User talk:Newyorkbrad

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot or 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

Hey

Kevin mills has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are so nice.

Arbitrator's proposed decisions

Hi NYbrad, I have a question regarding the proposed decisions. Will we even get a chance to explain ourselves before the arbitrators vote? Because frankly, I am utterly shocked about the proposed decisions and have been waiting patiently to explain my case. Thanks dude. - Fedayee 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence and workshop pages have been open for awhile now. You can post there, or else to the proposed decision talk page which might be the best place at this point. If you have anything to say it is probably in your best interests to do so immediately. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban the whole Armenian community here because of 3 POV pushers, which all our block logs were fine until they appeared, everyone is going to vote yes, so we might as well give up. Artaxiad 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a clerk who assists with maintaining the arbitration case pages. I am providing procedural advice. I have no more influence over the outcome of the decision than any other editor. Your comments should be kept on-topic and addressed to the arbitrators.

In my individual capacity, I will add that watching this case unfold and reading the evidence page and the workshop every day have been my most miserable experience on Wikipedia. The amount of hatred and bitterness and enmity expressed by editors, from both countries, simultaneously saddens me and scares the hell out of me. If this is the way that the best and the brightest of Azeris and Armenians — the opinion leaders and future leaders who would contribute information to an encyclopedia — see themselves and their neighbors, then I fear for the future, not of your Wikipedia articles, but of your countries. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Response(s)

Sadly I do too, but there goverment hates Armenians 100% the propaganda that surfaces there nation is horrible, I plan on visiting Turkey and Azerbaijan (Before Armenia), for various reasons to study and observe there habitats etc, I may sound harsh but its true there destruction of Armenian history is happening not in present day world but on the internet too, clear evidence, theres various points I can make but whenever I open my mouth and speak the truth I get punished here, no Armenian user should be blocked, since this is not Azeri-Armenian dispute its Armenian and Adil and his accomplices end of story, I've done many comprises here with Turks (probably most hated by Armenians) for the genocide etc, accusations which I don't sweat, see my point? and frustration? the last war ten years ago left massacres, pogroms, genocides, etc permanent damage on both countries, it won't be too soon when we see another war since Armenia occupies basically half there country which is backed by historically demands the Armenian nation has been here since Christs day to the Crusades there identify is clear and crisp its basically nationalism what is hurting both nations and surrounding areas IE Hrant dinks murder by a Ultra nationalist, Trabzon, a area where brainwashing occupies in Turkey, he was directed by another miserable person to bring hate against Armenians, thankfully Turkey today is a great nation, Azerbaijan needs to follow there steps since there a new nation, (Barely 100 years), theres my 25 cents. Artaxiad 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ciao, I told you from the start, theres no point of this, if any ArbCom conflict starts just block all the users, I even read it myself by an admin in the incidents place, I don't think banning members is fair without a reasonable explanation or if users can defend there selves, before they get banned. Artaxiad 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, you are not a saint, and neither are any of the other of your friends. You've been doing the same things you are being accused of BEFORE my appearance in Wikipedia, and AFTER my leave in the Fall of 2006. So blaming anything on me, or anyone else, and trying to make yourself and your possy as angels, is not credible. --adil 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No way we are angels, there was no problems until you came back, too many locked articles you deserve it. Artaxiad 16:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pfffft, you should delete this. Artaxiad 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, maybe you're right. Newyorkbrad 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since your an admin a block on me is justified and 100% appropriate. Artaxiad 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?

I would like to know with whom the following items are formally filed: 1. Circumvention of 3RR by group of editors and admins 2. Constant text deletions absolutely contrary to WP:Revert (experienced editors and admins) 3. Edit- and revert- warring (and to avoid 3RR violation the parties in question simply wait the extra few hours and continue making the same reverts)

For some of the people they are admins (which I have observed means that little, if anything, will be done until I mail a hard copy of documentation to 'the top'), some of the people have a long history of this behavior and have even been punished before.

