User talk:Newyorkbrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

question about administrator action[edit]

Do I have the correct page to contact you? Need neutral party to review administrator action. Italianstud-lina2 (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right page to reach me (Newyorkbrad). But please add new posts to the bottom of the page, instead of the top, to be sure that I'll see them. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited![edit]

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square
Wikimedia New England logo.svg

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter.

We hope to see you there!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

News bulletin[edit]

Stephen Colbert will be succeeding David Letterman as host of the Late Show. This will be of great interest to Carcharoth, FloNight, Newyorkbrad, and of course, Wizardman. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

hahaha...Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


I'd like to thank you for your words. You were the only person who understood what I meant. But my time here is now over. When I saw that almost all Arbitrators were actually hostile toward me I realized that I was contributing for a project where I'm unneeded. For what I could see from the words of the other Arbitrators, they prefer other kind of editors. Good luck for them and for this encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks a lot. I wish you all the best. --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you leaving, but I can understand your disappointment, and I'm sorry I wasn't more successful in leading my colleagues to understand your position. Best wishes to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(watching) @Lecen: I am sorry also to see you leaving and can understand your disappointment. Today, I think of editors whom I miss because they died, but before I mentioned a few others missing, try "just". I received good advice how to deal with arbcom decisions, one before, one after: "Hope is precious and great joy is found in living". See if it might help you also ;) - I will not forget how I met you: saying "Are you alive?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's court citation of Wikipedia[edit]

Dance notation, cited in Conrad v. AM Community Credit Union (7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2014) (Posner, J.).

Other websites cited in the opinion include, Youtube, wiseGEEK, and a Google search for "adult banana costumes." Anyone remarking ejusdem generis will be thrown off this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We should make WP:EJUSDEMGENERIS the 6th pillar and really throw a spanner in the works.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer but isn't that rather odd to be citing Wikipedia? I could see them citing her website as primary source material or her YouTube page but the Wikipedia cite is to explain a concept which she is supposed to have used thus it seems to hold some legal meaning. Are there not RS standards for such documents or am I being hopelessly naive?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court sourcealf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Whether it's appropriate for a court ever to cite Wikipedia, and if so when, are live issues. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as the primary authority for a fact that's key to the decision of the case. However, it's less controversial where judges cite Wikipedia either as evidence that something is well-known or public knowledge, or simply as background information. For links to some interested cases, see Question 2 on my Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
oy. I had no idea it was cited so often. I'm gonna go ahead and NOT take that test. Another, totally disconnected question Brad. I see a lot of people arguing here on wikipedia - we specialize in wiki-lawyering. My question is, if one were to do a study of "success" rates, defined perhaps as "convinced the other side" or "won the argument through consensus" or whatever, do you think real-life lawyers are more successful than the average wikipedian at bringing people to their side?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, but I haven't really worked with enough RL lawyers on here to know the answer. I would like to think that legal training and experience helps editors formulate logical, convincing positions and arguments, but that's not the same as saying it's true. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh wow. I have no idea how she gets hired. Clearly no dance notation involved whatsoever. Risker (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)