschen7754 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• It wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not sure this rises to the level of checkusering (though I wouldn't object if someone else did), and without that I'd rather wait to see what happens next. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The behavior's the same as all the other socks, so I went ahead and blocked - I'm told that CU has proven to be worthless on him anyway. --Rschen7754 00:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize this had happened more than once before. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)