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.

Archives

Description of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

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

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

Punkguy182

Thanks for intervening with User:Punkguy182 who is almost certainly not the newbie he claims to be. I am wondering if a block might be in order, given his penchant for repeated vandalising of the talk page both of myself and Jack. This constitutes almost the entirety of his contribs and I think this is a sock, especially given the activity on the article in question that triggered this. Eusebeus 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on things. For what it's worth, I also think the word "vandalism" is being overused throughout this situation. Hopefully the temporary page protection will allow the issues with the article to be sorted out. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. Petulance & childishness are perhaps more apt, labels that I concede extend to my own 3RR of the actual article. Waiting for Jack to pop back so we can review with another seasoned editor on the case. Alansohn has a major vendetta against me and I view his interest with considerable suspicion in this context. Eusebeus 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brad. User:Punkguy182 is a rather obvious reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3. I have tagged his user page as such and will post a note to User:Phaedriel who blocked a number of accounts used by this editor. Note his parting comment on that account.

The issue on the Chris Conley page is really part of a broader problem that I'm not sure what to do about — so I'll tell you. This editor has made many edits to articles, primarily concerning living people, that I believe are patent nonsense or outright slander or hoaxes. I first noticed this user on the Bennelong page where he was adding bullshite. Bennelong, obviously, is not a living person; but Peter L. Hurd, Edward J. Steele, Chris Shiflett (see [1]) are. I believe that these articles either need to be deleted and built back up be knowledgeable editors or gone through and cleaned-up. See also: Adam Greves, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Greves. The shite goes on and I can document more of this if need be. And just a maybe: User:Jack..Merridew who impersonated me by copying my user and talk pages, and vandalised my real user page — page now is tagged as part of another cloud of sockpuppets.

Please let me know what you think the appropriate course with this 'punk' is. --Jack Merridew 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is being looked into. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Newyorkbrad 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note prior to being User:R:128.40.76.3, this editor was known as User:A.J.1.5.2., User:Curious Gregor, and User:Mad kemist (see also an SSP case, and this wierdness, AN/I, AN/I). Pete.Hurd 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional links. As I said, this is being looked at. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: User:Punkguy182 has brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Incivility.2C_Trolling_and_accusations_by_Jack_Merridew; if you or others have found anything on this — or just feel like commenting... Thanks for your attentions. --Jack Merridew 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User:Punkguy182 is now claiming to be a photographer named Hal Horowitz; presumably this person: [2]; see: [3] and [4]. --Jack Merridew 11:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the second image is online here --Jack Merridew 11:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request on one of your blocks

Please provide input on the unblock request on one of your blocks, pending at User talk:Tbouricius. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Tariqabjotu#Ask10questions.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response there. As mentioned elsewhere, per your suggestion, I have taken this to ANI. Newyorkbrad 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey, I saw you at the top of my watchlist. just thought I'd say "hi". :) *Cremepuff 222* 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, but shouldn't you be studying instead of editing? :) Newyorkbrad 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball

Why is your name Newyorkbrad? If you live in New York, what do you like most about it. And, what is your favorite baseball team?

Sincerely GoaliesRUS 19:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Respond to me on my talk page! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoaliesRUS (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is out of control

Bill Ayer made reasonable edits. AFTER Bill Ayer registered, a new RFA appeared. That is proof that it was not a SPA, an account created for the RFA.

Bill Ayer made a reasonable oppose comment on the bot RFA. He was blocked by supporters of this. This is highly unethical behavior. That's the kind of behavior that should be blocked and banned from WP. That kind of gang lynching is bad.

You gave Bill Ayer permission to re-register. AS 001 re-registered and even made it perfectly clear in his user page that he was a former user reregistering with permission of an administrator. Yet, he is banned for life by an admin.

These kind of unethical behavior harms wikipedia. What is the excuse for it. You should bring it up to ArbCom. I don't want to bring up such request. ArbCom could decide that: 1. It is ok to indefinately block anyone who opposes a RFA that you support and revert the comments that you oppose. 2. It is ok to indef. block someone on the excuse that they are a multiple account, even if permitted and the request reviewed by an administrator.

I am the same person as Bill Ayer and AS 001. The block of AS001 is improper and asking for unblock is useless because those that block will rule on the unblock request. AS 002 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been unblocked now. See your User talk:AS 001 page for additional comments. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will cease using AS002. In fact, I don't care about the bot too much. I don't understand the fuss. AS 002 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article

As of 6 minutes ago, theres a new featured article on the Main Page. It may just relate to you :D. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploratory thought

In seeing just some of the many things you do....

I was thinking that here is someone who could be trusted with more tools, and could probably use either set or both (Bureaucrat and/or checkuser).

