User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2

Archives prior to October 26, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1. Archives after December 19, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3.

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Anon from Gundagai

Thanks for your comment, Brad, I appreciate it. I must say I find many of your comments at RfAr and various talk pages very insightful and interesting. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I think you should get your mainspace edit count up a tad so we can take you to RfA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of these thoughts. :) More later on your page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Giano RfAR

I do my best to be fair and reasonable, and listen to the various arguments made. Other members of the Committee do the same; of course, we don't always agree on what is fair and reasonable. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Saw your post to Thatcher's page. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings? – Ch acor 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Thanks. I think you know what controversy it's become relevant to, as well.Newyorkbrad 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary usage

Oh? Someone actually read that? I am indeed aware of that setting, that sentence is quite old and should probably be replaced or removed, since my edit summary usage has been at a consistent 100%/100% for months now. Thanks for the thought though. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 07:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Help

In the Justice Holmes bio I meant only to delete the renewed reference to the "get down, you fool" story, but seem to have edited a past page instead of the current one, deleted some more recent postings inclulding your emendation of the Insular Cases issue, which I had no quarrel with. Is there a simple way to undo my mistake and get back to the page as it was when you left it? Sheldon Novick 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Sheldon[reply]

Responded on your talk, and now taken care of. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of sexism

I have changed that, but not to the exact language you suggested. Fred Bauder 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that it was changed a bit, but I still don't think it addresses the concern I and a couple of other editors had. I guess we'll see what the other arbitrators think. Newyorkbrad 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Red link

When I created Clarence Ransom Edwards I left a Red link to Bureau of Insular Affairs. I just noticed that it was Blue, so I checked it to see what was there. I am now prepared to compose a short stub on General Frank McIntyre, too. He was born at Montgomery, Alabama in 1865, then attended West Point. GhostofSuperslum 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Editor review/SunStar Net. Thanks, --SunStar Net 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over the weekend. Good luck! Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks; _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Insular Affairs

That article looks great from my perspective, though I should probably clean up Charles Edward Magoon to reflect that he couldn't have worked for the Bureau in 1899... (I assume he worked for its predecessor organization). I have ProQuest access and found an interesting article explaining and announcing the creation of the Bureau on March 12, 1899 in the Chicago Tribune and it jives with your article, though I'm not sure I can track through all of the different official names. (The problem with working through newspapers is that reporters call things what they want to call things, rather than always the official names.) JRP 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Checkuser

Missed that :-( but I see now, this bureaucracy is getting a little terrifying. Thanks for your comment. --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your page. Newyorkbrad 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal judges

Hi Newyorkbrad! I was wondering if you still needed MetsBot for the category/template tagging of your federal judges series; you left a message on the requests page but never followed through. —Mets501 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't follow up because I thought MetsBot was out of the category-tagging business. If it's willing to give it another try, I'll send you some details this weekend. Thanks for thinking of me! Newyorkbrad 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category tagging is no problem, it's the WikiProject tagging that's controversial. —Mets501 (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I was just recently thinking..... is there a bot we could launch to take the PD official biographies of all Art. III judges of all time from air.fjc.gov and convert them to articles? Should be easy enough - they're all so formulaic. I tossed the matter around more than a month ago, but never made it anywhere. See the bio I wrote for Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain straight from the FJC bio. This is approx. what I would want this robot to do. Ideas? - crz crztalk 02:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same suggestion - might have been from you - a few weeks ago, but haven't been able to think of a way to do this. It is definitely a 9.9 suggestion. I do, whenever I write up a judge, try to add some additional information from either reference works in my office or from my historical knowledge or my own scholarly work (which is very limited; I'm basically a practitioner). But I'll give it some more thought. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for your show of support during my recent RfA. If you need any administrative help or just need someone to look at an article from a new perspective, just let me know. Most importantly, however, which is it: Papaya King, Gray's Papaya, or Nathan's Famous? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Babur

I am unable to edit that page. Can you please make changes so that I am able to edit that page. Thanks. Siddiqui 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happens. My changes do not showup.

Siddiqui 22:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will pursue this matter.

