Jump to content

User talk:Newyorkbrad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 9 March 2008 (Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Mar.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil will understand the reference

He did - it made me smile. Thanks Brad. Neıl ☎ 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm disappointed I'm living down to your expectations. :( Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a pessimist, so am rarely disappointed. You should try it! Neıl ☎ 09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Sought

Newyorkbrad, I'd like to ask a question about policy. Suppose that an article is under probation and an edit war breaks out, and an admin has made one of the reverts that is part of that edit war. Is there a prohibition on that admin ending the war with a revert to the version s/he preferred, and then adding full protection? I know that revert-and-protect is controversial and generally to be avoided - although it would be OK if the issue over which the war is being fought had BLP problems - but is there any actual prohibition, or does it always come down to a judgement call? Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes for the policy on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I'd like to ask you to have a look at a revert-and-protect made by John Vandenberg on the Matt Sanchez page. There has been a discussion recently about which image to use with the lead - a head shot which has been extracted from a larger photo of him in camoflage fatigues sitting in a chopper, and his US Government produced Marine Dress Blue portrait. Those opposing the latter (who, in the interests of disclosure, include me) are objecting on POV grounds. Those opposing the former correctly note that the resolution is dreadful. The sequence of actions was:

0354 28Feb, Benjiboi changed the full chopper picture to just the head shot [1]
0140 29Feb, Cholga changes the picture to the Dress Blues image [2]
0311 29Feb, Benjiboi changes the picture back to the head shot [3]
0342 29Feb, John Vandenberg changes the picture back to the Dress Blues image [4]
0347 29Feb, John Vandenberg initiated a talk page discussion
0536 29Feb, AllstarEcho changes the picture back to the head shot [5]
0001 1Mar, Durova changes the picture back to the Dress Blues image [6]
0018 1Mar, Benjiboi changes the picture back to the head shot [7]
0028 1Mar, John Vandenberg changes the picture back to the Dress Blues image [8]
0029 1Mar, John Vandenberg fully protects the page for 1 month [9]
0037 1Mar, John Vandenberg posts in the the talk page thread he initiated about the revert and protect

Newyorkbrad, I am asking you to review this situation for two reasons. Firstly, because I want an unbiased outside view as to the policy issue here - is this revert-and-protect an acceptable application of policy. Secondly, I want a rapid resolution that will be accepted and respected - posting at AN/I will not help because it will either get admins circling the wagons or whole lot of opinions. John has acknowledged that way he has done is controversial, so I am not looking for some sort of nasty sanction - and some people are looking for that, with one having said "at least there's now a history of this abuse. That will be helpful down the line"; what I want is a resolution of whether this reversion should stand. John has expressed a clear view on the content at issue - and this is a content dispute - but the tool use can lead us in directions we don't want to go. I would appreciate any thoughts or actions you deem appropriate. I will notify John of this post in a minute or two. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism trouble

Well Mcburney is doing malicious edits to Sarah Natochenny article & i need your help to sort out the trouble . And if i request of you to reply to my page please & thanks Richardson j (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk as requested. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well i notice on the latest edit summary Mcburney put there “The idiot richardson writes lies” which concerns me .

I also message him my concerns about it alongside a welcome message . Richardson j (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt's oppose rationale

I'm pretty sure I would not give it any weight were I a 'crat. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bureaucrats pretty much ignore opposes with grounds as weak as these. My greater concern is that they are pointlessly demoralizing to the candidates and future administrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised at the dismisissiveness you adopted regarding Kurt's regular opposes. It seems out of character. --Iamunknown 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well?

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbs have a lot to do and I'm sure are giving the case its fair share of attention. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for us to discuss the issue on IRC? Mediawiki is too restrictive. Do reply, a yes/no alone would suffice. -- Cat chi? 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've posted some thoughts on the proposed decision talkpage which might help you understand my overall views on the matter. You can respond there and other arbitrators will also see it. I'm afraid the committee doesn't see a sufficient basis for any action based on your evidence against Jack Merridew, but hopefully there will be no further problems in that regard. I'll be glad to chat sometime when we are both online. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Mediawiki is too restrictive"? CABAL SPOTTED! Activate emergency procedures! Jouster  (whisper) 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mediawiki software is not a real-time discussion environment unlike IRC. People have never been required to discuss everything on a publicly accessible venue either. Furthermore I could care less if the IRC logs are posted publicly. Your accusation of a cabal is ridiculous. -- Cat chi? 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly not my intention to make arbcom make content related decisions. I'd like to discuss with you on measures to prevent further disruption in regards to episode and character related articles. The proposed remedies by arbcom have not succeeded in resolving everything. If my logic is logical/useful, you could perhaps filter it and relay it to the arbitration committee mailinglist or some other median. You could also disregard it all completely but if you do I would prefer to know why. -- Cat chi? 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Mikkalai replied to you accepting the arbitration case. [10] =/ Just letting you know since he's comment was directed towards you. Regards, — Save_Us † 07:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O Rly?

