| Revision as of 15:06, 11 March 2008 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits →Trouble in paradise: comments← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:46, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2024/Nov, User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2024/Dec) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |'''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.''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| {{archive box| | |||
| <center>]</center> | |||
| ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| <br>] | |||
| }} | |||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot III|small=yes|dounreplied=yes|target=User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/{{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | |archive = User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|]|age=7|bot=MiszaBot III}} | |||
| <div align=center>__TOC__ | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| </div align=center> | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| *] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar''' | |||
| *] | |||
| |- | |||
| *] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your well-reasoned and clearly explained comments over at ]. ] (]) 13:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| |} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! <font color="#4682B4">]</font><font color="#00FF00">]</font><font color="#E32636">]</font> 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merry Christmas!== | |||
| == Vandalism trouble == | |||
| {| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="center" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: center; height: 1.1em;" | '''A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!''' | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"| | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <big>Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!</big> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <big>Cheers</big> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <big>] (]) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</big> | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Merry Christmas== | |||
| Well ] is doing malicious edits to ] article & i need your help to sort out the trouble . | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #bbc7c6;" | |||
| And if i request of you to reply to my page please & thanks ] (]) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| :Responded on your talk as requested. Regards, ] (]) 23:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025''' | |||
| ::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 . | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ] (]) 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello Newyorkbrad, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. | |||
| == Kurt's oppose rationale == | |||
| '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm pretty sure I would not give it any weight were I a 'crat. Cheers, ]] 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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, ] (]) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am surprised at the dismisissiveness you adopted regarding Kurt's regular opposes. It seems out of character. --] 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Well? == | |||
| As an 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. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 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. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would it be possible for us to discuss the issue on IRC? Mediawiki is too restrictive. Do reply, a yes/no alone would suffice. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 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, ] (]) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Mediawiki is too restrictive"? ] ] <span style="font-family: monospace">]</span> (<span style="font-size: smaller; background: black;">]</span>) 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] 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. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 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. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == You are invited! == | |||
| {| class="infobox" style="width:250px" | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| |''']''' | |||
| <br/>Next: ''']''' | |||
| <br/>Last: ] | |||
| <br/><span class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space:nowrap; font-size:xx-small">This box: ] <span style="font-size:80%;">•</span> ] <span style="font-size:80%;">•</span> </span> | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to ] activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the ]). | |||
| == Happy Holidays == | |||
| Well also make preparations for our exciting ''''']''''' event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting). | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| 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. | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' | |||
| You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at ]. | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| You're also invited to subscribe to the public , which is a great way to receive timely updates.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery because you were on ]. ] (]) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Thrice == | |||
| '''Hello Newyorkbrad, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In a trice! That's nice! O-o --] 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. --] 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 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. ] (]) 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| 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 ] or at ]? 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 ], ], ] or a separate case page), instead of splintered discussions taking place, like on for example. Thank you for your time. --] (]) 09:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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 ]. 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. ] <small>]</small> 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think your work on ] has been quite good. ] (]) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi! == | |||
| Hey, NYB! I haven't seen you in a while... I hope you're doing well! | |||
