User talk:Newyorkbrad

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.

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Newyorkbrad,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

Charles Matthews participating in THF case

Re:[1] - are you sure? I didn't see any edits by him on anything related to the case. Raul654 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

After he voted on proposed finding 3 in the "attack sites" case, which is how I knew he was back, I followed up with a query at User talk:Charles Matthews#ArbCom activity. He responded there with a request to be moved to active on all pending cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not a clerk

[2] Paul August ☎ 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

:) By the way, out of curiosity, was it my comments on the proposed decision talkpage that prompted your motion to close, or was that just a coincidence of timing? And I was wondering if you had any thoughts on my second paragraph there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was prompted. I consider every word you write, and I have lots of thoughts on everything. Paul August ☎ 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Sorry, I didnt realise that page was just for admin. apologise if it was.--Vintagekits 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not for admins, but specifically for the arbitrators. But you can comment on the workshop (although anything new would probably get lost there at this point), or on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Brad's Day!

Newyorkbrad has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Brad's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Brad! Love, Phaedriel 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

This day shall forever be known as "Brad day" in 43 nations! *Cremepuff222* 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved. You're doing an excellent job here, Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; I am glad you got your day, Newyorkbrad! :) Acalamari 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to...

In response to your message on my talkpage, fair point, however, I only reverted his page twice, what he is doing, is deleting my comments, and when I make a reply, calling them reverts, and threatening me with a block, what is your opinion on this? Meateater 10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that your edits leave the impression that you are intentionally trying to goad Jeffrey O. Gustafson into losing his temper in his first day back as an administrator, and that you will be blocked for trolling and harassment if you don't stop at once. There is no need for you to be on his page. Newyorkbrad 10:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

spdelete tag

Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention, will be more carefull next time. Meateater 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Seven of Diamonds" RfAr proposed decision

Yes, that was just an oversight; thanks for catching it. Kirill 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick query

On the Giovanni arbitration page you said:

Editors who have submitted overlong statements are requested to shorten them promptly.

What if they don't? I believe Giovanni has been told not to make long posts on arbitration statements in the past (ref Sevenofdiamonds arb case). John Smith's 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Overlong statements that aren't edited within a reasonable amount of time are subject to being removed. This is a last resort, though, as it requires the arbitrators to decide whether to accept the case without access to one party's position. We generally rely on the assumption that a party would not want to leave a poor first impression on the arbitrators by disregarding a reasonable request by an arbitrator or a clerk (the clerks, after all, being helpers to the arbitrators). Hopefully this will be sufficient here, but we will see. Newyorkbrad 16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see why you just don't crop them. Never mind. John Smith's 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we'd get complaints about misleadingly incomplete cropping, favoritism, blah blah. Incidentally, your statement is too long as well. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that was because of the replies? Sorry about that. I'd take them off but then some of the replies to my replies wouldn't make sense - hope it's ok to leave them up for now. John Smith's 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively I'm sure you could crop all the "replies" and no one would complain - would make things easier. John Smith's 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the subject, I took out the evidence section, and made other shortening effects, so as to make the statement in line with the number of words that John Smith left. I know its still a bit long, but at least there is parity. And, I think the practice is to let those who are at the center of the case leave longer statements. I could shorten it more, if you so request.Giovanni33 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Brad, Giovanni posted over 2000 words on the evidence page. Can you please ask him to reduce it to the 1000 word maximum guideline. Cheers, John Smith's 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is not enforced with a rigid limit of 1000 words. The important thing is to make sure that the presentations are clear, concise, and easy for the arbitrators to follow. Giovanni33's evidence, though in excess of 1000, really is not unusually long for a party's evidence presentation, as these things go. However, feel free to run the situation by Picaroon, who is the clerk who will be primarily handling your case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

American Family Insurance

Brad, would you please look into the revision wars on the article of American Family Insurance. I've tried to warn User_talk:Wegrzyns about using wikipedia to further their personal complaints, but Wegrzyns continues to change valid links to a personal homepage, and put in insubstantiated claims about the company. Thanks in advance! Timmccloud 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. As a first step I have placed a general admonition on the article talkpage, and have watchlisted the article to keep an eye on it. I will keep an eye on further developments; however, please note that I may have limited internet access this weekend, so you might want to make another administrator or two aware of the situation as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, much appreciated. I will bring it to another admins attention, and I plan to edit out a significant amount of offending materinal now that you have placed your warning. Timmccloud 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Brad

I'm just passing by to wish you a very enjoyable weekend, and to echo your hope of a long and beautiful future of collaboration and friendship between us. I'm very, very happy that the small gift made you smile, for it is most deserved. Thank you for your kind words, and for all you do... and all you are, friend. Love, Phaedriel - 11:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hey Newyorkbrad. I'm The Random Editor. I'm a new admin and I noticed via WT:RFA this rfa, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/williebruciestewie. I noticed the nominating editor and he has very few few edits, all except one in contact of the person he is nomming, User:Williebruciestewie. The RFA is done wrong, and I was going to say that this is probably a case of sockpuppetry. However as a new admin, I don't know the procedure for handling this. Help. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there's an official procedure for handling this. Best plan might be to post to BN or ANI for consensus on what to do. A checkuser might not hurt one bit, either. But in any event, someone will probably have reverted the RfA as "malformed" even before I finish typing this. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NYB. I to exhausted to do anything else tonight but I will get around to it tomorrow, if it not deleted already. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

