![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Newyorkbrad! Today I completed my second month on Wikipedia. I am enjoying my time here. I hope you are doing well. Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Dear Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. |
Since I have practically been living at Arbcom (gallows humor), would it be possible for me to volunteer as a clerk's assistant? I am becoming very familiar with procedures and this activity might help keep me out of trouble (more gallows humor). - Jehochman Talk 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I knew there was a WP:AN and a WP:BN, but I wasn't sure about arbitrators. Thanks for letting me know! Icestorm815 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Notice the time :D. And then read my updated vote...which was a few edits later. --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
128 votes in support in 3 hours! Is that some sort of record? CSCWEM got 403 votes with 303 supports. The elections run for two weeks. Someone's already put you on WP:100. Hmm. I wonder if the en-wiki record (as far as I know) of the Main Page redesign poll vote (687 support and 213 oppose) is within reach? I suppose not, but you never know. I still get shivers down my spine every time I look at that Main Page redesign poll. 943 different users stirred themselves to express an opinion (forgot the 43 neutrals). Sorry. I'm reminiscing now! :-) Carcharoth 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just chiming in. Took me 4 edit conflicts before I could get my 'support' in. Jd2718 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all very much. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to thank you for clerking and also thank the other editors for arbitrating this case. We're all volunteers, and contributors like you and they take on an extra burden and responsibility with these duties. I know I speak for the community when I say thank you for voluntarily taking on these critical additional tasks. Best regards,-- Tenebrae 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Stone me it's a Landslide! Rightly so, congratulations mate -- Joopercoopers 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made up my mind on which candidates to support for arbitration committee, but coming to your vote page I find it's already become a ridiculous pile-on. For that reason alone I'm not voting to support you. This is a note of my moral support for your candidacy. Best wishes, I know you can easily handle the job. -- Tony Sidaway 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking if we run up the vote too much, it will be harder for next year's popular candidate to break NYB's record, even with the inevitable growth of the project and voting base that will occur over the upcoming year. NoSeptember 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the discussion currently about the edit count restrictions here and add your comments, if any? I'd be interested in your opinion on the matter. Its under the "lost suffrage" section. Avruch Talk 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you are probably busy, and about to get busier, but there was some discussion about John Peter Zenger here, and I promised that I would dig up a source. Since I am now "retired" from the main namespace, I thought I would pass the reference along to you, and perhaps you can pass it along to someone who can make good use of it, and find another copy of the book. I did not see this book cited or listed in the article, and any article about Zenger would be incomplete without at least listing it as a reference for further reading. Two templatized versions below, one for the special edition leather bound reprint that I have, and one for the edition that it was reproduced from. (The edition I have may probably only be found in the libraries of NRA members, but it might be easier to locate than the 1963 or earlier editions. I have seen other titles from the special edition series on eBay and amazon.) According to the publisher's notes, there were a number of 18th and 19th century editions, some of which are in the NY public library's rare books and manuscripts collection, but the 1963 edition is considered the most complete and authoritative. Cheers, and good luck with the arbcom, you have my full confidence that you will be one of the greatest arbiters of all wiki time. - Crockspot ( talk) 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) (No isbn number, the title page states "Privately printed for members of the Library of American Freedoms."){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) (This edition was also distributed in the UK by Oxford University Press.)You should feel free to unretire and add these references yourself. I have some other articles that I already feel guilty about not working on, so shouldn't add to the list right now, but User:GRBerry recently poked me about this article on this page, so you might try him. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Brad. I was just looking at your voting page and you seem to be doing very well, so congratulations. I may or may not vote, and you clearly don't need my vote in any case, but I wanted to ask you about this incident from a few months ago which still slightly rankles with me.
If you remember (and I don't see why you would), the sequence of events was:
I am very sorry to bring up something which happpened so long ago, but I thought at the time that you showed poor judgment in the way you handled the whole thing. It never seemed worthwhile to take it any further, as I know (and had already acknowledged) that I made mistakes too in the affair, as did MONGO.
When I saw you were running (and indeed a seeming shoe-in) for Arbcom, I thought that I should share my misgivings with you though, and give you an opportunity to comment on what if anything you have learned from the matter. I am posting this here rather than at the election page as it relates only peripherally to the election; I would have no problem about moving it there if you prefer.
