| Revision as of 12:40, 4 May 2014 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,478 edits →Availability note: response to Ncmvocalist← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:30, 4 May 2014 edit undoCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Gun politics in the United States: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>09:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | All the best: ''] ]'', <small>09:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | ||
| :There's no point in reviewing the facts of a case from six years ago, but in that case the editor was creating confusion by editing the same article from his registered account and from IPs. In my view then and now, doing this deliberately or as a pattern is improper. Of course, it is understood that occasionally one may make a logged-out edit without realizing it; and it may also be acceptable for an editor in good standing to edit from a registered account for some purposes and from an IP for others. If your position is that it's okay for the same user to deliberately edit the same article from a registered account and from IPs as a matter of practice, I disagree with you. ] (]) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | :There's no point in reviewing the facts of a case from six years ago, but in that case the editor was creating confusion by editing the same article from his registered account and from IPs. In my view then and now, doing this deliberately or as a pattern is improper. Of course, it is understood that occasionally one may make a logged-out edit without realizing it; and it may also be acceptable for an editor in good standing to edit from a registered account for some purposes and from an IP for others. If your position is that it's okay for the same user to deliberately edit the same article from a registered account and from IPs as a matter of practice, I disagree with you. ] (]) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Appears to have a new owner who not only closes his own RfC (finding that his own position "won" of course) but then makes substantial changes and reverts to that article in support of his "close." I demur on playing his game, but suggest you note his major and substantial of a respected historical argument which no one objected to, with the "Nazi nut" argument, and seems to think demolishing the "Nazi nut" argument is all the article needs. I would note that ] also demurs on conflation of the two distinct arguments and positions, but Lightbreather, who you doubtless recall from his statements at the case, seems to think he now has carte blanche to make the article conform with his own position regardless of any RfC. Cheers. ] (]) 20:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:30, 4 May 2014
| This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Availability note
Signing off for the night before I lose my temper and say something I'll regret. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Crunch, crunch!
Here are some chips to go with your fish!
You should've known this spectacle was never going to be resolved from just a 2 hour consensus at ANI, but I've put my comment in this section so you know why you got chips in addition to fish. Actually, you've also been given the side for not being too passive. Either way, I trust you will take this feedback in the spirit that it is intended. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is good to see you back on-wiki.
- I actually did think my re-re-closing would "stick," but I won't post-mortem it right now. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. On a totally unrelated note, has arbcom covered discretionary sanctions over Jewish and Middle East topics or is it limited to I/P conflict only? If it's the latter, would it be essential for an amendment request or can it be done on its own motion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, there are no discretionary sanctions currently available for "Jewish and Middle East topics" outside the Israel-Palestine disputes. If you want to raise this with ArbCom, you could do so on the amendments/clarifications page, though I can't speak for how anyone (including myself) would react, or if nothing else has worked and there is reason to do it you could request a case. DS can also be imposed at the community level where warranted (I haven't evaluated whether it would be warranted here). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. On a totally unrelated note, has arbcom covered discretionary sanctions over Jewish and Middle East topics or is it limited to I/P conflict only? If it's the latter, would it be essential for an amendment request or can it be done on its own motion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Not very nice
. Do you suppose the user may have read a vandalized version of the Guide to appealing blocks.. ? (P.S., I'm going to block you for the above-mentioned pun, it's really painful.) Bishonen | talk 09:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
Edit-a-thon invite
You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014
On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!
If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.
Two edit-a-thons coming up!
Hello there!
I'm pleased to tell you about two upcoming edit-a-thons:
- This Tuesday, April 29, from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, we have the Freer and Sackler edit-a-thon. (Sorry for the short notice!)
- On Saturday, May 10 we have the Misplaced Pages APA edit-a-thon, in partnership with the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, from 10 AM to 5 PM.
We have more stuff coming up in May and June, so make sure to keep a watch on the DC meetup page. As always, if you have any recommendations or requests, please leave a note on the talk page.
Best,
(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Clarification on topic ban
Obviously, I'm forbidden from editing pages. But am I forbidden from participating in talk pages? Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I believe I can answer this. You have got a general topic ban and such bans also include talk pages: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- reading comp fail. The quoted passage establishes nothing, as "pages" could reasonably be construed as wp articles. (The word "pages" is often used in that way."
Yes, topic bans cover talk pages. The better question is if they cover user talk pages, and more specifically, your own user talk page. (There is a discussion ongoing on the latter question here Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Do_topic_bans_extend_to_the_banned_editor.27s_user_talk_page.3F Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Gun control/International Churches of Christ
I have been glancing at this rather messy case. You cite, in a comment, a principle from a previous case which states
"Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as editing the same article from more than one account, is prohibited. A registered user's editing the same article from the user's registered account and from IP addresses has the same ill-effects as editing from a main and a sockpuppet account, and therefore is also prohibited."
This is plumb wrong, after the first sentence. Specifically WP:SOCK says "There is no policy against editing while logged out." Even the first part, while reflecting policy literally does not reflect the spirit - which is clearly that abuse occurs when the socking creates or is designed to create an illusion of support.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
- There's no point in reviewing the facts of a case from six years ago, but in that case the editor was creating confusion by editing the same article from his registered account and from IPs. In my view then and now, doing this deliberately or as a pattern is improper. Of course, it is understood that occasionally one may make a logged-out edit without realizing it; and it may also be acceptable for an editor in good standing to edit from a registered account for some purposes and from an IP for others. If your position is that it's okay for the same user to deliberately edit the same article from a registered account and from IPs as a matter of practice, I disagree with you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Gun politics in the United States
Appears to have a new owner who not only closes his own RfC (finding that his own position "won" of course) but then makes substantial changes and reverts to that article in support of his "close." I demur on playing his game, but suggest you note his major and substantial of a respected historical argument which no one objected to, with the "Nazi nut" argument, and seems to think demolishing the "Nazi nut" argument is all the article needs. I would note that User:The Four Deuces also demurs on conflation of the two distinct arguments and positions, but Lightbreather, who you doubtless recall from his statements at the case, seems to think he now has carte blanche to make the article conform with his own position regardless of any RfC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)