Additionally, while I presented items related to the complaint (3RR violation and history of the accussed) the response was personal attacks. That epitomizes the reaction to any disagreement in any of the articles this circle edits. Your comment to me was a suggestion to edit articles instead...but it is exactly the stuff I listed (subsequently deleted) that detailed a fraction of the reasons to NOT edit articles. Any edit that is not approved by the circle of admins & friends subjects the editor to ridicule, demeaning comments and immediate reversions rendering the time and effort one spends on an article wasted.

So, if 3RR was not the place to give the necessary background information related to 3RR and revert-warriors then tell me where I file the grievances and requests for actual action? What I posted is a fraction of what can be provided as these things continue on a daily basis. I am near the end of the frutrating process of watching other users get penalized for "harming Wikipedia" with blocks and bans while their vindictive and malicious actions continue to be protected as it was on 3RR yesterday. I assume the admins would prefer actually taking action and against the edit-warriors (who have over 2 years history of this behavior so any semblance of WP:AGF is unwarranted) rather than having a FedEx sent to the offices of the Founders detailing their history and actions and including the protection of their actions.

So, if you read the post yesterday then you can begin to understand the frustration many are feeling. Please help us find the necessary forum resolving the matters (i.e. revocation of admin, banishment from certain articles, etc.). -- Tony of Race to the Right 06:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you believe there is a serious issue, you may follow our dispute resolution procedures. Bear in mind that these are intended to address major or recurring problems, rather than isolated peeves such as a 3RR block being declined. An alternative would be to post your concerns to the administrators' noticeboard for comments. I cannot guarantee the reception you will receive there, but the forum is available in appropriate circumstances (see the instructions at the top of that page). You can link to this thread if you post there or anywhere.

Frankly, I am not convinced that there is a serious issue here, as opposed to your personal disagreement with the views of other editors that can and should be resolved through the normal editing process. Your affiliation with an external site does not raise confidence that you are seeking to edit with a neutral point of view and I hope you will remember to do so. You will also have to substantially moderate the stridency of your rhetoric if you expect your concerns to receive attention.

Issues of this nature are resolved on-wiki. Threats of "a Fed Ex to the Founders" are not appropriate and will be completely disregarded. Newyorkbrad 11:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, for the most part, quit editing the articles as the double standards on the articles were just maddening. I also realized that I was easily dragged into the petty personal discussions which ignore the issues originally at hand. In those, when one standard was pointed out it was claimed that they were isolated instances (or simply untrue). It became clear that only collecting instances of, for example, differences in how sources were assessed in determining if it was "too biased" to include in Wikipedia would be the only way to find a consensus on which standard to apply. In copy/pasting those diffs for examples it became clear that there were actual patterns of abuse that existed. I know better than to just throw out such charges of collusion, etc. if it is based on limited anecdotal experience, but in the process I also then observed the types of aggressive actions the edit-warring people were taking. I started to search the policies that were always thrown around ("see this policy" or "you are violating that policy") and the related talk pages. I discovered that the issues I was encountering were not new to the article (no surprise) and that there was a long history of the same behaviors by the same core of admins & editors.

You may be aware how difficult it is to remember where all of the examples of something are located. So, I started collecting these on a subpage of my user page. However, I found (through my reading Wikipedia's policies, essays, guidelines and related talk pages) that subpages of the sort were discouraged. So I moved the content to my own personal server which allows me to also eliminate ad hominem attacks if anyone added them on their own. (As it stands right now people e-mail items to me, I confirm the interpretation or validity of the complaint and upload the info into my database.) Additionally, the size of the content is now larger than should be acceptable for just user page on Wikipedia. Thank you for the alert, I do understand the 'lower of confidence' for that site, which is why the complaints (when filed) will be of a higher standard of objective documentation than would normally be required. Everything there is absolutely above board, does not come close to any violations of any laws (though I have checked in what I have been advised would be applicable jurisdictions only), does not violate other policies and, being that there are not any personal attacks or threats, does not violate any good practices or standards. In all instances any commentary provided I have tried to take in an accurate (though abbreviated) portion of context as well.