Finally, let me say that that is just about the only time I have seen you slip up here; normally I look to you for a sure and reliable pair of hands, which is what you seem to provide again and again. It is just unfortunate that in that one matter where I did have a direct dealing with you, that you didn't seem to investigate before commenting. Best wishes, and thanks for your attention. -- John ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (formerly Guinnog)
Brad...that full thread is here, and continues sort of into the next thread below that. Ho, hum.-- MONGO ( talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought!!
opiumjones 23 ( talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Two main reasons: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ATren ( talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ping. Email. Viridae Talk 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been contacted by User:Iamandrewrice, who would like to appeal his ban to the arbitration committee. In loking through the WP:ABN pllicy, I see that it says the committee or an arbcom clerk should be contacted by email. Given that banned users cannot access the Wikipedia email fnction, I said I would contact a clerk to ask how to proceed. I have also given him this address: arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Is this the appropriate address and if not, how does he proceed.
Thanks in advance for looking at this. I realize that banned users are not a big priority, but still felt some small measure of compassion for someone who used to be my adoptee. Thanks, Jeffpw ( talk) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? What is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections? I know that Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Can you please explain it to me a little more? And, do people vote in these elections? Can I vote? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad! I have supported you! I hope you will do a great job in the Arbitration Committee. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. I'm pretty sure I know who was involved, and needless to say he's a long-term pest who should definitely be indefblocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: [1], It's 3am EST, Don't you think you should be asleep? Paul August ☎ 08:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment has been opened regarding User:Kmweber's oppose !votes on WP:RfA has been opened here. You tried to get Kmweber to stop his behaviour on his talk page, so your endorsement of the dispute is required within 48 hours. Thanks, Auroranorth ( !) 09:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Five Hundred supporting votes. Nearly 100% approval. Wow. Congratulations. I am going to try to study your edits to figure out what you do right. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Brad - As I recall, you were involved in the resolution of the Shawn Hornbeck issue some time ago. The final resolution has somehow slipped my mind, and I am not in a position right now to review it even if I could remember where to find it. However, if you have a chance to look at this [2], perhaps you can identify if that is in keeping with what was finally decided. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Brad. I'm not sure what step to take, so maybe you can help. I agreed to arbitration with User:Skyelarke over the content of the John Buscema article. I never agreed to arbitrate over any other issue, and I told him so on Talk page -- which, as usual, he erased but is visible here.
Since he erased it, he clearly read it, and so has deliberately ignored this fact, something he has a pattern of doing. Since I did not tell him I would agree to an arbitration over non-content issues, what do I do now? Thanks for any information. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider a bit of spacing between the words and the border on your userpage, like this? - Jehochman Talk 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please check [3] - I made two adjustments re the Episodes and Characters case - I think I did it right. It also seems that maybe you mis-adjusted the RodentofDeath case (but I am far from sure). Sorry for meddling, it's really just that I'm finding this process interesting - a lot more interesting than the many lame articles I've been reviewing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I've been resting and feeling a bit better. Your changes look good but I'll double-check things later on. Please see also my comments on WP:AC/CN. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello NYB; the represenatives and senators from those years (who served full terms), have their tenures in error as well (ending March 3, instead of the correct March 4). I'm not sure if this colossal mistake can ever be corrected. GoodDay ( talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw ( talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
Please see the A.C clerk noticeboard, and reply to my talk page. -- Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 05:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just opened RodentofDeath, that case needs a clerk. If I can or should be clerking, please tell me. -- Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Newyorkbrad I apologize if this is the improper way to write you but I am not very good at this. I recently saw where a user Otto4711 had complained about my reportedly spamming? I do not spam. I had edited an article with links documenting the changes I amde to a ryan idol listing on wikipedia. The non usage of the worrds and descriptions I edited for the ryan idol page is criminal. he is known for gay movies and to the best of my knowledge he has never done a straight (heterosexual movie) yet when I add the vital information to the page otto4711 removes it. It is not good that John wilks booth was a kiler but never the less I feel his page should list that he shot the president. The usage of gay is not inappropreiate nor are the facts regarding the gay for pay and hustling comments I refered to outside links (books even) that state this. Even interviews with ryan idols own words claiming he was a 700 dollar a day prositute for men were deleted by otto4711 as he attempts to paint a picture of a clean heterosexual man who starred in straight adult films when this is not the case. my page clearly says Gay films, heterosexual films, etc (charlespeyton and I do not object to that because a fact is a fact and I am not trying to paint a perfect picture, just the truth and the facts.
