This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 23 July 2015 (→James Randi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:18, 23 July 2015 by NeilN (talk | contribs) (→James Randi)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
| Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
you were mentioned
At Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2
The first implicit mention was by SilkTork where he apparently makes statements concerning internal deliberations by ArbCom. The second (explicit) was by Rich Farmbrough at .
used the term "deceitful" , iterate the "arbitrator knowledge" claim at length which I find a tad distasteful in an RfA. To my knowledge and belief, neither of these persons is covered by the current AE ArbCom case "injunction." Collect (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Library needs you!
We hope The Misplaced Pages Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for this, Brad. I went to do it, but you already had. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
James Randi
Really poor revert. Never mind the close paraphrasing issues, why the hurry to add an unsourced chunk of fluff to an article which has survived without it for years? --NeilN 23:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Several editors have suggested that the IP editor appears to be Mr. Randi himself, or perhaps someone working closely with him. Given that there appears to be no dispute as to the accuracy of the edits, I perceive little downside in leaving them in place for a short time while the editor is being asked to check in on his talkpage. In these circumstances, and consistent with the views of others expressed at ANI, the upside of treating a BLP editor with courtesy in the event that it turns out to be the article subject, outweighs the downside of allowing the edits to remain for a day or two if it turns out it is not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so it'd be okay for a mayor of a city to add the unsourced details of the twenty-odd awards he's been given to his biography? --NeilN 23:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would be, among other things, politically unwise for him or her to do, given the sometime practical consequences of politicians' being reported as editing their own articles. But if it happened, it would make sense, not to instantly revert every word of what was added, but to assess the additions on their merits, including but not limited to issues of verifiability and undue weight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- IPOF, almost all of the "fluff" was verifiable quite readily - I find the instant removal of material which is not only citable but trivially citable to be problematic, as I find little of it (other than some fluff) to be remotely in a contentious category. Importance of any material to the BLP is, of course, debatable, but reverting what are primarily "statements of fact" as a copyvio is pushing the limits. Were this opinion material, the position is reversed. Again - IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that being factual doesn't make something exempt from our copyright policy. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- There seems to be a double standard here. I do not think a such a list would be allowed to stand if it was added to a biography of a subject holding views unpopular with the mainstream-focused/science-first Misplaced Pages community. BLP courtesy only for some BLPs? --NeilN 16:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- IPOF, almost all of the "fluff" was verifiable quite readily - I find the instant removal of material which is not only citable but trivially citable to be problematic, as I find little of it (other than some fluff) to be remotely in a contentious category. Importance of any material to the BLP is, of course, debatable, but reverting what are primarily "statements of fact" as a copyvio is pushing the limits. Were this opinion material, the position is reversed. Again - IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would be, among other things, politically unwise for him or her to do, given the sometime practical consequences of politicians' being reported as editing their own articles. But if it happened, it would make sense, not to instantly revert every word of what was added, but to assess the additions on their merits, including but not limited to issues of verifiability and undue weight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so it'd be okay for a mayor of a city to add the unsourced details of the twenty-odd awards he's been given to his biography? --NeilN 23:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
my gift basket
as long as Ms White is bringing up two year old conversations, let me remind you of some other 'casual kibitzing' from that 'informal jokey' forum: <clipped, due to tripping the edit filter>
i doubt Ms White is honestly bothered by my ill-advised remarks to her on IRC, made two years ago, but if so, she has my warmest apologies, and she is welcome to compare my remarks to remarks made by her friend, seen above, and on his Encyclopedia Dramatica article.
if you oversight this, you may as well sweep this (scroll way down) under the rug too. i have left the Wikipedians alone lately, aside from IRC log dumping and updating ED articles on them, and I would like to request that you afford me the same courtesy kthx. i am composing my departure note to a WPO moderator right now, so that Ms White will not feel threatened by my typed words. 173.85.198.203 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)