This 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. |
Welcome! (back!)
Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008, and welcome back to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay longer than last time! Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme))
before the question. Again, welcome! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back to active duty :-) --FloNight♥♥♥ 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For having the courage to return to Wikipedia in the wake of off-wiki harassment, I hereby present you with the Barnstar of Diligence. TML (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) |
Also, a few days ago someone named a barnstar after you. See Wikipedia:BARNSTAR#Wikipedia-space_Barnstars for details. TML (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
and I hope the weight of expectation isn't too cumbersome! - You'll be well aware no doubt of matters which would benefit from your attention! I hope to persuade you to give an interview before too long, because I think many will be interested, and there's much to say! - meantime just a happy 'hello' and welcome back! Privatemusings (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)I noticed you ease yourself back with comment at an arbcom case review happening ;-)
Sticky Parkin 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's to a fresh start, Brad. Best of luck as you re-assimilate yourself into editing and general existence on Wikipedia, and as you re-enter the fray of administrative and arbitration-related work. Glad you're back, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Your return is great to see. I wish you the best.--MONGO 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
. 903M (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Huzzah! --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
FYI - the next DC meetup is on September 6th, should you be in the area and interested in coming. --Aude (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (Happy to see you editing here)
to the same old place you laughed about... Rosencomet (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Two barnstars for you!
The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar | ||
Since no one has given you one yet! :D ≈ MindstormsKid 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | ||
You deserve it, NYB. Good luck, in both RL and WL (Wikipedia life :D)! ≈ MindstormsKid 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) |
Wait, what? How did I miss this? Welcome back! the wub "?!" 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you've nailed it. ATren (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
<smile> Avb 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
While I left some suggestions for modification to a few of the principles, I was wondering: What is the current practice as far as modifying a principle? (In other words, is being bold allowable? or not preferred? Or?) - jc37 01:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You've been missed by many. Now you must be very busy so I'll toddle on my way. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You're back! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
Passing on my resilience! WB! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
Because no one seems to be reading anything before posting out of elation, please note NYB's comment above: As a personal favor, I request that undue attention of the "Newyorkbrad's back!!!!" variety not be placed on my return. This will be sincerely appreciated. Keeper ǀ 76 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated to this case; in the other case I was involved in, the editor in question was fully convinced she was being harassed, by me and others, and she definitely felt harassed, regardless of the reality of that perception. Don't want to leave that door open too wide. (So glad to see you back in the saddle.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
NYB, I sent an e-mail to Kirill a few days ago, but I see from his contribs that he hasn't been active on Wiki in the last few days. Can you confirm whether ArbCom got an August 14, fairly trivial e-mail from me forwarded by Kirill? If not, I'll need to resend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. And welcome back, by the way! Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think doctors need consent to do surgery on people as well as take their pictures for publication, at least from the consent form that I signed a few years ago. Do you think that Wikipedia should try to insure that patient photos do have consent? Or should we insist on our right to publish and ignore the rights of patients? I would like an informal opinion, not a legal declaration. Thanks. 903M (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you'd noticed this; I just did: Check this out. rootology (T) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, if you haven't already, please check out these comments by Alecmcconroy. I personally think that this is the most invaluable comment so far in the entire case, and my hopes are that while your colleagues haven't been very responsive so far, that this will get due consideration. user:Everyme 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm contacting you regarding User:Certified.Gangsta as you were involved in his case at the Arbitration Committee. I would like to notify you that he has resumed heavy edit warring, most recently at Wikipedia:WikiProject China/to do, Jay Chou and Taiwanese American, and that I am also concerned at the level of his POV edits on Taiwan-related articles, which he describes as "POV balancing". Once such example is at [1], which I reverted and attempted to discuss, but in turn simply had my comment deleted [2]. I'm not asking for action (yet) but I felt the need to notify the higher-ups of his behaviour, and I am not clear on the exact process for voicing my concerns. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't already, please see my comment on the proposed decision talk page regarding the submission of any new evidence. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
...for making yourself available for the interview we recorded tonight - now posted here, here, and also available through iTunes, or any other clever 'podcast' type program here.
