User talk:Newyorkbrad

Resolution

Dear Newyorkbrad, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Availability note

I'll be traveling with limited online time for about a week. I will contribute as needed to finishing up the Banning policy case, but my participation will be fairly sporadic otherwise. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou

I appreciate greatly that you took the time to listen to my request, and especially that you took the time to look through the information. I accept the feedback that you and Gorilla have given. Given there are 3 votes to decline, is the proper next step to withdraw, or to let the process complete? Thx. Bob the goodwin (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If you ask to withdraw the request, I'm sure that will be fine, but it's up to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

... and I now see that you've posted the withdrawal. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

New Newyorkbradblog post: The new Google book

For those interested, see here. Comments welcome. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider changing your vote?

At the Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus request for arbitration, you said "Fearofreprisal's topic-ban, coupled with the discussion above, may help improve the editing environment on this article."

I don't think so. Not only has there been a lot of edit warring (*after* I'm long gone), but 3 parties to the request for arbitration have now gone to ANI, to try an have me indefinitely blocked or site banned - the first, based in the idea that I violated a TBAN by filing the RFAR, and the other two based on the idea that I'm a "vexatious litigant" (i.e., I disagree with their viewpoint.) [1][2]

It seems to be either in payback for filing the RFAR, or for what I've said in the RFAR. (I've posted a request for temporary injunctions, but I don't know how that works, or how fast it works, or if there's a better approach.)

Are you open to reconsidering your vote? Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Asimov talk page response

Thanks for the amazingly rapid response to my Talk Page query regarding the Immortal Isaac. As mentioned in my online short story “Pride’s Prison,” a fictionalized, thinly-veiled personal memoir, I‘ve been a huge fan of his since I was a kid. Indeed, he helped get me through terrible days of profound school bullying, which I mention within the story, with his escapist fare par excellence! Rest assured, I’m headed for Amazon presently to search for the book you graciously guided me to. I am appreciative. Best regards. Don SchneiderHistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help. Hope you enjoy the books. I'll take a look for your story when I have a chance sometime. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams article

Please read the talk page comment I left for fluffernutter. It was also intended for you. Tfortrouble (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I copied it here:

I believe you were the admin who either fully protected or both fully then semi protected the SA article. I and my colleagues researched the page and found two aggressive and negative editors in the past, fasttimes68 (banned then later banned again as a sock puppet) and hoary (still editing and following) interestingly so are friends. My suggestion is that you ban hoary from editing this page and also place the full protection back up again for at least another year. From what I've seen of hoary and his both frivolous as well as libelous edits the past several years, even exhibited in the discussions, and given the fact that SA is a continued public persona who will more than likely have more news coming out, it is better for Wikipedia to be safe than sorry. Unless no one minds more cleaning up to do. Tfortrouble (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)