User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Resolution

Dear Newyorkbrad, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Court decision citing Wikipedia articles about Hasidic Judaism and Chabad

See Lubovitch-Chabad House of Illinois, Inc. v. Northwestern University, decided today by the Seventh Circuit. Opinion by Judge Posner and a short concurrence by Judge Bauer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would be lying if I didn't admit that made me a little uneasy, knowing we often have articles vandalized or in the middle of POV wars. I'm sure the article wasn't a deciding factor, but it still raises the bar on accountability when any US Court of Appeals uses us as a source. Dennis - 2¢ 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oy vey. What next? Wikipedia-guided surgery? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If by Wikipedia-guided surgery, you mean that a surgeon might provide patients with a list of background sources to use in learning more about their disease, and that such a list might include Wikipedia articles. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if some doctors already recommend Wikipedia to their patients. (Whether or not they should do so is a separate question.) But neither such hypothetical doctors, not the judges in this case seem to be relying on Wikipedia to guide their actions. Rather the judges simply seem to be suggesting Wikipedia as a way to learn more about a topic peripherally relevant to the case. Incidentally, Judge Posner, the author of the opinion in this case has a long history of citing Wikipedia, [1][2]. and his Seventh circuit does so far more often than other appeals courts (as of 2012) [3]. Dragons flight (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That is still true. See here for some more sources on courts citing Wikipedia, a subject on which there is now a fair amount of literature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had patient relatives cite something on they read wikipedia to me when discussing treatment options, and one of my colleagues saw my name pop up on a medical article on a smartphone as at the top it said "last edited by Casliber" which doesn't happen in the desktop display. Interesting times....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this really what y'all meant by the admin board ban?

This?. Some of the usual suspects are whipping themselves into an orgiastic frenzy because I dared to bring a matter to ANI. I was pretty sure that our understanding was that exceptions were possible if it was a matter in which I was personally involved...e.g. I am named in an ANI complaint or am in need of admin assistance in a case in which I have already been personally involved in, i.e. Gamergate. As I understood the intention of the topic ban, y'all wanted to get me out of admin-area topics in which i had no prior connection to. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I voted against that remedy, so someone else should probably opine on what it means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a legal term

I came across a source discussing this, but I can't find it now, and I don't remember the magic words to search for. Someone was opining that the 4th circuit Halbig en banc review may get put on hold to see what happens with King at scotus, rather than wasting time on something that will get mooted. They had a particular term for this (waiting), but I can't remember what it was. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Most likely the term you want is stay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

the magic word was abeyance Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but actually "stayed" is the more common term in this context, at least in my state. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. You are certainly orders of magnitude more of an expert in the area than I am, but my layman's interpretation of stay is to suspend a ruling that has already been made. Of course my legal knowledge is 1/2 reading cases/blogs, and 1/2 watching perry mason so my interpretation is obviously suspect. Here is the ScotusBlog entry I was looking for at the time I made my original post above. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/delay-sought-on-health-care-at-appeals-court/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF case

I recommend you consider a change of the point on "expletives" to "profanity", which is a much more apt description. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, but then we'd have to distinguish among profanity and vulgarity and obscenity, which to purists are three quite different things. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, "vulgarity", as I'm sure you are aware, is about being "common", "low", or "coarse". Whereas "profanity", as I'm sure you're aware, is about being disrespectful or irreverent. Hence, I think it is quite clear that "profanity" is what is at issue here, not "vulgarity". "Expletive" is not a good description of anything. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Man, your hope that Sitush now understands that he should not write articles about editors he's in conflict with seems to be contrary to what Sitush is actually saying. See his reponse to Demiurge in ggtf talk page please! DoctorTerrella (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Latin Phrase

Quousque tandem is how the First Speech against Catilina begins: "For how long are you going to abuse our patience?" The backstory is Catilina's attempt to overthrow the Senate and assassinate Cicero the evening before. It gets only more vehement and much better further in: Ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportebat! "You should have been taken away to execution long ago!" But policital realities are against taking that path: Tum denique interficiere, cum iam nemo tam inprobus ... inveniri poterit qui id non iure factum esse fateatur. Quamdiu quisquam erit, qui te defendere audeat, vives "Only then will you lose your life when no one so criminal can be found who won't believe that it wasn't done with good cause. You will stay alive as long as you find a defender."

Wikipedia and the Roman Senate are strikingly similar. No constitution, no laws that the members are bound by, an assembly of more or less powerful people, led by force of personality.

Do ban Carol, though. 67.255.123.1 (talk)

Yes; 67.etc but the usual takeaway from someone quoting that is simply that patience is being tried.
as far as 'Quousque' v 'Quo usque' goes, the old Romans allowed words to be run together; the two mean the same. English as she is spoke nowadays has this too, whoever, whatever, henceforth etc. The Germans love all this; some German words can be several metres long. pablo 19:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)