Finally, I do not mean to threaten with the FedEx statement. I am simply making it clear that the problems are (1) long standing, (2) center around the same few people, of whom a few are admins, (3) there is not any strides in addressing the obvious constant in the edit-wars, which leads me to weighing exactly what options exist and which have not been taken already regarding these individuals. I believe it is fair to disclose that option is being strongly considered. Most of the online avenues of resolution that are suggested now have been tried before and fail to solve the constant factor in the 2+ years of these issues. Why do I care enough to 'carry the burden'? Because in my conversation with Mr. Wales a few months ago I expressed how much I believe in the concept of Wikipedia. We both agreed that the concept will fail (again) if the 'watchers' begin to apply the philosophies to protect their content. The analogy that came up (because we were also talking about the ambitions for the Campaigns Wikia) is the shift from a democracy that protects the people to an oligarchy that claims they protect the people at the expense of the for the people's own good, while actual beneficiaries of 'protection' are the oligarchs.

Thank you for the suggestions. I will research the history and past cases to determine if the suggested avenues have already been presented with the same issues about the same people. -- Tony of Race to the Right 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFAR questions

Hi, expert clerk!

1. Are people allowed to do back-and-forth style followups on RFAR requests, like El_C's 2 sections on WP:RFAR#Betacommand? Not an objection, just a clarification - if it's OK, I'll write a short one.
2. Am I in danger of crossing 500 words in my statement there? If so, give me a count of how many I need to cut down.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re #1, RFAR is not a noticeboard. Those statements should probably be refactored to remove references to the block which everyone seems to have acknowledged was a mistake, and to focus on the reason for the request.

Re #2, you are at 700 words, which is not too bad. A statement that makes its points in a reasonably concise and direct way is a good statement even if it is technically a little long. What the arbitrators don't want is a conversation, or a statement that grows by 300 words every time the filer feels the need to add another rebuttal. Thatcher131 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, thanks for covering for me during a short sojurn into the real world. AnonEMouse, I agree with Thatcher on all these points. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And after all that I go and add stuff to my statement! :-) But I did think it was necessary, because chrisO does have a point - each incident, taken individually, has been rolled back, and is very forgivable. It is only the fact that there is a long pattern, and that the last 3 all came within 6 days that made me bring this case at all. I did shorten the earlier part of my statement a bit to make up for it, and won't expand it further. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What parties usually don't understand is that they do not need to prove their case at RFAR, but just to show the arbitrators that the case should be opened. Thatcher131 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I understood that; at the time, I saw one accept and Mack "on the fence" as to whether to accept at all, based on ChrisO's comment. I'll stop now. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Padawer

Hi Brad, sorry to bother you, but isthe Pardawer, quwer........ issue sorted now? Was thinking of dropping him an email to explain things but there's not much point if someone else has already, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WjBscribe has been taking the lead on this situation. He had some ideas for moving forward, so you might want to check in with him. Thanks for your interest. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Chiles Law Society

Done and done. I'll wait a few days. The main reason why I nom'ed the article was because it's just a school group and the only references ever written about the group are from school newspapers, which, as I know it, fails WP:ATT. Rockstar915 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Wilson

Brad, you said that you wanted to wait and see what the comments would be at WP:BLPN. There has been one comment and that comment says, "Delete the section." [1] It is a good argument: the prejudicial effect to Wilson's husband would outweigh any benefit the article might gain by including this section. You should also read this version written on the article's talk page by Uncle G: [2] There's no good reason to include this section in the article, and there are several good reasons to remove it. Even Wilson's Democratic opponent in 1998 agreed to pull this ad, and all other negative advertising. A statement made on a radio station that Wilson had "abused her power" was later described by the Democratic opponent's campaign as "a mistake." Please remove this section from the article. Kzq9599 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at this tomorrow and see where this stands. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I see you contacted User talk:BryanFromPalatine about RforArb.[3] A check user confirmed Kzq9599 is Bryan, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599. Arbustoo 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I see that Kzq9599 has been blocked. This does not, however, lessen the importance of adhering to WP:BLP on Heather Wilson. Newyorkbrad 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Arbustoo 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Good Luck!