Siddiqui 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the boat

I think you safely made it onto the boat... :-) Carcharoth 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Or maybe I turned the tide. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. S. Gilbert

Hi again! I'm not sure. However, certainly obeyed to obey must be wrong, since that makes it read as if Gilbert STILL insisted that all actors in the present day obey them (and even given the old D'Oyly Carte's firm upholding of pseudo-traditional stage business when they were copyrighted, that can't be right). Annd if we can't change obeyed to obey, the change of knew to know seems odder.

I suppose we could say "should know" and "should obey" or something like that, but it seems unnecessarily awkward. Thoughts?

(As for the elipsis: Not sure. It's something of a sentence fragment with the cuts, so it seems to need the elipsis, but we could instead capitalise the W, if that's allowed in Wikipedia. But it might be considered poor practice. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full quote, by the way: "He is nothing of an actor, and when he endeavours to show what he wants his actors to do, he makes himself rather ridiculous, and there is a good deal of tittering at the wings; but he contrives, nevertheless, to make himself understood, and takes particularly good care that whatever his wishes are, they shall be carried out to the letter, unless good cause is shown to the contrary."

I like the tense (a "relative" tense) that Newyorkbrad used (it happens to be the way I orginally wrote it myself), but I think the ellipses are correct. -- Ssilvers 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I yield to consensus on the ellipses. Newyorkbrad 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Terribly sorry about the mixup over Charles Edward Clark Kind Regards - Heligoland | File:Heligoland sigpic.png | Talk | | Contribs 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As indicated on your page, this was an edit conflict mix-up in reverting multiple anon vandalism on an article I'd created. I appreciate your posting this here as well as Bishonen's having reverted the warning that you left as a result of the mix-up. Newyorkbrad 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thanks for your clarification on that, I definately agree with you. I was just wondering... but thanks anyway. Cbrown1023 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support!

Se la face ay pale, la cause est...

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.

And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

Vandal control

[1] That was lovely. Much nicer than I could've done. Thank you. --Guinnog 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RE: Arbitration

Well that's interesting. -- Steel 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Newyorkbrad, thanks a lot for your support to my recent RFA. I see there's a very impressive line up for your imminent RFA... I find you very articulate in the discussions where I see you involved and I think wikipedia will benefit from you having the mop. So all the best:) -- Lost^(talk) 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Um ... I didn't say "imminent," did I? /gulp/ Newyorkbrad 17:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I did:) -- Lost^(talk) 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so resistive, Brad! It's time to give into the will of the people! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was supposed to have another jillion mainspace edits first. :) Newyorkbrad 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take the fact that people keep pestering you about adminship and offering to nominate you as a sign that we are ready and willing to support you RIGHT NOW! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But ... but I did promise Crzrussian above that I'd wait at least till December.... Newyorkbrad 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For the only really tough question asked here. John Reid ° 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept - oppose

I've commented on the RFAR talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've responded there as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise liner

Thanks for your suggestions, very kind of you. However, I don't believe my great-grandfather ever visited the United States. Cheers, though! Angmering 07:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Newyorkbrad, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Brad. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your supportive comments. I assure you I'll strive to use the tools fairly and wisely, and do my best to address the concerns brought up in the process. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 07:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done
I hope to wield my mop well
(Her name is Vera)

I appreciate
The support you have shown me
(I hope I don't suck)

Anyway, I just
wanted to drop you a line
(damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Newyorkbrad, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Hús ö nd 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Newyorkbrad, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the usual compliments

You seem to be used to receiving compliments on your insightfulful questions, are you sure that's healthy? Here's my maiden effort: are you crazy or do you merely think I am?[2] (Moved from userpage—please excuse a new user and get a talkpage link in your sig for great justice.) Bishzilla 06:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC). [reply]

Adminship?

Interested in being nominated? Dragons flight 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I'd be honored if I could be a co-nom. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much. More comments on your talk pages. Newyorkbrad 22:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it seems it is always the good ones that are reluctant and the bad ones that eager to go. Anyway, give me a heads up if you decide you are ready. Dragons flight 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons is entirely correct as regards the frequency with which the level of eagerness of a user to accept a nomination for adminship varies inversely with the likelihood that he/she will be an exemplary admin. More importantly, though, I'd appreciate your dropping me a note upon your deciding to pursue adminship; I think I claimed the opportunity to co-nom a month ago and, in any case, you don't want to be nominated by a user who believes in global warming or by one whose namesake could be readily eaten by the cat with whom I live. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahiegel (talk • contribs)