So please let me know either by email, etc how I can communicate with this otto4711 and have my facts placed on the ryan idol page documenting the truth regarding his career etc. If he is ashamed of gay movies or calling a gay movie a gay movie, then he should have not done the gay movies. The world looks to the wikipedia for factual evidence and statements, at least I do. my email is charles@charlespeyton.com and you can try the wikipedia talk on charlespeyton if you wish but I am not sure if I will understand it enough to respond through that method. Please remove or disguard anything referring to me as a spammer or a vandel or whatever was or is said, I am just trying to do the right thing in listing the truth. thanks charles Peyton
I am sorry I am on the wrong computer to send the edits I tried to make but I see where they are on your wikipedia site so you can review them, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see you're back in action. Hope you're feeling better. Come on IRC sometime. Kind regards, Red rocket boy 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it isn't finished yet but congratulations on your great arbcom elections result! You'll make a great arbitrator! Oh, and good to have you back after your cold!-- Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 15:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Brad, I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to you, one of the few selected to join the Committee. Your work here has been phenomenal, and your voice in numerous discussions has proven a revealing light time and time again. I also wish you luck for your future endeavours as an arbitrator, and expect your success in this new position of trust and reference. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I too want to extend my congratulations, NYB. Your contributions here have been nothing short of phenomenal from day one, and I'm sure you'll make a fantastic arbitrator, loquacious and reasonable. Best of luck to you! Glass Cobra 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Truly remarkable 97% plus support that you got there. Clearly the community pretty unanimously trusts you; that speaks very well to your integrity and good judgement over the last couple of years. Good luck with the cases! Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, etc. Take note of a cautionary tale :P. David Mestel( Talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Newyorkbrad I apologize if this is the improper way to write you but I am not very good at this. I recently saw where a user Otto4711 had complained about my reportedly spamming? I do not spam. I had edited an article with links documenting the changes I made to a Ryan Idol Biography listing on wikipedia. The non usage of the words and descriptions I edited for the Ryan Idol page is criminal. He is known for gay movies and to the best of my knowledge he has never done a straight (heterosexual movie) yet when I add the vital information to the page otto4711 removes it. It is not good that John Wilks Booth was a killer but never the less I feel his page should list that he shot the president. The usage of gay is not inappropriate nor are the facts regarding the gay for pay and hustling comments I refered to outside links (books even) that state this. Even interviews with ryan idols own words claiming he was a 700 dollar a day prositute for men were deleted by otto4711 as he attempts to paint a picture of a clean heterosexual man who starred in straight adult films when this is not the case. my page clearly says Gay films, heterosexual films, etc (charlespeyton and I do not object to that because a fact is a fact and I am not trying to paint a perfect picture, just the truth and the facts.
So please let me know either by email, etc how I can communicate with this otto4711 and have my facts placed on the ryan idol page documenting the truth regarding his career etc. If he is ashamed of gay movies or calling a gay movie a gay movie, then he should have not done the gay movies. The world looks to the wikipedia for factual evidence and statements, at least I do. my email is <redacted> and you can try the wikipedia talk on charlespeyton if you wish but I am not sure if I will understand it enough to respond through that method. Please remove or disgard anything referring to me as a spammer or a vandel or whatever was or is said, I am just trying to do the right thing in listing the truth. thanks charles Peyton
I am sorry I am on the wrong computer to send the edits I tried to make but I see where they are on your wikipedia site so you can review them, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to do something about this, but not sure of appropriate action. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, your ArbCom candidacy was the first thing EVER to hit WP:400 and WP:500. It's pretty obvious you're going to be promoted, and I wanted to say that, were I to have suffrage, I woulda voted in strong support. Maser ( Talk!) 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Titles
Violates this, esp the “ulterior agendas” remark. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted
I’ve not been involved in arg violations much, maybe once before. Do you agree that a block is warranted here and for how long? I know it’d go in his enforcement log. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I warned, thanks for the input. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the article? If not, why don't you take a look at it. Also, read my comments in the Louis Slotkin FAC. The prose size is 11 KB. Here is an article that I wrote in (my spare time in) two days, and which I still consider a stub (prose size 9KB): Herbert Musgrave Phipson. The prose of this latter article is much better than the Slotkin article's, and it has no inaccuracies, which the Slotkin article still does. I can easily add another paragraph in fifteen minutes and make it 11 KB. Should I then submit it for an FAC? It has rare pictures of journal articles from 1885 that you will find nowhere on the web. The point is that the Slotkin article is (I'm afraid) mostly undeveloped, a little more than an outline. The main author said he couldn't find any more references, but while traveling (which I am doing right now) and relying on erratic wi-fi's, I was able to locate thirty references (in a few minutes). The sad tragedy is that I already, in a day of reading some of those references in my spare time, know more about Slotin and criticality than the article has in it. Does Wikipedia really want to add the imprimatur of an FA to articles like that? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Marlith T/ C 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you could give me some free advice? There is a Wikipedia user who is currently deleting large amounts of longstanding, accurate, and well-sourced material at the fetus article. I've reverted three times today, and so I probably can't do anything else. Is there anything to stop that user from now proceeding to rewrite the entire article? I know I'm not supposed to exceed three reverts per day, and I'm also not supposed to contact people to help manage the situation (that would be "canvassing" right?). So, is there any course of action for me at this point? Thanks for any advice. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:
John Roberts,
John Paul Stevens,
Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy,
David Souter,
Clarence Thomas,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer,
Samuel Alito,
Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for
Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at
Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?
