User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Oct

I suspect you will be glad to get off ArbCom :(

Meanwhile, I am running to an admin who possibly thinks he can override a one-week-old RfC result at Joni Ernst. I am not a "supporter" of anyone in that race, but find it hard to deal with folks adding claims in Wikipedia's voice, such as

Agenda 21 is the subject of numerous far-right conspiracy theories in clear contrast to a claim by Ernst that she opposes Agenda 21 - injecting Wikipedia directly into a political campaign

and so on. I do not care who is running for any office, but using Wikipedia's voice in a campaign is, in my honest opinion, wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lions and battlegrounds (responding to comments on AC case)

Re [1]. First of all Lions in the Desert is a painting, the film is Lion of the Desert. Although I tried, I really couldn't find sourcing beyond the stub, but I did find some fun facts about the artist [2], so it wasn't a total waste. Anyway, while I get your point of view, it's not exactly universal (see User:Worm_That_Turned/Quiet_return).

As for prepositions: Noted.

As for propositions: The essay acknowledges the nuances of the issue, so I don't think I stated a clear point of view—or put differently, I find it too situation-dependent to formulate unambiguous, exceptionless rules for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So if you don't like "battleground," what do you like as an alternative? NE Ent 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to be more specific about what the problem is. Sometimes it's ideological or POV editing; sometimes it's unwillingness to consider contrary points of view; sometimes it's an overly confrontational or wikilawyerish attitude; etc. It's just a personal quirk that I don't care for the battleground metaphor.

Of course, one could make an exception for editors edit-warring within Wikiproject Military History — or perhaps even those contributing without edit-warring in Wikiproject Miitary History — as their battleground mentality is legendary. And of course, editors on the verge of being banned for POV-pushing on Star Trek articles can be given this final warning: Let That Be Your Last Battleground. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Small world: the look back into the sadness of 2012, and meeting a second picture by an artist in had not heard about until I chose his from many with and without moon to illustrate dream, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've linked to the article many times. Perhaps instead of interaction bans we should restrict editors who chronically can't get along to "Cheron" pages? NE Ent 22:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could give them each a couple of tribbles to help calm them down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful annual meeting! And more!

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce our upcoming Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

Unfortunately I have a scheduling conflict on the 18th—much to my regret, as I would like to meet both of the people you mention, as well as catch up with the DC Wikimedians. Hopefully soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Availability note

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

Thankyou

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

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

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

New Newyorkbradblog post: The new Google book

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

Asimov talk page response

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

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

Would you consider changing your vote?

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

I don't think so. Not only has there been a lot of edit warring (*after* I'm long gone), but 3 parties to the request for arbitration have now gone to ANI, to try an have me indefinitely blocked or site banned - the first, based in the idea that I violated a TBAN by filing the RFAR, and the other two based on the idea that I'm a "vexatious litigant" (i.e., I disagree with their viewpoint.) [3][4]

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

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

I actually remained comfortable with my vote, but it looks like the case has moved on without me, so we'll see what happens in the next phase. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams article

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

Actually, I copied it here:

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

I appreciate your concern, but there has been no problematic activity in the week since the article was semi'd. One hopes that those who were disruptive in the past have moved on. If problems resume, I'll recommend that the article be put on "pending changes" status which would require a trusted editor to clear all edits before they are implemented. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Given your professional background as well as your history on Wikipedia, your words are trustworthy and thank you for your commentary. Tfortrouble (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish everyone felt that way. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be offline from later today through Sunday night. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Unlike the above this isn't sarcastic. You did everyone a favor, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice this guy?

I'm assuming you're an aficionado and have been watching the WS. Did you notice the guy behind home plate wearing the Marlins jersey?[5]Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it, but I haven't had as much time to watch the Series as I might have liked. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Great job

I spent hours and hours of personal time preparing that RM proposal. Others helped a great deal too. I believe it would have worked to resolve a conflict about that title that has been going on for years. I've been successful in the past with similar efforts, like putting together the history of the Yogurt article title. The last RM here again ended in "no consensus". It was worth trying something new and different, no? Maybe it wouldn't have worked. But at least we would have known if not for your proposal and the piling-on to derail the effort. Great job. --В²C ☎ 22:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The nine-year edit war over yogurt/yoghurt is now immortalized as one of Wikipedia's "lamest edit wars". —Neotarf (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because

Apathy

We don't care anymore.
This "short timer" arbitrator does not care about info boxes.

NE Ent 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "care about talk about ..."? OTD Locus iste, simple, short and beautiful, - listen, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

ps: the other day, when we had the DYK about The Fog Warning, I was so tempted to create WP:The Fog Warning as a redirect to the place (locus) where clear things get obscured, similar to WP:Great Dismal Swamp (derived from Great Dismal Swamp maroons) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)