Thank you very much. I hope for a smooth and speedy recovery. =) Nishkid64 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

excellent suggestion

Hi Newyourbrad. Your recommendation I wholeheartedly agree with, and which is also why I am no longer responding to Miss Mondegreen anywhere other than my talk page, and keeping my responses as polite and as concise as possible, with the primary aim to only correct factual errors. Regards, --Rebroad 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for [4], See also [5]. I'm getting tired ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what you pay me the big bucks for. I'm glad to see someone going line-by-line through the proposed decision, which is not to suggest in any way that the others haven't also done so. Newyorkbrad 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Thanks for your input at this checkuser case. I can understand why it was declined, as it falls outside the usual criteria (although an explanation of the reasons behind declining would have been helpful). But I do think it's important to go through, given the utterly nasty atmosphere at that article and AfD. I'm glad it will get a second look. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was probably declined as obvious. Is there some doubt about blocking the SPAs? Thatcher131 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a long and unhappy history to the Klingenschmitt BLP that I am not fully familiar with. On the face of things, Klingenschmitt has at least one major real-world enemy who has infested his article and its talkpage with attacks. But there are some, who may or may not be socks of said enemy, who allege that Klingenschmitt has orchestrated some of the attacks himself. I guess this can sit dormant until someone attempts to restart the article. Newyorkbrad 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - response to Thatcher131) I think that would be appropriate, but I don't have that power. I suggested as much to User:Netsnipe, who also commented at the checkuser request. The article has been deleted and the accounts have not been active since, but given what transpired my 2 cents are that it's better to sort this out and perhaps even block now, given the risk of re-creation and further defamatory edits. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

John M. Duhe, Jr. AFD

Done. Mwelch 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Closed as withdrawn by nominator. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

THANK YOU for finally giving me some feedback. In particular, I am kinda looking for feedback on my photos and my big contributions (Like those to Saturn Aura, Mercury Sable, and less likely, Ford Festiva, which was mostly a cleanup and restructuring.) Karrmann 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I may not be the best person to do the review, as these aren't my areas of speciality, but I'll do what I can. The reason I asked is that many editors who seek a review do so in preparation to an RfA, and I was wondering if that was your purpose, or just more generalized feedback. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

LegoAxiom1007 again

He's been violating your order not to issue user warnings. He seems kind of on point, but look at this edit [6]. Not only did he change another user's talk page comment, his change was wrong. Ghettoboy9111's edit in February was to another article. The edit to Wikipedia was later. Nardman1 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here he reverts [7] and warns [8] an editor for a supposed factual mistake, when in fact the editor was reverting a previous vandalism. [9] Reverting without checking the actual source of a vandalism is a common editorial mistake, but King Kirk doesn't even pass the smell test, any editor with some common sense would know that. Nardman1 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Although to be fair, both wordings were vandalism. I had to look back 3 days for an unvandalized version of the article. Nardman1 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Used automated tools again, in spite of his warning, although he made positive edits. Here [10] and [11] here. Nardman1 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Invalid AIV report using automated tools, [12] with reply from an admin (and a note by me) [13] Nardman1 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these updates. I've been busy closing an arbitration case tonight, plus some real-world family stuff, but I'll look at this first thing in the morning and take appropriate action, unless another admin has put us out of our misery first. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That RfAr

I hope I wasn't acting above my station in doing this (being neither admin nor clerk), but I added your block of FAAFA to the case log. Chris cheese whine 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I should have done it myself. Thanks. Oh, and feel free to add the block of DeanHinnen at the same time. Newyorkbrad 05:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pfft. Always having to clean up after other people ... ;-) Chris cheese whine 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