| ≈ ] 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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, ] (]) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::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, ] (]) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 ] 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.) ] <sup>]</sup> 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm here to say "hi" as well. :) <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">]</span> 00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I've decided that the only way to get to the bottom of the claims of tendentious editing on ] 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. --] 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 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... ] (]) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It was just ironic in that context is all. Personally I don't see any issue at all. Regards, ] (]) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Clinton or Obama? == | |||
| Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? Let me ask you a question: Are you supporting ] or ]? I am not an American. However, I am very interested in the 2008 presidential election. Regards, ] (]) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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. -- ] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>]</sub></small> 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Clinton '08! | |||
| ::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. :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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!) ]] 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This has turned into a Billy Joel song. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::''...we didn't start the fire....'' Great. Now I'll be singing that all day. - ] | ] 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll answer all these questions sometime when there are no pending arbitration cases. Regards, ] (]) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::". . .no pending arbitration cases." what a beautiful idea, I look forward to the day. . . ] (]) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::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.) ] (]) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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. ] (]) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yup. When you hang out near the fire, it feels hot and you might get burned. ]] 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So stay cool, man! ]] 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::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. ] (]) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::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 ;-) ]] 22:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ED DRV == | |||
| Well said. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] | ] 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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, ] (]) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, two things and I'm done. First, the Misplaced Pages 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? ] | ] 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 Misplaced Pages, 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, ] (]) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom == | |||
| Hi. On the 2nd, you voted oppose to closing the Episode and Characters ArbCom case at ], 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? ] (]) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == DC Meetup on May 17th == | |||
| Your help is needed in planning ]! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. ] (]) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Thanks for signing my autograph book! For that you get the following invitation :) <font face="Futura Lt BT" size="3">]</font><small><sup>]</sup></font> 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC) {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Homeschooling/Invitations/General Invitation|Signature=<font face="Futura Lt BT" size="3">]</font><small><sup>]</sup></font> 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| == IRC == | |||
| Can we please talk on IRC? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Everyking request for clarification == | |||
| Hi Brad, just a reminder that the Everyking request for clarification awaits a motion or other dispensation (from your comment on March 5th I think). Thanks, ]] 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the reminder. Actually, I'm well aware this is still pending, but there are reasons I want to wait a couple more days, plus this afternoon/evening I have at least two decisions to draft. Regards, ] (]) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Parliamentary procedure == | |||
| Your comment on my question at ] would be welcome. We have a lot of issues to discuss, as mentioned on the AfD page, but we need to take it somewhere else, and I am not sure where, exactly. ] (]) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I also signed on the Project Parliamentary Procedure page. This is good timing because, as I said, I was just remarking last week on ] that we need to develop these articles. Regards, ] (]) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Mantanmoreland RfAr -- Thanks == | |||
| I appreciate your posts about reading the comments, and I appreciated your earlier explanation of your thinking. ] (]) 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. Your appreciation is ... appreciated. Regards, ] (]) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ED == | |||
| "''I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors.''" - We link to ], we link to ], if you can think of a notable website or organization worse than those that we have an article on, we probably link to that too. In light of that fact, not linking to a website we have an article on, or to the website of an organization we have an article on, is ]. —] 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The site in question contains intentional and depraved harassment of Misplaced Pages editors for the purpose of causing emotional distress to these editors. Some of the editors who are viciously abused are minors. I think it is well within the realm of reasonableness to decide that in such exceptional circumstance, we are unwilling to provide readers with access to the site in question. I acknowledge the demands of NPOV and of intellectual freedom in general but my view is that they must be balanced against the basic well-being of our contributors in this extreme situation. | |||
