User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Oct

Did you hear about....? Nevermind
(The style reminds me very much of—but I shouldn't finish that sentence.)

One might ask if you should have started it. I have a secret, but I'm not going to tell you. If your keyboard is sadly bereft of a backspace key, I am wholly but not very sincerely sorry for lightheartedly chastising you.

Doo bee do be doobie ....*whistles* --Moni3 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone once told me that no one reads my long comments on-wiki, other than maybe the main parties to the case, and sometimes now even then. I now have proof that at least one person does. Q.E.D. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The real downer is that I can think of at least 20 Wikipedians whose names would adequately complete your sentence. :| MastCell Talk 03:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had any discernible style I'd offer my name first. Alas, to be bland... --Moni3 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

socionics article
A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Abce2 | This is  not a test  20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism
I just added a new section to the Quantum mysticism RfA. I was wondering if my statement is enough to indicate "whether other means could be used to try to resolve these disputes". This is a long running conflict that began with Likebox and myself I sought every option I could in dispute resolution but could not draw other editors into the extended discussion for more than a couple comments. Nearly all of this is our discussion. As two party conflict I could not move to a RfA. Likebox has since moved his synth to Quantum mind/body problem a page he created solely to protect his essay. This issue needs an authority figure and to settle whether a few content issues and whether Likebox's behavior is acceptable.--OMCV (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tcaudillligs ad hominem attack on my character in arbitration
Tcaud just made another large line of ad hominem personal attack remarks as an attempt to avoid responsibility for his unjustified reverts on sources that are on par with wikipedia standards. And I should not that much of what he said about me sounds completely rediculous. He calls me a "cult leader" and says I proclaim myself "God?" WTF! That is the most rediculous sounding ad hominem remarks I have heard from him in a long time. He is using these rediculous remarks to avoid responsibility for his own actions. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And can you please remove those remarks by tcaud and give him a warning or something. Apparently those are his weird dillusional and insufficent reasons for making his reverts. --Rmcnew (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this information from here and the arbitration page
This rediculous sounding libel was posted on the artitration page. Can you please remove it and warn tcaud against justifying reverts by making ad hominem personal attacks. He is generally commiting slander, libel and spreading rumors. I posted this here so you know what I am asking you to remove. These claims here are completely rediculous and I object to them.

Stuff that I object to:

"He bought the16types.info domain, and its forum, in 2006. Mostly he stayed out of the way until Fall 2008, when he announced to all that he was a god. He explained to us that he was determined to become powerful and that running the16types.info was practice for gaining more power. Last January he announced he was selling the forum on Ebay. He eventually sold it for $100, under a contract deal with another user of the16types.info. He had announced that he intended to teach the world "the truth" about socionics, and that he would . But once they got the domain, the "royals", as the long-time users call themselves, turned on him. Despite all that happened, you won't find a mention of Rmcnew on the forum today, because he threatened a C&D order against it if all traces of his name weren't removed from the database. (you see after all this, he'd become the butt of a lot of jokes). Go ask about it on the forum, though: they'll corroborate everything I've told you. After that, Rmcnew started a new forum dedicated completely to metasocionics. I joined him because I thought he was actually going to do some quality original research and try to verify his hypotheses. Boy was I wrong. By the beginning of last month, he closed the site without comment (or warning to its membership, most of whom were more interested in what I had to say anyway). So how did Rmcnew get here, exactly? By following me: there was something of a backlash against the more progressive trends in socionics by a number of people in the West socionics community. They expressed fear and trepidation at the possibility that socionics would gain a footing in Western society, apparently afraid it was a harbinger of catastrophic social upheaval. Moreover, DeLong and I had gotten into an argument over the organization of his "Wikisocion" project, and among other issues I felt that Wikisocion and the16types.info were taking an excessively behaviorist stance on socionics which is actually quite contrary to the beliefs of Augustinaviciute or her students. So I proposed to Rmcnew that we leave Wikisocion and improve the Wikipedia article. Little did I know that he had other designs in mind.... What followed is chronicled on Wikipedia itself: several editors got the wrong idea about socionics, thanks to his edits, and the entire article almost got deleted. Worse, all the type articles and the "trap" article I created to direct his energies away from the main article got merged into the main one, because neither I nor several other users were able to persuade the deletionists that socionics had no relation to esoterism. (thanks to Rmcnew) Which brings us to our PRESENT debacle, which has escalated by leaps and bounds over the past couple weeks. You'll never get through to Rmcnew. He's a crank, pure and simple: he actually believes that astrology is real -- he always goes around telling people "as above, so below". You can't defeat someone like him in an argument because he is incapable of seeing that he's wrong. Once, on his former website, he extolled the virtues of subjectivity at the expense of objectivity, saying that when we argued with him we should only see things from his point of view and accept his logic as truth. He's a cult leader looking for a canvassing opportunity, and he thinks he's found it on Wikipedia. No really: this guy is a religion major who is trying to make a religion out of socionics. And to make a religion in this day in age, you've got to create a system of faith, amidst all this empirical evidence... meaning the only way to create a GENUINE system of religious faith is to conceive of a means to make everything objective seem subjective. Now what have we learned from organized religion? To nurture faith in people, it is required that they believe in things that are as unrealistic as possible. That is the sieve by which one understands Rmcnew: he is on a journey to discover and create the most faith-based religion conceivable. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)"

