User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:12, 21 March 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot or User:Shadowbot3. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive5. Archives prior to October 27, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1; from October 27 to December 19, 2006 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2; from December 19, 2006 to January 29, 2007 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3; and from January 29 to February 27, 2006 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brad!

Thank you Brad for blocking the vandal who threatened me! Also, Werdabot is dead. :-( Try Misza13's bot instead! Real96 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead, or just resting and pining for the fjords? Newyorkbrad 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's dead alright. :-( Real96 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this tomorrow, thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Shadowbot3 has taken over for now. :) Thanks to Shadow1 and anyone else concerned. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I, Sue Rangell, give Newyorkbrad this Working Man's Barnstar (Yet Another Barnstar) for his ongoing and outstanding editing/administrations/Humor. Anyone who takes ten minutes to look at your accomplishments will give you a barnstar too, so be careful! Just toss this one in with the rest! Sue Rangell 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]

Thank you; much appreciated. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur80...

...is requesting unblock; see User talk:Arthur80. Since you blocked him/her, your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty weak excuse for an unblock request, but it has been a full month now ... have left a note on the user's talkpage asking for assurances of much improved behavior. Newyorkbrad 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87.81.240.121

Don't you think six months is kind of big for an IP? Isn't there a maximum of one month at most? They do change overtime. The Evil Clown 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I'm aware of the general rule that we don't block IP's for long periods of time, and in fact, I don't think I've ever blocked an IP for longer than a couple of weeks before. However, if you look at this IP's contributions, it appears to be a static IP with nothing but similar vandalism and personal attacks for the entire time. There was a prior one-month block and upon it expiring things have picked up right where they left off. Additionally, there is a Checkuser block in the history as well, which generally indicates something troubling going on. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I'm interested to be one later on. I've read quite a bit of policy, and looking at the block after two unblock requests, one which I removed and the other might be still visible. (I chased him down, partly anyways). I was just a bit surprised with, and curious about the duration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilclown93 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

An uninvolved administrator will review, and presumably deny, the unblock request. Good luck with your editing and potential future adminship, and please feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasek

Hey I never "hoped". I just said "can't wait" (opinion). Its a matter of time (fact). Love, CJ DUB 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AC/CN

Please advise on what I recently posted. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there with my opinion; see also higher on the same page for an invitation. Newyorkbrad 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. I was thinking that if things don't change, we may need to ask ArbCom to re-vote on accepting the case. Also, I'm actually thinking about throwing my lots into RfA... :P - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that a revote would change anything. Let's see what the arbitrators do. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are also two arbitrators that didn't vote (although it'd be odd asking them to vote to accept/reject something that they've been quiet about) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted from AC/CN) FloNight, one of the arbitrators who hadn't voted, has now removed the case from the RfAr page with the note "Remove as rejected after discussion on mailing list". The fact that there was ongoing discussion about the case confirms my view that in close situations like this, it's better for us to let an arbitrator do the removing. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas19-LSLM

[1] - I have failed already... David Mestel^(Talk) 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. I thought you had said you had to go offline for awhile, or I would have left it for you to clean up. Don't worry, Thatcher131 frequently pitches in to deal with issues that arise in "my" cases, and vice versa. It's still your case and you're still at 100% in it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Python's dirty fork in the restaurant sketch. Thatcher131 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which, of course, we have an article on. :) Newyorkbrad 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that after India-Pakistan, this case's evidence page seems positively tranquil... David Mestel^(Talk) 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh, don't encourage them.... Actually, the very worst I've ever seen is Armenia-Azerbaijan, which Thatcher took a wiki-break rather than deal with. :) Newyorkbrad 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GT? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"GT"? Newyorkbrad 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Talk? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, my fault. I'll try to get on but I'm at a relative's this afternoon so might have to be tomorrow (or tonight, but you'll be asleep). Newyorkbrad 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That's where you are. :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, here I am ... *gathering everyone around the screen* ... everyone wave to David and Cbrown. :) Newyorkbrad 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Waves to NYB's relatives* David Mestel^(Talk) 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*laughs out loud* Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Your arbitration evidence