Would you care to offer a comment or observation? -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A little picture for you to hang on the wall of your new arbcom office.--
Santa (
talk)
21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easiest to name it after the page that's in dispute, Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins? SirFozzie ( talk) 18:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I noticed that you were an administrator, which means (I guess) this is appropriately addressed to you or someone like you. If not you, who?
Thanks. I've not yet encountered a problem that left me so flummoxed. In each of the hundreds articles I have created, the consolidated in-line citations have been "named" with the first letter of the author's last name plus the relevant page number; ergo (despite the damning accusations in RED), I've NOT created a name a mere integer ... and, although there has been no problem prior to 27 December 2007/17:00 (EST) ... everything has suddenly gone awry. -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw this [7], it looks like the mistaken removal of a section. Thought I would mention it to you since you were clerking that section. 1 != 2 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Brad, I supported your ArbCom bid...but I was wondering how you felt about accountability of admins for their behavior in IRC, given the current Giano case. In particular, I was wondering if your position has evolved on publishing IRC logs since you made this statement to me regarding releasing material from an IRC channel (en-unblock) in which logging is expressly permitted. Do you still feel that release of such material should not be tolerated, and that release of such material is harassment? (The material you forbade me to post back then is here, by the way.) Videmus Omnia Talk 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. FloNight ( talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!!! Happy to have you aboard the arbcom committee. Obviously well-qualified and no doubt you will do great. -- Aude ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Kirill 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Another congratulations here, Brad. The community is the real winner, though. Risker ( talk) 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats :-) WjB scribe 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good luck, and keep some aspirin handy. Kafziel Talk 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was a close call, but I see you barely managed to scrape by! Do you anticipate a recount? (Congratulations!) -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to stay congratulations on having the most supported ArbCom candidacy of all time, and for being successful. :) Good luck with your new tasks. Acalamari 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I put this note in the right place, but could you or the arbcom please comment on it? thanks -- Duk 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just a light and frivolous memoir but on the other side of the world here, I had a lecturer named Brad who spoke about New York frequently. So much that one of my class mates made his computer chime with the theme from New York, New York every time it started up. Possibly not even synchronicity but fun to recall and share anyway. : ) Just cruising ... Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
"the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs"... What an astonishingly stupid remark. This is the stuff suited to make at least myself regret I supported your ArbCom bid. There are some who should be desysopped. Most of those would fail any future RfA. There is only danger involved in granting them the bit for life. Please don't protect those people, that's not what you're supposed to do. I dorfbaer I talk I 22:20, December 30, 2007
Shouldn't you be asleep, Mr. Lawyer? :-P - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs"... What an astonishingly stupid remark. This is the stuff suited to make at least myself regret I supported your ArbCom bid. There are some who should be desysopped. Most of those would fail any future RfA. There is only danger involved in granting them the bit for life. Please don't protect those people, that's not what you're supposed to do. I dorfbaer I talk I 22:20, December 30, 2007
Shouldn't you be asleep, Mr. Lawyer? :-P - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, an editor is threatening to revert my March 4th edits on the US Congress articles, back to March 3rd. It's starting all over again. GoodDay ( talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Newyorkbrad! Today I completed my second month on Wikipedia. I am enjoying my time here. I hope you are doing well. Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Dear Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007,
Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. |
Since I have practically been living at Arbcom (gallows humor), would it be possible for me to volunteer as a clerk's assistant? I am becoming very familiar with procedures and this activity might help keep me out of trouble (more gallows humor). - Jehochman Talk 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I knew there was a WP:AN and a WP:BN, but I wasn't sure about arbitrators. Thanks for letting me know! Icestorm815 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Notice the time :D. And then read my updated vote...which was a few edits later. --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