Yep, much better for it to come from someone who forgets to sign their posts. ;-) Dragons flight 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin? There should be some procedure to compel editors like you or William Pietri to accept. ;-)TheronJ 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the good old days, one could submit an adminship nom without waiting for the candidates acceptance or permission. In fact, you could post it, get a bunch of support, and then tell them about it. Sadly, some people decided that doing this wasn't really fair. Dragons flight 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another user (I think it was Thatcher131) put it well when someone pushed him to run a couple of months before he was ready. He said, in substance, I'd rather wait a little too long a time than too short a time, because I really only want to go through RfA once. If I run right now, there will be oppose !votes, which would not be frivolous and some of which would come from users I respect a good deal, based on (1) standards for overall time on the project (I registered in February 2006 but have only been active since the beginning of July), (2) standards for mainspace edits, (3) standards for anti-vandal activity, and (4) standards for deletion activity. I would like to think I'd get my fair share of support as well, and I honestly am sure that I would be a satisfactory administrator notwithstanding, but I'd just as soon wait until any such concerns can be alleviated as I spend more time here - particularly given that there's nothing that I want to accomplish in the next couple of months that requires admin tools. Still, all the comments here are extremely rewarding, doing much to make up for occasional unpleasantness encountered elsewhere, and have certainly convinced me that I will pursue an RfA at some point - the only question is when. Regards to all of you, Newyorkbrad 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it until December... - crz crztalk 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Are you saying I need one more month of activity, or is there something particularly lucky about December? Newyorkbrad 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying I am ready to support you today, but estimate that to ensure success another month would be dandy. - crz crztalk 01:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply - don't worry, it will be at least that long. By the way, and apropos of nothing, an edit of yours last week consisting of a single numeral was one of the funniest things I've ever read online - I wish I could find it again - I wonder if you'll remember what it was. :) Newyorkbrad 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? In an article? In which space? - crz crztalk 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9.9! Newyorkbrad 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! - crz crztalk 02:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah I came to the page to ask you if you needed an RFA as well, next WP:100 there Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you're not an admin? Really? How utterly... odd! Can you keep an eye on these two while I call it a night over here in the UK? I will leave them a sign-off message now. (aeropagitica) 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to check who deleted a page.

Go to a deleted page i.e. Forgotten Hope 2 and about a 1/4 down the page is the deletion log click on that link and you'll find out how many times it's been deleted and who deleted it. You can also check the on the history page of a article that hasn't been deleted under View logs for this page to see if it has been deleted before. I hope this wasn't that confusing. Whisp e ring 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. I knew that was there for existing articles but not for deleted articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if you have any other questions feel free to ask. Whisp e ring 00:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar :-) —Mets501 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.

~ trialsanderrors 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fez

Why don't you like it? John Reid ° 10:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect the "fez" business to come up again at this late date. The reason I didn't like it is that the way you proposed it seemed calculated to demean the work of the Clerks who assist the ArbCom in keeping track of the cases, opening case pages, sending out notices, etc. FloNight, who is one of the two most active Clerks right now, seemed annoyed by your putting the fez image back on the Clerks' page, and I don't see any value to your pushing the matter any further.

The serious concern that had been raised awhile back was that some users thought it wasn't always clear whether a given communication was coming from the Clerk officially on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, versus being that individual user-who-also-happened-to-be-a-Clerk's personal opinion. I don't think that has been an issue in recent months, however. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't propose it; I just made it. There's not really anything to propose. It's just a fez. Certainly, it's not calculated to demean anybody's work. I provide it to lend dignity.

Minor officials have always worn distinctive clothing, often headgear; the greater the office they represent and the pettier their own mandate, the more exaggerated the symbol. Great officials often wear distinctive clothing, too; but they can sometimes get away without it. You do understand why the symbol is so important?

I'm well aware that Clerks have come in for abuse; I daresay they will again. I supply the fez in order to provide Clerks with a shield against a small part of that abuse. The editor who first mentioned a fez also spoke of a tiny car; that would be undignified. The fez, however, is a noble piece of headgear, already traditional in many organizations on ceremonial occasions.