My apologies for overlooking the guidelines. I'll revert it to the last version. _{Freedom skies| talk} 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FA template protection

Oh, yes, I forgot about that. -- ReyBrujo 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI User:Durova is contemplating an unblcok for FAAFA

So he can participate in the Arbcom case.[2] I referred her to you as the Arbitration clerk and I feel if his unblcok is to participate in the Arbcom case, it should be managed by the arbcom clerks or the arbitration committee. I don't have an objection if you feel it's necessary and manage the unblock but a wheel war and the involvement of yet another admin is not necessary. It should all be over soon anyway. --Tbeatty 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. She has decided not to pursue this. It still seems FAAFA has information he wishes to share with the ArbCom. If you have his email, contacting him may resolve this. --Tbeatty 04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He can send an e-mail with the information to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) with the request to forward it to the arbitrators' mailing list. Newyorkbrad 04:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments newyorkbrad

I am just learning how to format and link on Wikipedia and therefore making several upgrades the last couple days.

I uploaded a passage on Richard D. Wyckoff. Wyckoff was an important speculator and writer of turn of the 20th century Wall Street. He is best known as the founder and publisher of the Magazine of Wall Street although he also wrote several books in the early 1900s that have become Wall Street classics of the "inner sanctum" so to speak.

Much has been lost or forgotten about Wyckoff's teachings and works. He was quite a speculator and investor educator/advocate that should not be lost sight of in the pursuit of investment survival.

J.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jccoppola (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Eisenhower

I was not experimenting with the page. Someone vandalized the page by deleting the entire article and replacing with "elephant". I deleted "elephant" and therefor blanked the page. Ole 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Law articles

Hi Newyorkbrad, On your userpage I see you list law-related articles as one of your interests. I would appreciate it if you could help me clean up the Contract killing article. It's a murky subject, but it needs cleanup, and I'm not sure of the best way to go about it, so any advice is appreciated.

If you help me with this article, I'll help you edit any articles you want.... --sunstar net^talk 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I chose this article is: I'm a member of WikiProject Law Enforcement and I'm intending to edit more legal-related articles, so any help from you, the expert, is much appreciated. --sunstar net^talk 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take a look at the article and make any edits that strike me; however, be aware that criminal law isn't really one of my specialties. Still, will take a look. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

A little help at WP:AC/CN, if you're on and able to. Thanks. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the opening. Your question responded there. (I have the noticeboard watchlisted, so no need to crosspost here as well.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you actually went to sleep. Thanks, by the way. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got time to read over? :) Also, I'm thinking about going for an RfA, but I'm thinking that my erratic edit pattern may hurt me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration pages look perfect. Keep an eye on them and I know you will let us know if any issues arise. Regarding a potential RfA, I will be glad to take a look and give you my thoughts, but it may be this weekend before I can get to it. (Darn that pesky real life for interfering with quality wiki-time. :) ) Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real life? What? (I brought my computer to my school. Damn 8am class + class that ends at 8:30pm) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll live. I'm used to it. (I'm stuck at school until 8:30.... 5:30pm class.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Reading your comment on Bishonen's page - you might be interested in the conversation here and the subsequent draft FAQ here and this by Raul. Regards --Joopercoopers 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look at them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Week in the Woods

Thanks for your support --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - an easy call under the circumstances, especially after the DRV discussion reaching the same conclusion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

Do you know if anyone has emailed Padawer about the WP:AN discussion? It just seems that the easiest way around the problem would be for Qmwnebrvtcyxuz to make a few positive contributions to the mainspace. That way there's neither any reason to block him, nor any need to make him an exception to the "no social networking only" policy. Which presumably would be the best outcome for all.... WjBscribe 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a message has been left on Padawer's userpage, which was successful in reaching him when the username issue was under discussion, but I don't know if anyone has e-mailed as well. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's usually responded to message on his talkpage quite quickly but hasn't this time. But his email address seems to be a dedicated gmail one rather than his personal one. I guess there's no reason to think he's any more likely to check that than his talkpage... Do you think its worth a go anyway- a bit of fatherly advice might sort this out? WjBscribe 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible upside, no downside, will take you one minute to transcribe the talkpage message into an e-mail ... I say go for it. You could also post to User talk:Q... that the user should ask Padawer to check his mail. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll send the email and post a message to Qmwnebrvtcyxuz. WjBscribe 02:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