128 votes in support in 3 hours! Is that some sort of record? CSCWEM got 403 votes with 303 supports. The elections run for two weeks. Someone's already put you on WP:100. Hmm. I wonder if the en-wiki record (as far as I know) of the Main Page redesign poll vote (687 support and 213 oppose) is within reach? I suppose not, but you never know. I still get shivers down my spine every time I look at that Main Page redesign poll. 943 different users stirred themselves to express an opinion (forgot the 43 neutrals). Sorry. I'm reminiscing now! :-) Carcharoth 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just chiming in. Took me 4 edit conflicts before I could get my 'support' in. Jd2718 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all very much. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to thank you for clerking and also thank the other editors for arbitrating this case. We're all volunteers, and contributors like you and they take on an extra burden and responsibility with these duties. I know I speak for the community when I say thank you for voluntarily taking on these critical additional tasks. Best regards,-- Tenebrae 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Stone me it's a Landslide! Rightly so, congratulations mate -- Joopercoopers 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made up my mind on which candidates to support for arbitration committee, but coming to your vote page I find it's already become a ridiculous pile-on. For that reason alone I'm not voting to support you. This is a note of my moral support for your candidacy. Best wishes, I know you can easily handle the job. -- Tony Sidaway 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking if we run up the vote too much, it will be harder for next year's popular candidate to break NYB's record, even with the inevitable growth of the project and voting base that will occur over the upcoming year. NoSeptember 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the discussion currently about the edit count restrictions here and add your comments, if any? I'd be interested in your opinion on the matter. Its under the "lost suffrage" section. Avruch Talk 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I know you are probably busy, and about to get busier, but there was some discussion about John Peter Zenger here, and I promised that I would dig up a source. Since I am now "retired" from the main namespace, I thought I would pass the reference along to you, and perhaps you can pass it along to someone who can make good use of it, and find another copy of the book. I did not see this book cited or listed in the article, and any article about Zenger would be incomplete without at least listing it as a reference for further reading. Two templatized versions below, one for the special edition leather bound reprint that I have, and one for the edition that it was reproduced from. (The edition I have may probably only be found in the libraries of NRA members, but it might be easier to locate than the 1963 or earlier editions. I have seen other titles from the special edition series on eBay and amazon.) According to the publisher's notes, there were a number of 18th and 19th century editions, some of which are in the NY public library's rare books and manuscripts collection, but the 1963 edition is considered the most complete and authoritative. Cheers, and good luck with the arbcom, you have my full confidence that you will be one of the greatest arbiters of all wiki time. - Crockspot ( talk) 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) (No isbn number, the title page states "Privately printed for members of the Library of American Freedoms."){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) (This edition was also distributed in the UK by Oxford University Press.)You should feel free to unretire and add these references yourself. I have some other articles that I already feel guilty about not working on, so shouldn't add to the list right now, but User:GRBerry recently poked me about this article on this page, so you might try him. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Brad. I was just looking at your voting page and you seem to be doing very well, so congratulations. I may or may not vote, and you clearly don't need my vote in any case, but I wanted to ask you about this incident from a few months ago which still slightly rankles with me.
If you remember (and I don't see why you would), the sequence of events was:
I am very sorry to bring up something which happpened so long ago, but I thought at the time that you showed poor judgment in the way you handled the whole thing. It never seemed worthwhile to take it any further, as I know (and had already acknowledged) that I made mistakes too in the affair, as did MONGO.
When I saw you were running (and indeed a seeming shoe-in) for Arbcom, I thought that I should share my misgivings with you though, and give you an opportunity to comment on what if anything you have learned from the matter. I am posting this here rather than at the election page as it relates only peripherally to the election; I would have no problem about moving it there if you prefer.