Filing party response posted on Arbitration Page in re Quantum Mysticism
I have updated my filing response as per the request and it is now ready for consideration. -- ☯ Lightbound ☯   talk   00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices
Back in July, you left us a message about doing a Wikivoices episode on your talk on the New York Wiki-Conference. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner! Please drop me a line if you are still interested in doing this and we will arrange a time and gather some Wikipedians to chat. We are very informal! Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, subject to some scheduling issues. If it's okay, I'll get back to you later in the week with a couple of possible dates. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My favorite saying: Wikipedia has no deadlines. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A little late
- My last post was 23:16, 3 October 2009. My emphasis was on Geogre and it was a discussion about the sock policy. I made no attacks nor anything else. I did inform Chillum that after revealing that he had a sock that those like Wikipedia Review will try to use it against him. I assume that your mentioning of my name there is a mistake, especially seeing as how I've done a lot trying to head off Malleus and others attacking Chillum and tried to keep the peace on that talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see that your comments were longer ago than I had thought and that you seemed to be no longer active in the discussion, so I withdraw the unnecessary request to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is quite fine either way. If you think I shouldn't post there, I wont. The majority of my edits have been removing personal attacks and trying to tone down the vicious rhetoric between various parties. However, that is time consuming and I have better things to focus on. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Genuinely calming posts are welcome, although calmingness may sometimes be in the eye of the beholder. As it happens, Chillum says he's going on wikibreak, and my request to avoid his page wasn't a long-term one, so the point may well be moot. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope he is going on a break because of real life issues and not Wiki issues. That would be a problem, but one that seems to be hitting many people as of late. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom
If you aren't persuaded that there is an active cooperation between individuals, how many individual pages would you like to see and various diffs to show their style? Also, I will note that I was capable of working with many, many users that have completely different views than me, very different styles, and have a history of not being able to work with others and yet get such pages to FA status.