You are free, of course, to tell me it looks silly; perhaps it does. So do crowns, scepters, and orbs. For that matter, a policeman's uniform is no more dignified than a bellhop's. We are, however, taught to respect the uniform and so we do. Give the fez a chance; urge it upon the Clerks. I guarantee a good return from the investment. John Reid ° 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I can't tell when you are being serious or not. That's an endearing quality sometimes in an editor, though I don't know that it would work well if and when you are arbitrating.

Suppose you are elected to the ArbCom. Do you think you should wear a distinctive hat of your own at that point? What kind?

(This reminds me of a certain episode of Yes, Prime Minister....) Newyorkbrad 17:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you believe it! Category:Hats. Surely there is something there! :-) Carcharoth 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a toss-up between Bicorne and Biretta, though I like Capotain and Cocked hat as well. Didn't have time to look at the hats beyond the 'F' row of the wardrobe... Carcharoth 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not the first person to think I'm being funny all the time. All I can say is that I try to keep it light -- you know, keep the ball rolling -- but I never say anything I don't sincerely mean. I don't even usually make blatantly obvious jokes; I never was good at telling them. People often laugh when I'm being perfectly serious; it's one of the things I've had to learn to bear.

As you can see, I created an arbitrator's fez, too. For that matter, I have a whole folder of editor headgear just waiting to be uploaded. But if Clerks -- who really need the fez -- object then I don't know if I should. FWIW, I put the clerk-fez userbox on the userpage of a clerk who indulges in UBX; he seemed to enjoy it.

Meanwhile, would it be asking too much for you to take me seriously about this? Ceremonial headgear (especially, but also other items of clothing) have a long and honorable history, most of all the noble fez. Do you dispute this or am I missing something? John Reid ° 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you were talking to Newyorkbrad or me or both, but I'll certainly try to take this fez thing more seriously. As far as I'm concerned though, I took the fez thing to be a joke at first (and for that I apologise), partly because I probably first encountered the fez in comedy sketches, or something, or maybe when I was a child sniggering at funny-looking hats. Rather worryingly, as an adult I still sniggger at funny-looking hats. I think maybe it is the hats without the uniform. Hats look better with a uniform, and maybe some medals and ceremonial swords. I know this is meant to be just a symbol, and for that I find well-designed computer icons and symbols work best. At any rate, I would take those more seriously than photos or cartoon pictures. Hope that makes sense. Carcharoth 10:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought these were well-designed computer icons. They're a bit small, even for a pinhead. Anyway, I uploaded the whole batch. A gallery is at User:John Reid/Fez. Wear yours if you like. John Reid ° 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, those look absolutely great! Bishonen | talk 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, pretty "boy", you'd better get yours before we run out of stock. John Reid ° 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's tassels or nothing for me, thanks. I'll work up to Arbitrator first. They have the best fez. Bishonen | talk 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Acting Vice President

Please note that prior to the change in law in 1886, the postition of Acting Vice President was real and was the term in use at the time. Since the repeal of the 1792 presidential succession act, the "office" has been defunct, yes. But prior to that, it was the term used. Ericl

To the anon-user; Never, in the history of the US Constitution was there a position called 'Acting Vice President'. GoodDay 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the user's talkpage asking if he can point me to any sources or references. Newyorkbrad 23:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single-click reverts

Brad, did I miss something or are you referring (in SteveBaker's RFA) to something different from Requests for Rollback? The poll on that hasn't been "formally" closed as far as I can tell, but the proposal page has been marked rejected for months. If there's a new poll going on somewhere that I haven't seen, I'd like to hear about it. -- nae'blis 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's probably what I had in mind. I wasn't quite sure what the status was, although if I recall right there was definitely majority support for the idea. So thank you for giving me a better sense of where things stand. Newyorkbrad 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear on why it was rejected either (possibly/probably because the initial proposal was not well-defined). Any interest in helping create Round 2? -- nae'blis 20:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I've never really thought about the issue. When I have some free Wiki-time I'll read through the old debates. From what I remember, the most convincing argument against the idea was that the anti-vandal forces were now equipped with scripts that can accomplish the same sort of thing, but I don't know how good they are. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Wikipedia

It's so addictive that most show up again. Best to complete cases. Fred Bauder 20:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley

Just for your information. See my reply to your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Workshop. Onefortyone 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail request