Finally, let me say that that is just about the only time I have seen you slip up here; normally I look to you for a sure and reliable pair of hands, which is what you seem to provide again and again. It is just unfortunate that in that one matter where I did have a direct dealing with you, that you didn't seem to investigate before commenting. Best wishes, and thanks for your attention. -- John ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (formerly Guinnog)
Brad...that full thread is here, and continues sort of into the next thread below that. Ho, hum.-- MONGO ( talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought!!
opiumjones 23 ( talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Two main reasons: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ATren ( talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ping. Email. Viridae Talk 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been contacted by User:Iamandrewrice, who would like to appeal his ban to the arbitration committee. In loking through the WP:ABN pllicy, I see that it says the committee or an arbcom clerk should be contacted by email. Given that banned users cannot access the Wikipedia email fnction, I said I would contact a clerk to ask how to proceed. I have also given him this address: arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Is this the appropriate address and if not, how does he proceed.
Thanks in advance for looking at this. I realize that banned users are not a big priority, but still felt some small measure of compassion for someone who used to be my adoptee. Thanks, Jeffpw ( talk) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? What is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections? I know that Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Can you please explain it to me a little more? And, do people vote in these elections? Can I vote? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad! I have supported you! I hope you will do a great job in the Arbitration Committee. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. I'm pretty sure I know who was involved, and needless to say he's a long-term pest who should definitely be indefblocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: [1], It's 3am EST, Don't you think you should be asleep? Paul August ☎ 08:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment has been opened regarding User:Kmweber's oppose !votes on WP:RfA has been opened here. You tried to get Kmweber to stop his behaviour on his talk page, so your endorsement of the dispute is required within 48 hours. Thanks, Auroranorth ( !) 09:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Five Hundred supporting votes. Nearly 100% approval. Wow. Congratulations. I am going to try to study your edits to figure out what you do right. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Brad - As I recall, you were involved in the resolution of the Shawn Hornbeck issue some time ago. The final resolution has somehow slipped my mind, and I am not in a position right now to review it even if I could remember where to find it. However, if you have a chance to look at this [2], perhaps you can identify if that is in keeping with what was finally decided. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Brad. I'm not sure what step to take, so maybe you can help. I agreed to arbitration with User:Skyelarke over the content of the John Buscema article. I never agreed to arbitrate over any other issue, and I told him so on Talk page -- which, as usual, he erased but is visible here.
Since he erased it, he clearly read it, and so has deliberately ignored this fact, something he has a pattern of doing. Since I did not tell him I would agree to an arbitration over non-content issues, what do I do now? Thanks for any information. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider a bit of spacing between the words and the border on your userpage, like this? - Jehochman Talk 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please check [3] - I made two adjustments re the Episodes and Characters case - I think I did it right. It also seems that maybe you mis-adjusted the RodentofDeath case (but I am far from sure). Sorry for meddling, it's really just that I'm finding this process interesting - a lot more interesting than the many lame articles I've been reviewing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I've been resting and feeling a bit better. Your changes look good but I'll double-check things later on. Please see also my comments on WP:AC/CN. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello NYB; the represenatives and senators from those years (who served full terms), have their tenures in error as well (ending March 3, instead of the correct March 4). I'm not sure if this colossal mistake can ever be corrected. GoodDay ( talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw ( talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
Please see the A.C clerk noticeboard, and reply to my talk page. -- Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 05:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just opened RodentofDeath, that case needs a clerk. If I can or should be clerking, please tell me. -- Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Newyorkbrad I apologize if this is the improper way to write you but I am not very good at this. I recently saw where a user Otto4711 had complained about my reportedly spamming? I do not spam. I had edited an article with links documenting the changes I amde to a ryan idol listing on wikipedia. The non usage of the worrds and descriptions I edited for the ryan idol page is criminal. he is known for gay movies and to the best of my knowledge he has never done a straight (heterosexual movie) yet when I add the vital information to the page otto4711 removes it. It is not good that John wilks booth was a kiler but never the less I feel his page should list that he shot the president. The usage of gay is not inappropreiate nor are the facts regarding the gay for pay and hustling comments I refered to outside links (books even) that state this. Even interviews with ryan idols own words claiming he was a 700 dollar a day prositute for men were deleted by otto4711 as he attempts to paint a picture of a clean heterosexual man who starred in straight adult films when this is not the case. my page clearly says Gay films, heterosexual films, etc (charlespeyton and I do not object to that because a fact is a fact and I am not trying to paint a perfect picture, just the truth and the facts.