You may already know, but RfB has been seen as a nearly impossible hill to climb these days. One of the most common comments is that "we don't need any more Bureaucrats". (Which I don't think is true, and I don't think has anything to do with whether we trust the cantidate, but I digress : )

Anyway. would this be something you might be interested in? - jc37 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind remarks. I have thought about seeking bureaucratship, but many users have an expectation that a user have been administrator for at least one year before seeking that position, which I won't have attained for a few more months. Plus, although you are right that for a time RfB had become impossible to pass, we had two new 'crats promoted in July, which may have slaked the immediate crisis. As for checkuser, while I'd like to think I could be "trusted" with the tool, I probably don't know enough about the technical details of how IP's are assigned to be the best choice for that assignment.

If the community (and Jimbo Wales) choose to place me in an enhanced role, the position I expect to seek is membership on the Arbitration Committee. I've followed the committee's work for some time, including as an arbitration clerk since February, and think that the arbitrator position might be the best fit for me. But there will be time enough to discuss that when the election comes around in a few weeks.

Thanks again for writing. Newyorkbrad 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww. I was going to wait until election time to suggest that... (Though I kinda presumed it from everything I've seen so far...)

As for the rest, makes sense.. But you make have a similar message from in a few months time then : )

Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he's modest, too. Next month, the arbcom election, I'm betting 99% support. Even without me threatening to block any opposers as blatant vandals. :-) Wouldn't be surprised at 100%. Next year: canonization... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. If NYB doesn't run for arbcom I will go on a hunger strike! Viridae ^Talk 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third -- Samir 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your view

Hi Brad, I am not sure whether you were aware of this, but I'm sure your insightful views and wisdom on this topic would be a breath of fresh air, if you would care to comment. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request : ) - jc37 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on several proposals over the past year at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, so I am not sure I have anything really new to say, but since discussion seems to be centralizing on the RfC and since you ask so nicely, I will take another look at it over the weekend and try to post some thoughts. (As you might imagine, my view of the RfA process was more sangine when the first two people I nominated passed 98/0/0 and 233/3/3, as opposed to now that a nominee of mine was just rejected for the third time running, but I'll try not to let that color my views.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Much appreciated. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IRV

Per the consensus on ANI, including but not limited to the observations by Jpgordon who is a checkuser, I have unblocked both users. Based on something I noticed while doing the unblocks, I would also respectfully urge that the "block this user from sending e-mail feature" should not be activated while blocking as a matter of routine, but only when there is reason to anticipate abuse of the e-mail capability. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I know what the e-mail blocking feature is for. See also my latest comment on the ANI section. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I'll respond on ANI in the morning. Newyorkbrad 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really expecting a reply (although you can reply if you want). It was more of a statement, and more of a statement for others (because I have a feeling that you have a bit of a better understanding of the circumstances regarding the IRV article than some of the other editors that commented). -- tariqabjotu 12:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy blanking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2

This blanking has been reversed, re-blanked and reversed again. You might want to comment on the talk page to calm things down again. All the best Tim Vickers 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I've posted there, and restored the blanking with an explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newyorkbrad, just wanted to apologize for my unnecessary remark.Proabivouac 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and again. Daniel 07:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the reply! Masterpiece2000 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

On 29 September 2007 at 01:32, Modernist changed the opening Diego Rivera sentence:

Diego Rivera ([...]) was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist born in Guanajuato City - whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, Siqueiros, etc.

to those still opening the article:

Diego Rivera ([...] was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist. Born in Guanajuato City - and whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, and Siqueiros.

The errors include: missing parenthesis, incorrect division into two (2) sentences, completely wrong structure of the second sentence, factual error that the Mexican Mural Renaissance was established by works of only 3 mentioned painters (there were more of them). Can such damage to article be considered as vandalism, please? -70.18.5.219 08:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that these changes were meant as vandalism, which is defined as damaging the quality of the encyclopedia on purpose, but I agree that they need some fixing. Have you asked him why he made the changes and if the paragraph really came out the way he meant? That would be a good first step here. You can also edit the introduction further—in my opinion, neither version reads particularly smoothly. Newyorkbrad 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked Modernist a similar question once at the bottom of Talk:Frida Kahlo#."Protecting" the article for 2 weeks - too much!!! about deleting my message there, and received a derogatory answer, which lead me to a conclusion that some go unpunished. Anyway, one editor can make quick mistakes, and another one needs to spend ten or hundred times more time to correct them, and to know the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures (not myself) in order to achieve a resolution not mentioning to bring the culprit to some kind of justice. For many, it is just easier to quit editing instead of going through all of that hassle.

