User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Recent RfA: new section |
Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) →Recent RfA: cmt |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
I see that a recent RfA where you and I discussed some stuff was withdrawn by the candidate, and that's sad even in spite of my concerns there. Anyway, I want to stop by here and underline that I appreciate what you tried to point out to me, even if it got some negative reactions. I thought that it was helpful and offered with good intentions. One of the other editors replied to you rather rudely, and you didn't deserve that. I know you as someone who is conscientious in offering supportive feedback to other users (including me of course), and so I want to let you know that I don't think that anyone should have yelled at you that way. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
I see that a recent RfA where you and I discussed some stuff was withdrawn by the candidate, and that's sad even in spite of my concerns there. Anyway, I want to stop by here and underline that I appreciate what you tried to point out to me, even if it got some negative reactions. I thought that it was helpful and offered with good intentions. One of the other editors replied to you rather rudely, and you didn't deserve that. I know you as someone who is conscientious in offering supportive feedback to other users (including me of course), and so I want to let you know that I don't think that anyone should have yelled at you that way. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Brad's an attorney and a former (and current!!! :) !!!) Arb. And disliked by at least one very blunt editor. I'm confident he's been yelled at '''way''' worse than that many, many times. But anyway, I know you're not talking about me, but if you considered my response was too curt too, then I'm sorry Brad. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:26, 5 January 2017
This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Sigh...
Regarding this - You hope people get a clue after being warned but instead... As the user vandalized after being warned they would be blocked, I have blocked indefinitely. --NeilN talk to me 02:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Thanks for the update (and sorry I didn't respond earlier). I rarely fault anyone for extending AGF one step too far. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Holiday card
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Newyorkbrad! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Menachem Mendel Schneerson
It is impossible to add well-sourced prominent material linking Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a Chabad article, to the Crown Height riots due to biased editors. You were involved in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. It is evident to me that the behavior that led to that arbitration request continues. Can we reopen the arbitration?Rococo1700 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- That arbitration was seven years ago, and frankly I don't remember much about it. Reading through the decision, it seems the arbitrators didn't find it necessary to take any concrete actions at that time. As such, I'm not sure that the prior decision will be very helpful in resolving any current disputes, although than perhaps showing that the topic has a history of controversy (if anyone were to try to dispute that). Please use the regular methods of dispute resolution to try to address any current issues, with arbitration, as always, being the last step in the process.
- @Rococo1700: Please note that I haven't reviewed the current dispute. I see that several editors claim you are the one editing against consensus, although I haven't evaluated the claim. If there is substance to it, or if you want to help to defuse tensions, you might want to focus on some of your other editing interests for awhile. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Happy Holidays! | |
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC) |
Kenzie Ziegler move request
Hello, and happy holidays. Someone created a page called Kenzie Ziegler. All reliable sources (and nearly all Google "news" sources) call this person "Mackenzie" Ziegler, she performs professionally under the name Mackenzie, and even her social media use the full name "Mackenzie". "Kenzie" is a nickname used only by her friends, and perhaps some fans. See: https://www.google.com/#q=%22mackenzie+ziegler%22&tbm=nws
vs. https://www.google.com/#tbm=nws&q=%22Kenzie+ziegler%22
Previously, someone protected the page "Mackenzie Ziegler" from creation, so I am unable to move the page. I think that Mackenzie Ziegler is probably now notable -- she has 5.8 million instagram followers, was a main character on a successful reality TV show for several years, and has attracted a considerable amount of press (although this new article is quite a mess). More than 3,000 Google "News" sources: https://www.google.com/#q=%22mackenzie+ziegler%22&tbm=nws But I am sure that the page should not be called "Kenzie Ziegler". Can you please move it? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- NYB, no move should take place until a consensus is reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenzie Ziegler. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I understand that the AfD discussion will go ahead, but I'm not sure why the page shouldn't be moved from an inappropriate to the correct title in the meantime. The AfD notice would move with it. Is there some technical reason that the move would mess up the AfD or something else I'm missing? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the consensus is keep, it can then be moved. If the consensus is delete, there's no reason to move it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'd have a serious BLP issue with leaving an article, even temporarily, at an incorrect or improper name, and would move such an article notwithstanding any pending AfD. Here, given that "Kenzie" is apparently merely a diminutive or nickname, I suppose there is less cause for concern, but my own inclination would still be to move it. Does anyone else who happens to be reading here have a view? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- How long does the AfD stay open? Is it 7 days? If so, just three more days to go. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, usually 7 days, unless there's a reason to extend it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- How long does the AfD stay open? Is it 7 days? If so, just three more days to go. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd have a serious BLP issue with leaving an article, even temporarily, at an incorrect or improper name, and would move such an article notwithstanding any pending AfD. Here, given that "Kenzie" is apparently merely a diminutive or nickname, I suppose there is less cause for concern, but my own inclination would still be to move it. Does anyone else who happens to be reading here have a view? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If the consensus is keep, it can then be moved. If the consensus is delete, there's no reason to move it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I understand that the AfD discussion will go ahead, but I'm not sure why the page shouldn't be moved from an inappropriate to the correct title in the meantime. The AfD notice would move with it. Is there some technical reason that the move would mess up the AfD or something else I'm missing? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Question for TPWs
On my watchlist I am seeing some entries with the notation "Tag: 2017 source edit." What does that mean? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- You'll be as shocked as I am to learn the WMF have made a software change without publicizing it. Basically, another attempt to sneak VisualEditor in as the default editor, under a different name. (You can see for yourself how shitty it is by going here and selecting "new Wikitext mode".) ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is part of the VE extension, but strictly speaking I think it's an attempt to sneak Parsoid in; it uses the same infrastructure as VE but is a wikitext editor. It's not bad, actually. A little slow to load on large pages, and some of the interface elements really need some work, but I feel a certain sense of obligation to support efforts to modernize :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Recent RfA
I see that a recent RfA where you and I discussed some stuff was withdrawn by the candidate, and that's sad even in spite of my concerns there. Anyway, I want to stop by here and underline that I appreciate what you tried to point out to me, even if it got some negative reactions. I thought that it was helpful and offered with good intentions. One of the other editors replied to you rather rudely, and you didn't deserve that. I know you as someone who is conscientious in offering supportive feedback to other users (including me of course), and so I want to let you know that I don't think that anyone should have yelled at you that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Brad's an attorney and a former (and current!!! :) !!!) Arb. And disliked by at least one very blunt editor. I'm confident he's been yelled at way worse than that many, many times. But anyway, I know you're not talking about me, but if you considered my response was too curt too, then I'm sorry Brad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)