So please let me know either by email, etc how I can communicate with this otto4711 and have my facts placed on the ryan idol page documenting the truth regarding his career etc. If he is ashamed of gay movies or calling a gay movie a gay movie, then he should have not done the gay movies. The world looks to the wikipedia for factual evidence and statements, at least I do. my email is charles@charlespeyton.com and you can try the wikipedia talk on charlespeyton if you wish but I am not sure if I will understand it enough to respond through that method. Please remove or disguard anything referring to me as a spammer or a vandel or whatever was or is said, I am just trying to do the right thing in listing the truth. thanks charles Peyton
I am sorry I am on the wrong computer to send the edits I tried to make but I see where they are on your wikipedia site so you can review them, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see you're back in action. Hope you're feeling better. Come on IRC sometime. Kind regards, Red rocket boy 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it isn't finished yet but congratulations on your great arbcom elections result! You'll make a great arbitrator! Oh, and good to have you back after your cold!-- Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 15:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Brad, I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to you, one of the few selected to join the Committee. Your work here has been phenomenal, and your voice in numerous discussions has proven a revealing light time and time again. I also wish you luck for your future endeavours as an arbitrator, and expect your success in this new position of trust and reference. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I too want to extend my congratulations, NYB. Your contributions here have been nothing short of phenomenal from day one, and I'm sure you'll make a fantastic arbitrator, loquacious and reasonable. Best of luck to you! Glass Cobra 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Truly remarkable 97% plus support that you got there. Clearly the community pretty unanimously trusts you; that speaks very well to your integrity and good judgement over the last couple of years. Good luck with the cases! Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, etc. Take note of a cautionary tale :P. David Mestel( Talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Newyorkbrad I apologize if this is the improper way to write you but I am not very good at this. I recently saw where a user Otto4711 had complained about my reportedly spamming? I do not spam. I had edited an article with links documenting the changes I made to a Ryan Idol Biography listing on wikipedia. The non usage of the words and descriptions I edited for the Ryan Idol page is criminal. He is known for gay movies and to the best of my knowledge he has never done a straight (heterosexual movie) yet when I add the vital information to the page otto4711 removes it. It is not good that John Wilks Booth was a killer but never the less I feel his page should list that he shot the president. The usage of gay is not inappropriate nor are the facts regarding the gay for pay and hustling comments I refered to outside links (books even) that state this. Even interviews with ryan idols own words claiming he was a 700 dollar a day prositute for men were deleted by otto4711 as he attempts to paint a picture of a clean heterosexual man who starred in straight adult films when this is not the case. my page clearly says Gay films, heterosexual films, etc (charlespeyton and I do not object to that because a fact is a fact and I am not trying to paint a perfect picture, just the truth and the facts.
So please let me know either by email, etc how I can communicate with this otto4711 and have my facts placed on the ryan idol page documenting the truth regarding his career etc. If he is ashamed of gay movies or calling a gay movie a gay movie, then he should have not done the gay movies. The world looks to the wikipedia for factual evidence and statements, at least I do. my email is <redacted> and you can try the wikipedia talk on charlespeyton if you wish but I am not sure if I will understand it enough to respond through that method. Please remove or disgard anything referring to me as a spammer or a vandel or whatever was or is said, I am just trying to do the right thing in listing the truth. thanks charles Peyton
I am sorry I am on the wrong computer to send the edits I tried to make but I see where they are on your wikipedia site so you can review them, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to do something about this, but not sure of appropriate action. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, your ArbCom candidacy was the first thing EVER to hit WP:400 and WP:500. It's pretty obvious you're going to be promoted, and I wanted to say that, were I to have suffrage, I woulda voted in strong support. Maser ( Talk!) 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Titles
Violates this, esp the “ulterior agendas” remark. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted
I’ve not been involved in arg violations much, maybe once before. Do you agree that a block is warranted here and for how long? I know it’d go in his enforcement log. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I warned, thanks for the input. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the article? If not, why don't you take a look at it. Also, read my comments in the Louis Slotkin FAC. The prose size is 11 KB. Here is an article that I wrote in (my spare time in) two days, and which I still consider a stub (prose size 9KB): Herbert Musgrave Phipson. The prose of this latter article is much better than the Slotkin article's, and it has no inaccuracies, which the Slotkin article still does. I can easily add another paragraph in fifteen minutes and make it 11 KB. Should I then submit it for an FAC? It has rare pictures of journal articles from 1885 that you will find nowhere on the web. The point is that the Slotkin article is (I'm afraid) mostly undeveloped, a little more than an outline. The main author said he couldn't find any more references, but while traveling (which I am doing right now) and relying on erratic wi-fi's, I was able to locate thirty references (in a few minutes). The sad tragedy is that I already, in a day of reading some of those references in my spare time, know more about Slotin and criticality than the article has in it. Does Wikipedia really want to add the imprimatur of an FA to articles like that? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Marlith T/ C 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you could give me some free advice? There is a Wikipedia user who is currently deleting large amounts of longstanding, accurate, and well-sourced material at the fetus article. I've reverted three times today, and so I probably can't do anything else. Is there anything to stop that user from now proceeding to rewrite the entire article? I know I'm not supposed to exceed three reverts per day, and I'm also not supposed to contact people to help manage the situation (that would be "canvassing" right?). So, is there any course of action for me at this point? Thanks for any advice. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:
John Roberts,
John Paul Stevens,
Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy,
David Souter,
Clarence Thomas,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer,
Samuel Alito,
Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for
Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at
Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?