[11]And just where did you get the idea you were allowed to have a real life?  ;-) Risker (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Only kidding, indeed my RL today kept me from working on some of the info bainer asked for; I hope to have something for later tonight. - Risker[reply]

You are invited!

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area
Last: 1/13/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrice

In a trice! That's nice! O-o --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On pop culture

I just read your comment on the episodes thingie. Actually I've changed my thinking on this recently (not unusual--I tend to flop all over the place on deletion-inclusion):

I nominated it because it was the largest character list on the wiki (and actually, one of our largest articles) but comprised mostly minor characters.

I was impressed by the sheer intensity, which obviously wasn't manufactured, of the feeling that even a compendious list of characters in a relatively obscure story sequence had a place of Wikipedia. Since my notions of inclusion are pretty much compatible with that and my instincts for deletion are merely directed towards keeping the wiki from filling up with stuff that cannot be maintained, I was happy to see it kept. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point-by-point voting

Yes, I'm in favor of having a vote now. I doubt that I'm going to get another chance at this any time soon, considering the new appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision

Newyorkbrad, I see you are currently opposed to closing this case and I would appreciate it if the arbitrators could further examine the case. I do not believe the dispute concerns just television episodes and television characters, but also videogame characters and perhaps D&D characters. TTN has not many any edits since February 25. If TTN has "left the building", I think restricting TTN will do little to prevent edit-warring by other parties, one of whom has said they will act as a proxy for TTN. I urge the committee to examine the behavior of the other parties. If further edit-warring does occur, would it be appropriate to list it at AN/I or at WP:RFAR#REQ? I would appreciate it if the committee could designate an area for the parties to "develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." (perhaps WT:EPISODE, WT:FICT, WT:WAF or a separate case page), instead of splintered discussions taking place, like on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes for example. Thank you for your time. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Pixel's call that the committee point to a specific place to discuss these issues. I believe the most appropriate place is the newly created Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard. I believe the time has come to close the case. Perhaps you could just change your vote to support the closure and then point editors to the Noticeboard as an extremely appropriate place to enter centralized discussions and work these issues out. Ursasapien (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your work on this problem has been quite good. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hey, NYB! I haven't seen you in a while... I hope you're doing well! ≈ MindstormsKid   19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, thanks, although a little bit in the doghouse with some people at the moment because of a proposed decision I recently posted in an arbitration case. (I'll be posting some clarifications tonight.) It is good to see you back here; I hadn't seen you edit for awhile and was afraid we'd lost you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, I saw a reference to a Wikiproject that might interest you. Ask me about it on IRC when you next see me there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are in the dog house. The proposal was good in many ways. With a few tweaks it can be acceptable. You need to (1) make sure not to gut the duck test for sock puppetry, and (2) explain why ArbCom chooses not to make a finding with regard to sock puppetry. (I am confident the community will resolve that issue in short order.) Jehochman Talk 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to say "hi" as well. :) *Cremepuff222* 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Sandbox/Analysis/Naked short selling

I've decided that the only way to get to the bottom of the claims of tendentious editing on naked short selling is to laboriously examine every single edit ever made to the article, with occasional references to the comments on the talk page. The results of my plodding work may be seen at the link above, and I hope that it will be of some use to the committee in the Mantanmoreland case.

I don't know how it will work out yet (it's a bit like watching a very boring soap opera in which something significant might just happen at any moment. You might like to "tune in" and see how it's going. So far I'm up to the immediate aftermath of the late January, 2006 rewrite of the article. Splash has just semiprotected the article to stop persistent massive undiscussed changes by an an anon IP who won't discuss stuff on the talk page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he he he

Yes, I did write that from the wrong account. Well, I'd told Dmcdevit but I guess the one or two people paying attention to the arbitration case will also figure it out. Oh well... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just ironic in that context is all. Personally I don't see any issue at all. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton or Obama?

Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? Let me ask you a question: Are you supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? I am not an American. However, I am very interested in the 2008 presidential election. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O_O LO. Who says he's even a Democrat? Even though many New Yorker's are and NY has not voted Republican since Reagon. By the way, I doubt NYB will comment on his political views. -- R TalkContribs@ 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Clinton '08![reply]
Brad, while you're at it, please also provide your views on abortion, capital punishment, stem cell research, gay marriage, the American troop presence in Iraq, firearm legislation, and government-funded vs. private health care. :) MastCell Talk 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single sex education, autism and vaccines, type I diabetes research, gene therapy, extortionate legal fee arrangements, Big Oil, global warming, Gates Foundation vs. WHO in malaria research, and... (all from the last two weeks worth of news in your home paper of record, the NY Times!) Avruch T 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has turned into a Billy Joel song. Lawrence § t/e 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...we didn't start the fire.... Great. Now I'll be singing that all day. - Philippe | Talk 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer all these questions sometime when there are no pending arbitration cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
". . .no pending arbitration cases." what a beautiful idea, I look forward to the day. . . R. Baley (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caseload is actually low right now by historical standards, so it could happen, and I'll be taking a case or two into voting this weekend unless someone beats me. (I had resolved after last week not to write any more decisions for awhile, but that seems not to have stuck.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wish (at times) people would realize they were on the same side (the 'pedia) even though there are differences as to how they think it should look to the outside world. When animosity runs high, people make themselves more vulnerable to exploitation by outside influences. But, perhaps my view is skewed at the moment, it's a big place and there are plenty of areas where editors get along just fine. R. Baley (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. When you hang out near the fire, it feels hot and you might get burned. Avruch T 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So stay cool, man! Avruch T 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm fine. I read back over my comment and thought it might be construed as flippant, just wanted to make clear that I was sincere. R. Baley (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I didn't read it as flippant. Stay cool was just a joking corollary to "If you hang near the fire, it gets hot!" which I meant to mean... If you involve yourself in areas and issues which are controversial and sometimes acrimonious, then that will be the flavor of your Wikisperience ;-) Avruch T 22:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED DRV

Well said. Will (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point nearly swayed me when I read this, despite the fact I try to be a stickler for NPOV, no matter how annoying it can be. I'm sorry. Lawrence § t/e 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I know you don't mean personally you. But the whole line of thinking is totally unsound and counterproductive. We're not taking a stand against the harassment by suppressing articles like ED. If anything, we're empowering them. The whole mighty Wikipedia community is tying itself into knots to try to find a principle under which webcruft by people we like (i.e. Uncyclopedia) gets articles, and comparably important webcruft from people we don't like doesn't. By electing to treat them differently than other stuff of the same kind, we're confirming that they're important (at least to us) and we're proving their point that the content of the encyclopedia is dependent on our emotions and biases. How this helps us is beyond me. Zocky | picture popups 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. As I said in my comment on the DRV, this is a rather extreme situation. Mine is one of many comments among dozens—perhaps hundreds, before the discussion is over—and we will see what others say and where the consensus winds up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, two things and I'm done. First, the Wikipedia vs. ED story isn't extreme. A million dead Iraqis is extreme. This is just another online spat in which one side has behaved somewhat more obnoxiously than is the norm, and it looks important to us only because we're involved. If anything, "extreme" would be a good argument for having an article about something. And second, you do realize that after the last ArbCom election, your voice is not just one among hundreds, right? Zocky | picture popups 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, teasing or harassment on a website does not have the same real-world importance as a war or anything else. My only point was that in deciding what content to include on Wikipedia, I think it's reasonable to give some, limited consideration to the effect of inclusion on Wikipedians qua Wikipedians. By that standard, the site in question is considered by some to be extreme.
To your last point, thanks, and yes, I'm aware that mine has become a prominent voice within the community. In many ways, the results of my RfA a year back and then my ArbCom bid are of course enormously gratifying and flattering, and I again thank each and every user who put me in these positions. But I don't purport to pretend that this entitles my comments anywhere to more consideration than any other user's. (As it happens, it doesn't entitle me to any special consideration even on the arbitration pages: since my term started on January 1, I've probably been outvoted more than any other arbitrator on the decisions on the various cases.) Nonetheless, I will bear your points in mind. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Hi. On the 2nd, you voted oppose to closing the Episode and Characters ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision, saying you wanted to wait a day or two for comments to be considered. That time has now passed. Can you update your vote to note if say if you still oppose or if you now support? Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered some thoughts since I wrote that, on the proposed decision talkpage. I will take a final look and then probably vote to close in the morning. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for signing my autograph book! For that you get the following invitation :) DiligentTerrier and friends 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Homeschooling WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with Homeschooling.
Simply click here to accept! DiligentTerrier and friends 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]


IRC

Can we please talk on IRC? -- Cat chi? 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&oldid=197000040"