An open request to anyone who has this page watchlisted or otherwise sees this: Could someone who uses Gmail for his or her Wikipedia e-mail kindly click on "E-mail this user" and send me a Gmail invitation. I've been using Hotmail for this purpose but Hotmail service is increasingly down or delayed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use Gmail, Brad, and I would be very happy to give you an invite. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah - information sent - thanks again. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the invitation Brad. Let me know if it doesn't show up. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Newyorkbrad 17:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congresses of the United States

Wow! Newyorkbrad; these pro-March 3rd editors, are everywhere. For them to suggest (against the Constituion's rules) that from March 3 (11:59:59 PM EST) to March 4 (Noon EST), every 2-years Congress didn't exist. Simply boggles my mind. GoodDay 22:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness, there were days and months that would go by with no Speaker of the House in office, for example. But yes, there was a Congress. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, that's not at all what I'm suggesting and that's not what the article text says either. It describes the location and dates that that Congress was in session as described in historical records. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded elsewhere, but my point is, it's undisputable that there were many years in which the lame-duck House and Senate actually met on the morning of March 4th. I've got the Congressional Record from March 4, 1917 sitting in my office, which I quoted from on List-of-Presidents talk. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see what the dates were describing when that Congress was in session. That is, if that Congress' session was described as ending on March 3, then we'd know that the date "March 3" was some sort of specially defined ritualistic token. If the records said March 4, then it would indicate that there was some significance to the date beyond mere formality. older ≠ wiser 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, because they were running out of time at the end of the session, they would just stay in session all night on March 3, but they were physically there until noon on March 4 (I've quoted the transcript where the Presiding Officer actually adjourns the House in the middle of someone's speech when the clock strikes noon). I've been meaning to take a look through old Congressional Records and see if I can find a year when they actually had a session that convened on March 4th, but that doesn't affect the principle either way. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone still reading here, I think I've figured out why there weren't "legislative days" of March 4th. For most of the relevant years, the daily meeting time of the House and Senate was usually 12:00 noon. (Committees met in the morning.) So it stands to reason that if the terms expired at noon on March 4, there wouldn't be a meeting scheduled for that date, even though they might still be is session that morning from the night before, wrapping up the "short session" (that started the prior December) before they ran out of time. Newyorkbrad 09:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A shiny, spinny thing for you...

		The Tireless Barnstar of Propositions
		For all your work creating insightful, civil and intelligent proposals for Findings of Fact and Remedies at RfAR, I award you this barnstar. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for the Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Newyorkbrad, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, M a rtinp23 14:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Haha, no worries. Sorry for the confusion - I'm just trying to change my user name and was advised against deleting my talk page, so I figured I'd let another admin do it if he/she felt it was ok hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parents

They don't hate me, but they hardly know anything about me. "Hey, Fred, what's your teacher's name?" "Where do you keep your bath towels?" They expect me to be so perfect that I just don't care about it anymore. And even though I'm now in Grade 8 they're still mentioning the fact that I didn't get into the middle school that I applied for in Grade 6. What's even worse, they won't let me choose my high school. I run my own life, not them. I'm old enough to decide. Fr ed il ^{Shadows of Darkness} 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for looking out for me. Looks like uncle mart has some issues. Goes with the admin territory. - crz crztalk 05:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heck with him ... I was much more concerned about the new kid you ~~bit~~ instructed on the finer points of deletion, who sounded a little genuinely upset. Newyorkbrad 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my words were way overboard, but I stand by their substance. This was the 3rd or so bad CSD tag warning in as many minutes. Check contribs. - crz crztalk 05:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that completely; on ANI, I told him exactly the same thing. But tone does matter sometimes too, and especially with the somewhat younger editors (the general rule is that they join the fray and take their lumps with the rest of us, and they wouldn't want it any other way, but still.) Newyorkbrad 05:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good? - crz crztalk 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good ... maybe even too much. :) I know, I'm impossible. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may enjoy this article: Jonathan Zizmor. See it before it gets deleted! :) - crz crztalk 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHEEL

Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors has put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