R 2 RfA

Hi, I've had Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 2 watchlisted for a while, but didn't think it was going to happen anytime soon. I was wondering, would you mind if I added a co-nomination? Nihiltres^(t.l) 03:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind one bit, but of course you should check with the candidate. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Go on IRC when possible. Thanks, --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 14:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffersonian

So, it looks like you are to be the architect of what will ultimately be the consensus policy/guideline on this. This is fitting and proper, and I'll try to cede to you the bulk of the writing, because despite my own conviction in my beliefs, there's no doubt that I'm definitely "left-of-center" on this issue, and far to much of an not-censored ideologue to actually write and propose a policy that correctly represents the true community consensus on this.

May I suggest the title of Wikipedia:Off-Wiki Harassment as a nice neutral title for a new guideline. But that just off the top of my head. --22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Or maybe Wikipedia:Links to Off-Wiki Harassment or Wikipedia:Linking to Off-Wiki Harassment? --Alecmconroy 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I volunteered for that assignment. :) And actually, what I wrote up was also what I thought consensus would support right now; personally, I would go a little farther in the other direction from you and say we probably don't need links at all to many of these places. But the ArbCom decision page wasn't evolving in any profitable direction, so I thought putting something together would at least advance the discussion better than the sterile back-and-forth so far was doing. Let's see what happens next and go on from there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking_to_Off-Wiki_Harassment - begun per the above. Having spent a great deal of time trawling through the various ArbCom pages, I agree that that process has hit the skids somewhat. I've only made some very small changes to your pargraphs, and have added an introduction and nutshell. Many thanks for your huge effort in this regard, and I hope you'll take a look. Privatemusings 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision#Newyorkbrad's proposal

You may copyedit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision#Newyorkbrad's proposal. If you somehow create a proposal that would require a change of vote, the arbitrator will change their own vote. Fred Bauder 14:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thank the arbitrators for this courtesy. Newyorkbrad 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressive courtesy. :-) Can you clarify about what happens should the two parts come into conflict? In other word, say that a given site is notable, and pretty clearly needs to be linked to. It has a subpage that contains an attack on an editor. So far so good, we link to the site's front page, not to the subpage. Now, say that site, like most blogs, and, oh, the Wikipedia, displays one of its subpages on prominently its front page every day. Do we have to remove that link on the days when it displays the offensive subpage on its front page, and put back the link when a different subpage shows up? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuances like that can be worked out on the policy discussion page, I suppose. For my part, the probably most accurate if somewhat weaselly answer is "it depends how bad the attack is." What would happen in the real world would be that we would debate for 24 hours whether to delete the link or not, until the issue becomes moot. :) Please note (everyone) that my proposals were simply meant as a starting point for some further discussion. Whether that should be occurring on the arbitration pages or the policy pages is an open question. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, except that's exactly what happened at MichaelMoore.com, so we can't just pretend it's purely a hypothetical case. The attack was proportionally a rather small part of the site, but it was very prominently on the site's front page. Is linking to the site's front page in this case considered linking to the site, or linking to an attack page? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you post that query to the proposed decision talkpage or the policy talkpage or the talkpages of the essays mentioned in the two preceding threads and solicit community views. I have probably already said and written too much over the past 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott - FYI

Hi! Despite your warning, user made this "irresistible" post. He is maintaining an uncivil tone too. -- Cat ^chi? 11:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he says it was irresistible, but I think he should have resisted. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Resistance isn't as futile as the Borg claims it to be after all. I really have been dealing with Ned Scott's incivility and stalking for some time. There even was an RfC on the matter which this concern was raised. Ned Scott was given the benefit of doubt despite the overwhelming evidence back then - which is fine. I really do not want to deal with this as much as I dealt with User:Davenbelle/User:Moby Dick/User:Diyarbakir. It has been about a year since I started dealing with Ned Scott. See: User talk:Tony Sidaway#The email is still unanswered and User talk:Thatcher131#Problem again -- Cat ^chi? 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When I vote for your election to ArbCom...

my reason will be,

• Support Can use gravamen correctly in a sentence. [3]. Thatcher131 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your support will mean a great deal to me, whether offered for this or any other reason, and I regret only that you are not going to allow me to reciprocate. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

R's RfA

Hi Brad. I saw your comment on Neil's talk page. Of course you're not one of the hecklers and I certainly wasn't pointing the finger at you. I did ask Neil to tone it down because the RfA is slowly spinning out of control and, obviously, there's no reason why it should. As a nominator and strong supporter of R's candidacy, you might want to similarly cool down Melsaran who, frankly, is getting pretty obnoxious. I'm wary of seeing the RfA degenerate into a bitching contest which will be even more discouraging for R. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't think the avoidance of discouragement to R is really achievable at this point, but I appreciate your intent and comments here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My Userspace

It's my userspace, so no, I will not remove them. Meateater 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)