I've also set up a section on our Central Page for folk to submit some questions, or suggest topics for the possible panel discussion we'll try and setup in a fortnight or so - my experience has been that these things take a little longer to come together than one might think, so hopefully this is a good notice period.
Thanks heaps for being part of 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly', and I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you! I very much look forward to getting a few more folk around the table, and having another chat in due course, at a time convenient to you :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Away for the weekend with limited Internet access unti Sunday night or Monday morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Re User:Steve Crossin, I was wondering if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on this matter. Particularly, I don't understand what the committee stands to gain from taking this situation away from the community to handle. -- Ned Scott 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Newyorkbrad. Thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Request for arbitration. I had not read the above statement by JJB, but I actually came here with the same question... you write that "arbitrators actually read through some of the cited sources to compare them with the uses that PHG was making of them, and verified that the problems were real.": could you actually point me to what these sources are specifically, and in what sense arbitrators considered I would have misrepresented them? Cheers PHG (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your um, colorful contributions to RFA with poems, I present you this Special Barnstar. Thanks for being here. --Lord₪Sunday 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
Welcome back! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What, did you really expect us to honor your request that "undue attention of the "Newyorkbrad's back!!!!" variety not be placed on my return"? Ha.--Father Goose (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Newyorkbrad's back!!!!
Great to see you back, Brad. Zocky | picture popups 14:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on surviving the gauntlet! Your comments on Elonka's current case reminded me of my question but I see I already asked it of you here as (1) (at an infortuitous time), relating to this case and proposed amendment. Could you kindly give me a yes or no now as to whether you might have time to provide the community with the specific items of Elonka's evidence validated by ArbCom? Just a few examples to back up your statement that PHG's sourcing "problems were real". Thank you! JJB 14:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) And thank you also for your very appreciated comments on Cla68 et al., among which I might allude to your "minor edits" section as helpfully answering some of my other questions in the PHG et al. case. JJB 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I made a response here here to your comment here regarding the authority to give out CheckUser privileges. Foundation checkuser policy allows for community-based elections where the community prefers it but that will never happen here because people keep making the same uninformed statements about Arbcom privileges. naerii 19:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
for your efforts in ensuring appropriate momentum in the 'uber' arb case.... I've left a short note at the 'latest news' section on the proposed decision talk page - and just wanted to swing by personally to say that despite my (fairly strong and sustained) criticism of the processes at play here, your efforts to keep things 'on the rails' is both vital and appreciated.... so thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Completely independently of PM above, I too, having criticized the outcome of the case, but wanted to come by and make it especially clear that I wasn't criticizing you, that I do appreciate you coming back, and that I didn't want to shoot the messenger.
I'm sure there is will be frustration from all sides that nothing got definitely settled-- but before you came back, we didn't even have a definite that nothing was going to get definitely settled at this point. And you do lay the groundwork for things to get settled at some future date, which I'm sure will happen sooner or later. So, seriously, thank you for taking a stab at it and giving it your best The project is a better place with you in it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Warnings may be sufficient if parties to a case actually read the case. At least one party to the Omnibus Administrator Conduct Case has told me that they have not event read the case, because they find the criticism of themselves to be odious. Before letting people off with just a warning, you might want to solicit from them a statement that they have reviewed the case and taken the feedback on board, whether or not they agree with it. Jehochman Talk 07:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:[4], your comment in the RfAr for Elonka. Brilliant analysis! Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of the issues, we need more of this. I'm a fan of good "legal" analysis (which, of course, includes Public policy or WP:IAR), I used to love to read Supreme Court decisions, until, well, you know.... late 2000. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, Martinp (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the community does trust you Brad, but the long delay has strained confidence in ArbCom in general. Give it your best shot, and good luck. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Travelling until Tuesday (it's a holiday weekend in the U.S.) with possibly limited Internet access. I will respond to posts here as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)