| :Note that this does not apply to sites that merely criticize Wikipedians, even if we feel that the criticism is unfair or uses methods that are inappopriate. This is something altogether different. ] (]) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Um. If there is "intentional and depraved harassment of Misplaced Pages editors" (whether minor or not), then that should be taken seriously at a level of authority outside that of Misplaced Pages. We can't solve everything here, you know. Sometimes you have to say to people who are complaining about harassment: "we will do what we can on Misplaced Pages to prevent harassment, but ultimately you have to deal with the source of harassment yourself, up to and including contacting the appropriate authorities". Sometimes handling things that way is better than compromising the principles of Misplaced Pages. I hope that made some sort of sense. ] (]) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you're right here - the issues of harassment should be resolved, but clearly WMF can't really help. Brad, I think there are reasons to keep this article deleted (indeed I voted this way) but we have links to criminals, criminal organizations, the Holocaust and Nazis, Khmer Rouge and other terrible people and regimes. Barring this one solely because it bears more directly on Misplaced Pages is the wrong move, and one that will likely be challenged again and again because it seems to conflict with a core policy. An extreme example, that I'm sure we can agree we all hope won't come to pass: If a prominent editor or Board member is attacked/killed/otherwise harmed by a criminal who then threatens other Misplaced Pages editors, and this individual is the subject of sustained and high profile coverage in reliable sources - do we have the article, or not? ]] 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think we probably are repeating arguments that have been made plenty of times in the past, so we probably should stop now. The DRV is going on and the community will decide. Regards, ] (]) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, but you're trying to make an end run around the community by saying we should have an arbcom-made policy that ''even if there is an article'' it should not provide a link. —] 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If there's an article then realistically there will almost certainly wind up being a link somewhere, whether I like it or not. The best comment on that motion was to the effect that there is probably no point in worrying about this until after the DRV is resolved. ] (]) 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Kurt Weber's RFA opposals == | |||
| Hi Brad. I did a quick CTRL-F of the RFA page as well as those of the last couple of weeks and found your only recent RFA edits (as opposed to RFB) have been to say (something along the lines of) "Kurt's oppose rational is worthless and should be completely disregarded". Now, I appreciate you dislike Kurt's opposals, and believe them to have no substance. They do have substance, it's just a lot of people dislike the reasoning, even though such reasoning does exist, and Kurt's provided that to two RFCs on this topic in the past. | |||
| But whether or not Kurt's opposals have any merit is a judgement the closing bureaucrats have been deemed well-capable of making, and I think someone in your position should be setting an example and not solely contributing to RFAs in order to dismiss Kurt's opposes. ] ] 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :His rationale for doing so was included in one of the more recent RfAs - that he thought candidates should be aware that Kurt's opposes were disregarded, so they didn't feel bad or take it too seriously. ]] 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, my concern is for the RfA candidates. As we all know, it's a stressful enough process without unnecessary opposition based on nothing. ] (]) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps a "support" with a note that Kurt's oppose has no merit in your view would be more constructive? I realise we have standards on not ] newbies and all, but by the time an editor is at RFA they aren't newbies - they should be entirely capable of dealing with an apparently facetious oppose vote. ] ] 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Brad shouldn't be supporting just because he disagrees with one of the opposes and wishes to counteract it (even if he tried, 1 oppose = 4 supports), he should be supporting because he believes the candidate would make a good administrator. ]''']''' 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't believe that Kurt's ''"prima facie"'' opposes are "facetious." I do believe they are destructive and damaging. ] (]) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::All opposes are damaging to some extent (even "constructive" ones). Perhaps facetious was the wrong word - you've used "worthless" and "groundless". ] ] 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::"without substance" was supposed to be the basic formula. Perhaps I slipped up a couple of times. ] (]) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikistalking == | |||
| I think demonstrates the wiki-stalking tendency best. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really understand that edit at all. Have you asked the user what it means? ] (]) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I recently attempted moving the gallery at ] to commons on . There was one image (]) licensed under fair-use in the gallery which was not commons compatible so I did not carry it to commons and removed it from the gallery of images. I further removed the fair use rationale from the image description page as it was no longer needed on . | |||
| ::Jack Merridew reported my edits to ] on . That is 34 minutes after I edited the image and 30 minutes after I edited the article. | |||
| ::How did he know? Aside from him (Jack Merridew) stalking, I cannot think of a logical explanation. | |||
| ::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == E-mail == | |||
| Hi Newyorkbrad, I thought you may want to know that I've sent an E-mail. Thanks. ] 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Received and responded. Regards, ] (]) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Image Issue == | |||
| Hi, Newyorkbrad. You might be interested to learn that issue around which image to use with the lead of the MS article has been resolved. I am disappointed that you did not choose to respond to the question I asked about admin action ], as I thought that a revert-and-fully protect (for a month) by an (arguably) involved admin - and ArbCom Clerk-in-training - at least deserved some comment. As I respect your opinion, I would have been satisfied if you had said that the action did not cross the line, or that the action was fine, or that a warning 'that was unwise' - or if you had followed any other option that you believed was appropriate. I realise that MM has taken a lot of time, but I was disappointed to receive no response at all. Best, ] (]) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry that I missed responding to your question on that matter. I do my best to respond to every question and comment posted on this page, so it is fairly uncharacteristic of me to miss one, and I am sorry it was yours. | |||