The problem is not the Persian Empire article, which was detailed in the ArbCom. By the way, please compare the users that are listed at the Arb case with the names appearing here. It isn't a coincidence that a select few joined up on one side and pushing one issue. I can provide hundreds of other examples of this. Ryulong was desysopped over asking for someone to act on his behalf a few times. This is over a year worth of such actions with many of them pretending to not be involved. It is evident in that diff of such tactics and done in the open. It is rather obvious to say "I'm going to tag you in so you can deal with this person and I can take a break". There is a term for such behavior on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, just to see your philosophy - would you consider Bishonen, Giano, and Geogre as having had no relationship? You can add Risker and Nandesuka to that mix if you are so inclined when answering. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You stated at ArbCom that I have it my way or no way. Please look at the discussions surrounding Samuel Johnson and its FAC, Nicolo Giraud and its talk page (eventually a FAC), The Lucy poems, The Covent Garden Journal (built by AD out of another page of mine, with two sections added that were heavily edited and a proposed section that was heavily edited with him allowed to take full control while I had some clear opinions that shows that his views and mine were rather different), Characters of Shakespear's Plays, etc. All of these involved lengthy and detailed compromises. None of them have anything close to -my- version of the page. I can list many, many others that verify that I have a long record of compromising on content as long as it ensures the quality of the page. As someone who has put together over 160 DYK, over 40 GA, and 7 FAs this year with the majority of them being worked on with people who I do not hold the same opinion with, I find it interesting that you make can claim "who feels so consistently that there is one and only one side" with a straight face. Do you really think that someone who was accused of being a major homophobe and so evil at Everking's RfA (which KillerChihuahua mentions but does not mention that I was being accused of such) is able to have an FA on an LGBT with someone who pushed an extreme point of view because they are unwilling to accept different opinions? By the way, you act surprised that there was an RfA on that page on the content. There was one -previously-. There were also two straw polls. I know you had this information as I sent it to you and the rest of ArbCom multiple times. I don't cuss. I don't call people names. I don't violate civility. Yet the claims against me are that I do. Those are by the same group of people that have attacked people many places. You want to say "Ottava Rima needs to carefully consider the emerging consensus that his style of on-wiki communication" when it is clear that the people responding to the RfAr are not even close to consensus nor representative of the community. Notice how I have worked on over 400 articles here at Wikipedia and they aren't able to link to any specific problem. The closest thing is KillerChihuahua putting up ANI threads with most of them being a consensus that the person starting the thread is the one disrupting.
 * So yes, I welcome an analysis of my editing and history here. It will be blatantly obvious that I am a perfectly clean editor who commits no problems and works hard to bridge gaps, fix articles, and get people working together. Who helped reinvigorate clean up of copyright infringement at DYK? At FAC? Who bothered to defend people who no one else would defend even though they built careers here out of attacking me (Mattisse, Peter Damian, etc)? The only people who don't like me are the very people who have no right to be here. They don't create content. They don't add anything to the encyclopedia. They sit with their friends at noticeboards and bully others for the fun of it. You can see Moreschi's response that he drools with venom because that is the very person he is. You want to listen to the speech of serpents without bothering to ask people who are known to be decent? Fine. But I have proven my integrity here, and I have proven that I am dedicated to this Wiki. When Jimbo demanded the banning of an individual I considered a friend, I complied with the matter because it was for the best of the WMF. My loyalty and my position is very clear, and its not to a group of people that don't care about this encyclopedia. Do some investigating and find out from the real people of Wikipedia. I have received dozens of barn stars, thanks, applause, and the rest. Do you know how many barnstars of peace I've received? More than anyone I've put up at that Rfar. There is a reason for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way . Support 101 and Oppose 12. One is a blank support and the other is an extremely insightful statement that was verified recently. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FT2
Please see what FT2 points out about Bishonen, KillerChihuahua, and Jehochman. As you can see, there is quite a lot of evidence of the people responding to my case working together, protecting each other, and bending various rules and guidelines in order to destroy others. As you will notice, -I- was involved in the other incident too. They claim I am paranoid and the rest when there is a long history of these inappropriate admin actions. I have proven my worth in content and working with decent, legitimate people who care about content. The only people who ever have problems with me turn out to be those kind of individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bishonen has told me to fuck off several times, and we've had sharp disagreements on numerous occasions. I don't think I've even corresponded with KillerChihuahua until today.  Ottava, man, you've got to let go of these conspiracy theories.  When I sanctioned you I was wondering who was going to be mad at me because I had no idea who your friends were. My decision was strictly on the merits.  Jehochman Talk 01:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, the evidence is rather clear that you were involved with the covering up of Geogre's socking abuse. You should resign and leave. I have actually dedicated thousands of hours improving this encyclopedia. All you do is go around, attack people, cause disruptions, and aid people in breaking our rules like this. You disgust me. By the way, they aren't my friends. I don't like Lara or Undertow, and they sure as hell don't like me. The only "friendship" here is on your side. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, it is probably counter-productive to raise issues related to your case in an unrelated case. Thatcher 02:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Covering up Geogre? Huh.  I did not know Geogre had a sock account, and I strongly dislike all socks no matter who operates them. Jehochman Talk 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * [Defiantly ] Well, they don't like you, either, Jochman man!  bish a pod   splash!  07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Fishie, you will now tell me who your sock master is. Jehochman lights the hibichi. I'VE GOT PONZU, AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO USE IT!!! Jehochman Talk 13:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet you post right there. You either didn't read the RfC you were responding to or you are a direct liar. Number three in desired outcome is very, very visible and everyone else acknowledged it at the RfC. You owe me an apology. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I think we are speaking different languages. Let's adjourn until we can find a translator, and before our host calls his burly footman to remove us forcibly. Jehochman Talk 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thatcher, the RfA mentioned was over abuse done by Geogre relating to -me-. Bishonen was complicit all last year in him socking and harassing me. And she has the nerve to then preach about the evils of others not reporting the abusive socking of others? And the other two are just as complicit. This is a level high enough to warrant outright bans without an Arbcom. My case deals with -these individuals- history of inappropriately working together and abusing their status as admin to try and ruin the lives of other people. As I stated at the beginning of the case, I was not the only target, which is quite evident in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had limited wiki-time this evening and will return to this thread in a day or so. Any evidence that my initial take on the arbitration case was wrong will be evaluated. Continued name-calling will disgust me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'm back to bad guy. Pity; it was nice while it lasted. Brad, please feel free to inquire if anything concerns you; I will do my best to answer any questions. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Geometry Guy
Is what Geometry Guy is doing at the monitoring page acceptable? Unit Anode  00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it leads to a productive discussion, then yes. He has shown more sustained interest in working with Mattisse then most anyone else, so I think there is value to deferring to his judgment at this point. The proof of the pudding will be whether there is ultimately a sustained improvement in the overall situation. As for the specific, why don't you query Geometry Guy on his talkpage concerning how he thinks you should have proceeded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually have little interest in initiating contact with someone whose first response to what I happen to think was a legitimate and non-inflammatory concern I raised was to attack my motives. As John Carter apparently doesn't see her commenting about Geogre as a problem, I'll just leave them to it. Unit  Anode  00:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you please take a look back at the responses of Geometry Guy and John Carter at that page? I may have a complete misapprehension of the purpose of that page, but no longer trust these two him to explain where I went wrong in reporting my concern. Unit  Anode  01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually being dealt with now, and I somehow managed to collect my first barnstar as an offshoot. I guess patience is a wikivirtue as well as a real virtue. :) Unit  Anode  16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does appear that productive work is finally getting underway there, but I hope there are lessons here for ArbCom in terms of how to structure future mentorships. All too often, Mattisse has been ill-served by the discussions there, editors with concerns have had to work too hard to get mentors to address concerns, and it has taken far too long for mentors to simply explain to Mattisse how she can avoid problems.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are certainly not unfounded. Even in this case, it took a bit of work to get the concern taken seriously. The first mentor simply dismissed it as an "unhelpful thread" or some such, but after awhile, the other mentors who showed up seemed to have a genuine interest in addressing the concern. Hopefully the process will continue along those lines. Unit  Anode  18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote interpretation
NYB - re: Arbitration/Requests/Case. As you are suggesting the matter is moot, are you voting for decline? Manning (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both. I'm voting for decline because the matter is moot. I'll clarify the wording. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Cheers Manning (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Availability note
I'll have very limited wiki-time for a few more days due to real-world commitments. Normal service will resume as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light
Hi Brad, I was saying the exact same as you about the distinction between the man made units and the underlying physical reality of the speed of light. That was the whole point of the dispute. Brews wanted to highlight that distinction. I only came in early August to see what was going on. At first I had difficulty trying to figure out what the dispute was about, but then when I discovered about the 1983 definition of the metre, I could see it all clearly. The 1983 definition of the metre, in terms of the speed of light, means that when the speed of light is then expressed in terms of that metre, that we merely end up with the original number in our definition thrown back at us. Hence, we need to distinguish the physically real speed of light from the fixed number that is associated with the SI units speed of light. The latter is merely a chosen number which is beyond physical measurement. The people who were opposing Brews, and later myself, are the ones who don't want to highlight this distinction. Brews's only crime seems to have been that he wanted to elaborate on this crucial point, and my only crime seems to have been that I backed him up.