About the WP: redirects

I saw you and Picaroon were discussing this. The meta article at WP:NAMESPACE (see this section) establishes that "WP:" is a "fictional" namespace, which supports what Picaroon said. The applicability of this to CSD R2 has not been clearly stated; my opinion is that such redirects should be deleted. YechielMan 07:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think he had his 'facto' and 'iure' backwards :) Anyway, as a search on Special:Prefixindex shows, pages that start with WP: are technically in the main namespace, since WP isn't a namespace and they don't start with the prefix for another namespace. But for most processes, in particular RFD, they tend to be considered part of the Wikipdeia namespace. HTH! >Radiant< 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

zurbagan - puli-pughi

Zurbagan is banned but other sock Puli-Pughi aggressively engaged in reverts [14] All this accounts are belong to one person - vandal Robert599. PuliPughi made similar edit as user Zurbagan - I wrote you diffs [15] It is the same person--Dacy69 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is his racist comments - Turkic stuff. [16] --Dacy69 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....

I'm just dead curious, what's the current situation w/ Richard Walter RfAr? It was removed off page because it has been 10 days, but... is it going to be deliberated? o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. If I had to guess, someone is working behind-the-scenes to deal with it as a WP:LIVING issue rather than arbitration case, but that's only a guess (perhaps because it's how I would handle it if I were doing it). Of course, if the arbitrators want the clerks to do anything with the case, I'm sure they will tell us. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

TH removed it here with the comment Richard Walter - removed, this is either stale or being discussed privately, which is why I'm just wondering. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah! I was asleep and you opened BC's case. Oh well. :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You snooze, you lose! :) It was at 6/0/0/1 and 24 hours after the 4th accept vote (for the second time), so I thought we'd better get it opened. You're welcome to keep an eye on the pages, of course. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sad thing is, I -was- snoozing. -.- - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to bother you Brad for such a small issue with your busy workload, but I was wondering how I could be considered for mentorship if arbcom decide a user should be mentored? It's one of my little wiki passions! Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific procedure for that one, and if there is I don't know it because I don't think there's been a case with a mentorship remedy during the months I've been paying close attention. I suspect that typically they would look for someone who's been working with the user already with regard to the problematic situation, but I don't believe there's a "list of mentor volunteers" or anything like that. I suppose you could let an arbitrator know of your interest, or keep your eyes trained on the case pages for an appropriate situation. Newyorkbrad 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've just been having a read up on it and it doesn't seam to have happened for a while, I guess the best thing to do is keep my eyes open and if I see mentorship is being considered, offer my services to an arbitrator. Cheers for the response. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It gets less publicity, but you could also try helping someone out before they wind up in an arbitration case. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken :-) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I should talk.... You don't see me clerking the Mediation Committee page. :) Newyorkbrad 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah

Thanks, you're always correcting my typos. I was doing three things at once, and that's what happens. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Always? I don't remember another time. But glad to help. (I actually changed three things in that post, but two I wouldn't have bothered with if it weren't for the third.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Zio Systems

I see you have taken an interest in this article, so I thought I'd let you know I've nominated it for deletion. Rklawton 03:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. I don't have any particular insight into the size or notability of the company, I was just concerned about getting some blatantly inappropriate content removed. Thanks for the heads up, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I respect your level as an administrator but I fail to see why it is blatantly inappropriate. Many other pages contain criticism and I don't think I was embellishing the truth or biased in any way with my comments. Please consider reverting to include the previously posted article or delete the entire Zio Systems article as suggested. - Psychodeathman 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The content I removed was sourced only to attack posts on a website. This is unacceptable as support for disparaging posts about an ongoing enterprise. With regard to deletion, you can make your opinion and reasons known in the pending discussion on the articles for deletion page. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

==MONGO==

Re the post you left on my page. He has deleted two or three of my posts, after taking an immediate dislike to me, without notifying me of deletion of posts or even justifying it to me, he could have at least explained his actions. He has already pissed off other users and seems, on the whole, to be an arrogant cunt, hence the use of the language. Would you please shut down my user name, I feel ashamed to be associated with this community of ignorance. Spite & Malice 08:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you wanna get technical; I find him in breach of WP:CIV. Now close me down. Spite & Malice 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the revert :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I considered the possibility had the user who made the changes had inside information that you really had moved to New Mexico and become a Republican. But then I read his username backwards. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/Betacommand q