Would you care to offer a comment or observation? -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A little picture for you to hang on the wall of your new arbcom office.--
Santa (
talk)
21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easiest to name it after the page that's in dispute, Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins? SirFozzie ( talk) 18:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think I noticed that you were an administrator, which means (I guess) this is appropriately addressed to you or someone like you. If not you, who?
Thanks. I've not yet encountered a problem that left me so flummoxed. In each of the hundreds articles I have created, the consolidated in-line citations have been "named" with the first letter of the author's last name plus the relevant page number; ergo (despite the damning accusations in RED), I've NOT created a name a mere integer ... and, although there has been no problem prior to 27 December 2007/17:00 (EST) ... everything has suddenly gone awry. -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw this [7], it looks like the mistaken removal of a section. Thought I would mention it to you since you were clerking that section. 1 != 2 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Brad, I supported your ArbCom bid...but I was wondering how you felt about accountability of admins for their behavior in IRC, given the current Giano case. In particular, I was wondering if your position has evolved on publishing IRC logs since you made this statement to me regarding releasing material from an IRC channel (en-unblock) in which logging is expressly permitted. Do you still feel that release of such material should not be tolerated, and that release of such material is harassment? (The material you forbade me to post back then is here, by the way.) Videmus Omnia Talk 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. FloNight ( talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!!! Happy to have you aboard the arbcom committee. Obviously well-qualified and no doubt you will do great. -- Aude ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Kirill 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Another congratulations here, Brad. The community is the real winner, though. Risker ( talk) 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats :-) WjB scribe 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good luck, and keep some aspirin handy. Kafziel Talk 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was a close call, but I see you barely managed to scrape by! Do you anticipate a recount? (Congratulations!) -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to stay congratulations on having the most supported ArbCom candidacy of all time, and for being successful. :) Good luck with your new tasks. Acalamari 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I put this note in the right place, but could you or the arbcom please comment on it? thanks -- Duk 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just a light and frivolous memoir but on the other side of the world here, I had a lecturer named Brad who spoke about New York frequently. So much that one of my class mates made his computer chime with the theme from New York, New York every time it started up. Possibly not even synchronicity but fun to recall and share anyway. : ) Just cruising ... Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
"the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs"... What an astonishingly stupid remark. This is the stuff suited to make at least myself regret I supported your ArbCom bid. There are some who should be desysopped. Most of those would fail any future RfA. There is only danger involved in granting them the bit for life. Please don't protect those people, that's not what you're supposed to do. I dorfbaer I talk I 22:20, December 30, 2007
Shouldn't you be asleep, Mr. Lawyer? :-P - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs"... What an astonishingly stupid remark. This is the stuff suited to make at least myself regret I supported your ArbCom bid. There are some who should be desysopped. Most of those would fail any future RfA. There is only danger involved in granting them the bit for life. Please don't protect those people, that's not what you're supposed to do. I dorfbaer I talk I 22:20, December 30, 2007
Shouldn't you be asleep, Mr. Lawyer? :-P - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, an editor is threatening to revert my March 4th edits on the US Congress articles, back to March 3rd. It's starting all over again. GoodDay ( talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)