I hope you fully understand that it would be a gross miscarriage of justice if I were to be punished for advocating the very viewpoint that I was strenuously opposing. Original research or fringe views don't come into this. The viewpoint of yourself, Brews and I is well sourced. David Tombe (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding alternative secondary accounts
Hi, I saw your comment on User Chillums talkpage. Could you clarify for me under what circumstances (if any) it is appropriate to set up an alternate account so you can edit with a degree on anonymity from your main account and/or to edit contentious articles without getting smeared or connected to your main identity here. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it true or an urban myth that you can have as many accounts as you like as long as you use them within policy? Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no response? Jimbo ignored my question about "alternate accounts" also. It seems the use of multiple accounts is socking when it's anyone other than an admin or a buddy of arbcom. That the Arbs are punitively punishing editors for acknowledging something they themselves refuse to own up to goes a long way in explaining the rot we are experiencing on Wikipedia. Some day I hope for an arbcom that encourages accountability and transparency while abiding by the policies, guidelines and ruling they enforce on the rest of us. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delayed response. I am buried with real-world work this week and will answer when I can. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Until then, WP:SOCK is the relevant guideline. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there is no rush, I have read that socklegit section but am still a bit unable to balance what seems to be general attitudes towards legitsocks and the actual policy, my question is in relation to comments I and others have made on this talkpage, I wonder, could you take a little time (when you have some) and please comment regarding issues raised there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My exact question is, I want to use another account in the same way as the user there has stated that he does, is it ok for me to do that and do you want me to notify you of the details of the secondary account? Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to answer this question or if this is the wrong location for my question would you please suggest a more correct location? Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but...
please see User:Mattisse/Monitoring. The most recent addition is about a comment regarding, I think, Risker, and a "joke ArbCon". The oomment itself seems to indicate it is presented as a joke, but at least three people have now indicated that they see it as being some sort of, I guess, attack on Risker. I think Risker, anyway. I can see that, although I'm not convinced that the comment was particularly "adept at satire". It could be a cheap shot, it could, so far as I can tell, maybe be a slightly clumsy attempt at a joke by someone who wants to perhaps be accepted into the broader community. Your judgement in these matters is almost certainly better than mine, and, well, considering you've been involved in discussions there before, I would welcome your input at your convenience. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This situation needs dealt with straightaway. It is spinning completely out of control. Carter is now questioning my integrity, amongst a whole mess of other stuff. Unit  Anode  02:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * John Carter is now abusing his tools to protect his talkpage from editing, simply because I wish to remove some comments I made there. He's completely out of control, and either Brad or a TPW of Brad's needs to deal with him. Unit  Anode  02:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's case is now back on the requests for arbitration page, where I've commented, so it will be better if someone else deals with this specific issue. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a finding
I wonder what would happen if you walked in front of a court and said "a dog ate my motion". Would the judge levy sanctions on you for blatant dishonesty? What do you think the appropriate response to a transparent a laughable lie is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) 02:28, 28 September 2009