You're now the official clerk, so I'm back to asking you. A sizeable fraction of my opening statement is evidence. Should I

1. Move the actual evidence part to the evidence subpage, and shrink the opening?
2. Restate the evidence part on the evidence subpage, and leave the opening redundant?
3. Put a short "see opening statement" link from the evidence subpage?
4. Something else?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A perennial question. I think any of these would be fine. Newyorkbrad 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

How do you decided how long to block a person. For example, [17] was blocked indefinately for a few bad edits, however at the same time you only blocked [18] for a month when the user has commited more vandalism. Also, Master Of Tha Spear was only warned twice before his block, while the I.P. 90.0.0.80 received four warnings. Just wondering how you decide as an admin. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please reply on my talk page? Thanks! --Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying on your talk. Newyorkbrad 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information. In a few months I wanna apply to be an admin, so everything helps. Thanks again! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rex Stout image help, please

Working on that Nero Wolfe project... I've uploaded an image (Rex_Stout_1975.jpg) but I was uncertain of the copyright status that should be designated -- and said as much when asked. This is a publicity photograph of Stout, pure and simple -- it was issued by Viking Press to promote "A Family Affair." Can you help me out? I see that the image will be axed, otherwise, and I need to figure out how to properly upload book jackets and such for use on the NW pages. What a daunting and convoluted process this image upload business is! Thanks... WFinch 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "fair use guidelines" expert by any means. However, I believe we have a fair use principle that allows the use of a book cover, album cover, etc. to illustrate an article about that specific book or album (though I am not sure whether they can be used in an article about the series as a whole). Publicity photos is a category I am less familiar with, but perhaps one of the helpful people who seem to watch my page might be able to pitch in with an idea.

If this does not work out, I have another suggestion for obtaining images which may be equally or more productive in the long run. Please contact me (whoops, Mr. Wolfe would disown me if I were seen using "contact" as a verb) communicate with me via e-mail to follow up. Thank you, Newyorkbrad 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Boy you're fast. Well, I thought I was starting with an easy one with the Stout photo, which I was going to add to illustrate the Rex Stout article (where there's a suggestion that a photo be added). I own the glossy, and I used the Fair Use "Promophoto" tag since that seemed to be so perfect and beyond challenge, but then there was that copyright question... I should have just bluffed, maybe. Well, if the Stout photo goes away it goes away. As for the book covers, I see first editions are preferred so those are our quarry. So, communicate via e-mail? Absolutely. But my next question is, where do I find such information? I am new here. Thanks again, WFinch 02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a feature allowing one to make first contract with another editor via e-mail, without having to display one's e-mail address on-screen. Simply click the "E-mail this user" link on the left side of the screen. You will have to enable your own Wikipedia e-mail account first, though, which I believe can be done by clicking Settings at the top of the page. (Some people prefer to set up a different e-mail account from your regular real-world one.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, and thank you; the ball's in your court and please take your time. By way of postscript, I think I resolved the problem with the Rex Stout promotional photo and entered no end of fair use rationale, but there are two categories attached to the page -- "Publicity Photographs with no terms," "Publicity Photographs with missing fair-use rationale" -- that refuse to go away. Perhaps "one of the helpful people who watch [this] page" might still pitch in, as you say. The whole story is on the image talk page, and the photo itself can be seen in the Rex Stout article. Where I hope it can remain. WFinch 00:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pitched in, per request. -- Helpful mouse who watches this page. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