| :For what it is worth, in addition to my activities on the ''Mantanmoreland'' case (including reading tens of thousands of words, writing my lengthy comments on proposed decision talk, studying new evidence some of which has affected my view of the case which I think is something you would agree is a high priority, and drafting some additions to the decision that you will have seen), I have also read up some of the original sources, studied the evidence and proposals, and drafted the proposed decision in in the ''Franco-Mongol Alliance'' case, I have studied whether to make additional proposals in the ''Episodes and Characters 2'' case and the ''Highways 2'' case, I have read and voted on (or am about to vote on) whether to accept new requests for arbitration such as ''Betacommandbot'', I have made several comments in the "Requests for clarification" section on WP:RfAr, I have dealt with various issues arising on the ArbCom's mailing list, and I have done some ordinary administrator and editor actions as well such as trying to give some thoughts to a new wikiproject and copyediting an FAC candidate. So again, I really am sorry to have missed your question, but I'd hate for some passer-by on this page to think I'm some sort of a wiki-slacker or something. :) | |||
| :Most important, I'm glad the problem you refer to has now been resolved. If it flares up again, please feel free to let me know. Regards, ] (]) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the record, I don't for a moment believe you are any sort of wiki-slacker! In fact, it is evident that you devote an extremely large amout of time and effort to Misplaced Pages. In the midst of all the criticism that inevitably comes with your position - and the inevitable fallout from any approach to defusing the ticking time-bomb that was and is the MM case - it is easy for editors to fail to register their appreciation for all your hard work. I chose to leave the message until archiving, and to only send a reminder email, as I realise that my question was not nearly as urgent or important as some of the other work you describe.<br />My original decision to post here was because I didn't want to case a big scene by raising it at AN/I, but I did want an outside perspective that I respected to help me to better understand what is acceptable administrative action. Whilst the issue that prompted the query has been resolved, my question has not. I wanted to know two things: (1) is my interpretation that John was 'involved' in the issue in which he acted to revert-and-protect reasonable? (2) was revert-and-protect (as opposed to protection on the wrong version) appropriate and acceptable in the circumstance described? I am not looking for some sort of sanction against John - although I am sure that others are, in light of the article talk page comment that ''as long as it's in the history that it was the wrong thing to do'' (having already described the actionas ''foul and <nowiki></nowiki> abuse of tools'') - but I would like to know whether I have misunderstood where the line is in cases such as this. Best, ] (]) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's late here and I need to go to bed, but I will respond to your question tomorrow. I really will this time, too. :) Regards, ] (]) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Lir == | |||
| Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--] (]) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I would, but I don't know anything more than I've read second-hand. If you are referring to his original ban, that resulted from an arbitration case that took place well before I started participating on Misplaced Pages. If you are referring to his being blocked again within the past few days, I have stayed away from the matter so I can review it impartially in case it comes before the Arbitration Committee, but I think you can get a sense of the concerns from reading through his last few contributions and the recent history of his talkpage. Hope this helps; sorry I can't be more informative. ] (]) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::NYB, you know you need a wiki-break when you take to sleep editing! :P ] (]) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may be right. ] (]) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It doesn't help. I am only interested in the current ban. Since you approved of it, I tough you knew the reason for it. Cheers--] (]) 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::What is your basis for saying that I approved of it? To the best of my recollection I had nothing to with it. ] (]) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Trouble in paradise == | |||
| would you please be so kind as to inform warn this editor that such comments are inflammatory, unnecessary, and very likely to cause trouble and resentment. Perhaps there needs to be a course to train Admins? Thank you. ] (]) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps you could first have a word with Giano about the disruptive effects of sniping at admins who are trying to deal with a ] who blew his unpteenth final chance and has now taken to socvkpuppetry, and how very likely to cause trouble and resentment. --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS In the mist of Giano's trademark sarcasm, it can be hard to grasp precisely what his complaints are, but in this case it appears that Giano's substantive contribution to the discussion appears to be that the edits by the numerous sockpuppets of Vintagekits are being reverted per ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As you very well know, your solution to this problem is going to escelate problems considerably. Pointing out this, is not trolling, but an attempt to avoid further disruption. ] (]) 11:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you think that the response to a banned sockpuppeteer should be to allow them to continue to evade their ban, I suggest that you open an RfAR or try to get policy changed. You previously insisted at great length that if Vk was given a chance, he'd behave himself, yet he abused that chance by sockpuppeteering, including by multiple voting for you at the arbcom election. If you do actually want to resolve problems rather than escalating them, it would be more persuasive if your response was not always to jump in to try to facilitate Vintagekits's evasion of the norms of conduct which apply on wikipedia. | |||