Maybe Modernist had a good intention to break the long and complicated sentence, but did not know, how to do it, so left it for someone else to fix. It appears that such a tactics creates two classes of editors: those who do not like something, and those, who fix it for them..., like masters and slaves, seemingly in violation of WP:OWN, and employing the 'I do not like it (and you fix it)' judgment equal to the unacceptable "judgement 'I don't agree with you'" disallowed by WP:TROLL. His explanation in the aforementioned example may be an example of such arbitrary tendency, but it would be time consuming to prove it. Oh, well, c'est la vie!

I could not edit the introduction, because it has been (over)protected, as result of unrelated vandalism. So, how such protection works against vandalism, which acts seem to be singular and unrelated to each other, so one occurrence does not allow to predict the next one? In other words, if acts of vandalism are random and unpredictable, how the length of duration of protection against random occurrences can be calculated? Wouldn't be better just to block the vandals instead of disallowing editing for all anons, please?-70.18.5.219 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts here. I see that you have been continuing to discuss this issue with User:Anonymous Dissident who was the protecting admin, and that you will be able to edit the article again shortly. Hopefully a suitable rewriting of the introduction can be agreed upon. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion; I was seeking a deeper justification. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you should be discussing the situation with Modernist as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi Newyorkbrad! I have a problem. I noted that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. I have created seven articles including some biographies. I send e-mail to some of them and they provided me some important information. For example, I send e-mail to Claude S. Fischer and asked him to provide me some information about his early life. He told me that he came to the US in 1952 and he graduated from Fairfax High School. These are not published facts. Can I include such facts in the biographies?

And few more questions: What are 'Good article' and 'Featured article'? I have created seven articles. Do they meet Wikipedia standard? How can I improve them? Please look at them. You can find them on my user page. You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your favorite sports teams?

Newyorkbrad, what are your favorite sports teams? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, DP1234 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Hi Newyorkbrad, how's things?? you OK?? I had a username change a few months ago... my old username wasn't very good, so I got a far better one (sounds less corporate than my old one, SunStar Net!)

I remember ages ago on here you were saying about AfDs and webcomics, where can I find the discussion relating to this??

In a similar vein, I'm putting articles on radio presenters at AfD, not as a WP:POINT but because I feel they may not meet notability standards.

I am planning to write a new notability guideline regarding radio presenters - would you be willing to help me with it??

Thanks, ~~--Solumeiras ^talk 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)~~ --Solumeiras ^talk 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was wondering what had happened to you as I hadn't seen you on-wiki in awhile.

Regarding AfD's and webcomics, I'm not an expert on webcomics, but I had some passing acquaintance on the issue after the fiasco concerning the deletion debate on webcomic writer/artist Kristopher Straub which it turned out he orchestrated himself. I think our notability guidelines may be applied a little too strictly in this area, but I am hardly an expert.

I'm not an expert on the notability of radio presenters, either, but would be glad to look at a draft policy if you write one and provide comments if any occur to me. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is now up at Wikipedia:Notability (radio presenters). Feel free to take a look. --Solumeiras ^talk 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the reply. I though that Wikipedia was quite complex. However, now I think it is not that complex. I think I need some experience. Anyway, thank you. Masterpiece2000 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arb of the Liancourt Rocks

Hello Newyorkbrad. Thank you so much for your kindness. Please give me a advice about the arbitration of Liancourt Rocks. A RFCU report filed by Wikimachine was salvaged by a clerk, and displayed. In the past example, RFCU by involved parties was requested in workshop, and needs consensus. I understand this restriction, because the disorderly requests by involved parties will make a problem complicate more.

It is a rough report. But I think that profit of RFCU should not be accepted. Accepting such a precedent will become a burden in a future Arbitration. I think that this RFCU should be suspended, too. But I do not want to perform abuse of proposing a temporary injunction. Do you know a good idea? Sincerely yours, --Nightshadow28 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a note on the checkuser request page that there is a related arbitration pending. This will most likely lead to the request being deferred to the arbitrators. I believe Wikimachine knows how to request a check via the workshop page if he cares to. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for your speedy action. I feel that your note is very helpful in this situation, and I hope that he does motions in workshop like Endroit... Thanks, again. --Nightshadow28 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope and expect to be there. Will sign up for the attendee list once I am 100% sure (rather than the current 90% sure) that a family event doesn't conflict. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Per Miranda's suggestion, may I ask you why the RFCU should be "deferred" to the arbitrators? Does that mean I should stop working on it or could I continue to work on it? (Wikimachine 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser state that where there is a "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case," the user should "Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages." This is because the arbitrators will already be aware of the background to the situation from their work on the arbitration case. I am not sure if you are aware, but several of the arbitrators are checkusers themselves. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

Thank you for recommending the block be lifted, I greatly appreciate it. Johntex\^talk 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tealeaf Follow-up

Thanks for the post on Doug's page and relaying the message. I'm shocked the page was pulled down... davidewart\^talk 12 October 2007 (UTC)