One note, though - the "terms" seem to require notification of review of the book - this isn't really a review of the book as such, but I would still feel better if you could honestly say you sent an email to Viking saying you're using this photo in this article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Abundant thanks for stepping in, tidying up my mess and adjusting those categories. I'll do better next time. Also, thank you for your suggestion that Viking be informed of the image being used here -- I'll either e-mail them or, more likely, "kindly" send them a note as they request. After sending out that photo in 1975 they should get quite a charge out of it, actually. It brings to mind the kick our local campus' dining staff got out of having a food service tray returned to them 30 years after it was misappropriated from the cafeteria. Thank you again. WFinch 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been a very nice and helpful mousie, and it's appreciated :) I'm out-of-town with limited access until Weds. or Thurs., but I'll take a look at his handiwork when I return so I'll know for next time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I strenuously object to NYB having any say concerning images involving the Red Sox! As he is obviously biased. Paul August ☎ 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on my AN/I issue. I consider it resolved if you want to tag it that way, as long as he leaves me alone. Frise 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice to be back

Hi! Nice to hear from you again. I'm not sure exactly how much editing I'll be doing for the next few months -- I have somewhat important exams in a couple of months time, but it's nice to be around again, and it's nice to hear from old friends. Best wishes, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at AN/I

Hi. Would you please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me. I am really sorry to be back over there but I do not think that I should leave that unaddressed. Thanks. --Justanother 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the ER page. Newyorkbrad 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully he will heed your advice. --Justanother 14:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the matter dropped. Of course, this also requires your making an effort to keep your paths separate, which I am sure you are doing. (Note: I'll be travelling for a couple of days with limited online time, so I won't be able to follow up on this again for awhile.) Newyorkbrad 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RfB

You say, at Majorly's RfB, "...another example for my thesis that right now, there are very, very few people in the entire project who could pass an RfB."

I think your thesis is absolutely correct, and I see this as a positive good. The position of B'crat, while very important to Wikipedia, is also practically incidental to nearly every task involved in running the project. RfAs, Renames, and Bots: we don't need more than 10 dedicated folks (or 20-odd occasional workers, which is the norm) for that, and they must all be very experienced, and widely viewed as impartial. It's better to have very few of them than to have any bad seed, as WP could function without them for at least a week or two before anyone even noticed! ;)

The more serious point of this message is to suggest to you that you will make an ideal b'crat candidate with a bit more time under your belt -- you are one of those few, and I look forward to seeing your RfB in the future. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an arbitrator is another position Brad would be well suited for :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very, very much for the kind words. Actually, what my comment on Majorly's RfB was a toned-down version of my original thesis, which is that there may be literally no one at all who could attain 90% RfB support and thereby pass an RfB given not only the demanding standards the community has set for promoting 'crats but the contradictory expectations we have for the position. I've also commented on RfA talk about the odd configuration of responsibilities assigned to the bureaucrats at this point.

Right now, after a few days this week when I will be less active (I'm on a trip with limited 'net access), I really should try to do some more article-writing more than anything else. But I will bear both of your comments in mind. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all do some article-writing; that's what we're here for, right? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vampire comics

I think what you had to say during the recent deletion does open the door to an interesting and informative entry. I have been following it on the Comics Project talk page and requested feedback there. [19] I think it'd be well owrth pursuing and if you drop your thoughts in over there and other people can throw in ideas, then we should be able to get some kind of consensus before going ahead with things. (Emperor 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

I would be glad to see such an article, but I don't know much more of the background than I mentioned in the AfD. I was gratified when, after writing that comment from memory, I checked the Tomb of Dracula entry and found I had the facts right. Thanks for your note and the link, which I'll check out. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by Navychaps and UCMCPadre

Dear Newyorkbrad and MastCell, request your follow up to discipline or block two vandals NavyChaps and USMC Padre who repeatedly violated the Bio of Living Persons rules by disparaging and posting private information about Gordon James Klingenschmitt, leading to deletion of his entire article. The Checkuser report (which you requested) suggests they also routinely violated Sockpuppet rules. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/USMC_Padre Suggest using your "admin powers" to block these two users, and also Commanderstephanus who routinely used foul language. I'm not informed of proper procedures after Checkuser confirms the identity of abusers. ChaplainReferee 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)