Speedy deletion of Template:FJC
A tag has been placed on Template:FJC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( &#123;{transclusionless}} ).

Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FJC
Template:FJC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That was awful
Wow... Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reading; it gets worse, with a line I stole from N. David Mermin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As case clerk, I may have to ban you from participation in the case until your sense of humor improves. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be another polarizing action, far removed from the spectrum of appropriate responses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Serious question, not that it's terribly important considering how the votes are going: for remedy 4.1 you listed your vote in the oppose section, but noted it was equal preference to 4.2, which you supported. Did you mean to support 4.1, or oppose 4.2? I've marked your vote for 4.1 as a support for the time being based on your comment and votes on the findings, but if you could clarify that'd be good. It makes no difference as to what's passing, but may affect the final vote tallies tomorrow when I close. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both should be support. Thanks for catching this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Irving Younger
NYB-- Do you have a date for Ulysses in Court: The Litigation Surrounding the First Publication of James Joyce's Novel in the United States? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating dispute. That text was published 1989 by PEG; ISBN 9780943380223, if you want to look it up. AGK 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by the authorship given there for the book. It is given as a transcription of Younger's lecture in John M. Woolsey; I have poached that reference for use at United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, and want to complete the cite. I assume that McElhaney is not in fact the author.  Kablammo (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The date of 1989 is correct. Younger was the lecturer/author. McElhaney (the series editor) wrote a foreward to the published version of the speech, but not the text. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Kablammo (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)