See this diff. Advise to alert the ArbCom members to look at it again. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzz. (There's a chance you didn't see what I wrote.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Feel free to bring this to the attention of the participating arbitrators (there are only four) on their talkpages, although I don't know whether they will elect to consider new evidence at this late stage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buzz people. (Besides, only 3 people voted so far.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why?

i was told via jimbo in email that i can delete user talk page all I want. are you now trying to tell me i cannot? 69.132.199.100 03:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you want email him yourself? 69.132.199.100 03:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have just noted the comment you posted the other day that you it "would not make you sad" if certain people died. Comments of this nature are unacceptable and must never be repeated. Additionally, your functioning as a single-purpose account and posting repetitive edits of a particular nature to a userpage and related article page are troublesome. Please discontinue these activities or this account may be blocked. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have just noted the comment you posted the other day that you it "would not make you sad" if certain people died. Comments of this nature are unacceptable and must never be repeated. Additionally, your functioning as a single-purpose account and posting repetitive edits of a particular nature to a userpage and related article page are troublesome. Please discontinue these activities or this account may be blocked. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"

is not trtue, my ip address change, is just that they list things that not true, 1 admin is big fan and one user is big fan so it make me look bad but even other people agree with me when they have discussion on what to allow on page, you see, actress say she is movie, but not listed anywhere excep[t a fan site. Admin who is fan wants it to stay, and editor who is fan agree, but role not verify so it not stay, i not be pushed away just because of fan. credit is not on imdb.com because they admit, she NOT in film, so why credit her on her page. I am not going to bow down to admin who block me just bnecause i not agree war for edit.

I not say i want person certain dead, i said it does not make me cry, it was a response to another edit someone make, and even other admin read it and read it all and agree, it was tiring statement. look true, you see is many ip edit there is mine, i not bow because of fan. is not right okay? 69.132.199.100 03:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, NYB: I have talked to this IP user. He's now User:CineWorld, from what I can tell. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suggest that he or she find a different topic to edit on for awhile. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting a little touchy. He attacked Leebo when all Leebo did was to agree with me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to suggest they get a new username as well. Cineworld is a chain of cinemas in the UK. WjBscribe 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least point, I think the user is treading a thin line around getting warned for personal attacks. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leebo is attack me all time, i make first edit to remove credit he make comment me and then follow me call me vandal every edit i make anywhere wikipedia, this not fair to warn one but not anything to other. i was right, i not bow down because fans are mad CineWorld 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see a diff to prove this, CineWorld? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read leebo comments me after edits i making. you see true just like now you see i was block because admin edit war and block me to quiet me. CineWorld 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and i not stop edit because anyone want me to, i was right so is not fair tell me to stop edit that article, is just i stand up for what wikipedia is, i not let trash on page. just because a fan is admin and block me to win dispute mean nothing. CineWorld 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be able to understand much easier if you provide the diff that shows Leebo calling you names. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

many word not babelfish so i leave message your talk page Penwhale. CineWorld 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 190: / Line 190: @@
 and i not stop edit because anyone want me to, i was right so is not fair tell me to stop edit that article, is just i stand up for what wikipedia is, i not let trash on page. just because a fan is admin and block me to win dispute mean nothing. [[User:CineWorld|CineWorld]] 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 :I'd be able to understand much easier if you provide the diff that shows Leebo calling you names. - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] | <sup>[[User_talk:Penwhale|Blast him]] / [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|Follow his steps]]</sup> 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
+many word not babelfish so i leave message your talk page Penwhale. [[User:CineWorld|CineWorld]] 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)