| :::::I have yet to see any acknowledgement from you that Vk's sockpuppeteering has been disruptive and contrary to policy, and as long as you continue to remain silent on that point but quick to criticise the admins enforcing policy, then trolling seems to me like an appropriate description. I note, BTW, that it's not just the admins in this area who are wrong, but that ArbCom is also denounced by you for its . Very civil, indeed. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Brad, would you please warn the above "admin" such comments as this on my page are completely inacceptable . I did warn that this was the sort of thing that would happen. I won't reply to her myself, for a while, to give you chance to sort it out. Thank you. ] (]) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For goodness sake, Giano, what's your complaint? You are of course quite entitled to disagree with an enforcement request, but if it's made, then ] says "Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page". --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::BrownHairedGirl, I think Giano is referring to the filing of the AE request, not to the notification - although I recognise that Giano's question is open to interpretation. As for the AE request, the response to it so far shows it is unlikely to go anywhere. Personally, I would say it is more frivilous that some of the recent ScienceApologist requests, and I would suggest you consider withdrawing it. ] (]) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Well, this is an interesting change from the times when I would approach Giano seeking to calm a situation and he would tell me that my meddlesomeness was unwelcome.... | |||
| Use of terms like "trolling" has never helped resolve a problem in any situation that I can recall, and I doubt very much that this will be the first time. To be fair, Giano expects others to have a thick skin, and I suppose it may be tempting to suppose that he should be willing to take what he gives in the way of unvarnished language and characterizations—but this situation like many others calls for calm speech and moderation of tone, especially from administrators and other experienced users. I see no reason to believe that Giano is proceeding in anything other than good faith in asserting his personal view that administrators are mishandling the current situation. | |||
| Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters. I have not reviewed this particular series of edits but if, for example, a blocked user saw the spelling "teh" and changed it to "the", it would be foolish to revert it for the sake of reverting it. On the other hand, if an individual is rightfully banned, we do not want to encourage him or her to sneak around the ban, and allowing too many substantive edits to stand can have the effect of doing so. Although it is not written down anywhere, the reason for the ban and seriousness of the user's violations that led to it can also be relevant. | |||
| The real substance of the dispute, it seems to me, is whether Vintagekits should be allowed to edit (subject to appropriate restrictions), or whether his current indefinite block should remain in place given his admitted multiple sockpuppetry during and after the arbitration case. On this I express no present view because the matter may again come before the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
| === Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests === | |||
| |} ] (]) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! == | |||
| Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on ]. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into ] and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to ]. ] 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Commenting there. ] (]) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="height:575px; width:700px; border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="height:560px; border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks"><div style="float: left; width: 330px; padding:6px">] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| ] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| ] {{font|text=And a Happy New Year!|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}</div> | |||
| <div style="float: left; width: 330px; padding:6px"> | |||
| ]May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! ] (]) 08:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <br /> | |||
| ''Adapted from {{tl|Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{tlsu|User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.''</div> | |||
| Hi Newyokbrad. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at ]. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on '''a false claim being made by Elonka and Arangar''' about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls ]. Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (], ] and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here ]. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in ], embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards ] (]) 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </div></div> | |||
| :Hi Brad. I've just been reading through the discussion about this page and it seems to be a red hering to me. PHG created an article about a papal bull which he called ]. There seems to be a lack of sources that confirm that this particular document is know by this name although those words are included in its opening. In response, a disambiguation page was created (]) listing other letters that also contained those words in their opening. PHG disputes that these letter are known by that title. I think Adam Bishop's comments are the most significant - he points out that this phrase is fairly commonly used in such correspondence and that he doesn't think any of the letters should be known by this title. I see little bad faith by anybody there- the only problems are some rather aggressive comments by PHG - bolding words like "untrue", "false statement" etc. and the problem that the original title may well be based on some fairly selective source citation and given the decision that is to pass, one must question PHG's reliability here. I will try and start a discussion about a better title for the article, but I don't think this has much bearing on the case. Regards, <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:46, 25 December 2024
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For your well-reasoned and clearly explained comments over at User talk:Big Thumpus. Yamla (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas!
|
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | 
|
|
|
|
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025 |
|
Hello Newyorkbrad, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creep 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
Happy Holidays
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025! |
|
Hello Newyorkbrad, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.