FJC

My proposal was {{FJC}} - correct? Also, did you ask me to get a bot or suggest you would do same - please clarify. - crz crztalk 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll apply the tag the first few times and then locate a bot to do it. I believe that User:Metsbot specializes in this sort of thing. All I am requesting you take care of is the renaming. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - crz crztalk 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Newyorkbrad 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I suggest putting FJC below the stub tag - but that's a minor stylistic thing. Let's get the Bot to do it. If Mets won't, Alphachimp will. Holler if you need my services as matchmaker. - crz crztalk 00:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alphachimpbot's been pretty busy lately, while MetsBot was looking for work, but I'll keep them both in mind. Let's see if we get any other comments on how it looks. As for above vs. below the stub tag, I was following the convention that the bioguide tag seemed to have established. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... there's a convention about? Yessir! - crz crztalk 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The long-term plan is to not have them be stubs any more. :) I'm happiest when I can look at one and de-stubbify. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was very interesting, as a matter of fact. Check out the inconsistent names of Jewish American XXX categories and the same for subcats of District Judges... CFD time - but not tonight. - crz crztalk 03:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked the article, read Milton Gould's book, which your law school library should hopefully have. Good night. Newyorkbrad 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just started reading The Murder of Helen Jewett about User:Crzrussian/Helen Jewett... Very interesting book. One of the first cases of OJ Simpson-style hoopla in the newborn United States. - crz crztalk 03:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a quick note to thank you for spotting the vandalism to my userpage and for reverting so quickly. Many thanks and Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

myocardial infarction

Thank you for reviewing the paragraph.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RfA?

Hi, Brad. I was wondering if you would like to be an administrator, as I think you would be perfect for the job. If you do, I'll create an RfA for you. Jorcogα 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message! I don't know what specifically you might have seen me write that led you to that conclusion, but I know you participate in many RfA's and are familiar with what admins do and what the voters' criteria are, so I appreciate your comment very much. There was some discussion on this a couple of weeks ago (see my archive if you're curious) and what I said then was that I was interested but probably needed a little more time here (I got active in July) before I put in an RfA. But it's getting closer, and again, I appreciate your kind message. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi there; I am coming intentionally to your talk page, out of the RfA page, because that seems right. I have realised, since altering my preferences (at your suggestion), why my edit summary count is low. It is because I have, fairly consistently, not put an entry on edits to User talk pages. It did not seem necessary, but obviously shows in the total. At this stage, any advice? Apart from do it in the future?--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you explain exactly this, people should understand. I agree with you that summaries on talkpages such as "reply" or "add comment" aren't as critical as when one is editing an article itself, and your promise to use the summaries from now on, which the !voters will see (that's why I put the question there) should help as well. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things :)

Firstly, I echo the above sentiments, and I'd love to know when you're planning on running at RfA so that I could nom/co-nom/support you :) Secondly, if you have a spare minute or two, can you browse over my input at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop for spelling etc., and to make sure it's worded as appropriate for ArbCom. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, three :) I have been trying to somehow word a proposal about guidelines (see [3]), but can't manage it. It'd be great if you could have a go. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: Hi, and thanks for your comments about an RfA for me. It seems to be my week for encouraging words from Australia. I'll certainly let you know when it's about to happen.

Regarding the workshop, your proposed principles make sense to me. I think it may be a little early to be posting principles and findings to the workshop, though, as the case was just opened. I think the policy is that the parties get a week to post evidence before things really get underway. So far, so good, though.

I know that I am a fine one to talk about posting to the Workshop too soon, after having written up the Konstable case so soon after it was filed. That was a bit of a special case, though, I thought, as the case was being presented as an emergency at the time, plus Konstable had said at the time he wasn't going to participate. And even so, Thatcher131, who is clerking that case, gently reminded me on the workshop talkpage that evidence first, and then findings, is the preferable order. :)

I'll take a look at the guideline issue you mention over the weekend. Newyorkbrad 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hi there! I've preemptively answered your questions here, the same that you asked of other people. Feel free to ask me others :) (Radiant) 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your contribution to the arbitration. You have been able to outline the event well, and were open minded to looking at the evidence. I thought it was beginning to look favourable with reasonable people like you participating. But now that Fred Bauder has entered the scene, the toxicity level is just too much for me to bother trying to talk to people. He told me to stop editing until I get an unblock on AltUser, which I do not even intend to request - I do not want AltUser back! Even requesting that unblock would probably cause others trumpet WP:POINT just for that. I have no need for that bullshit and so I'm just going to give him what he wants and disappear.--Konst.able^Talk 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sour on the process because of one person or proposal. Read the Workshop for other users' comments, and know that proposals have been rejected in the past. Some acknowledgement that you didn't handle yourself perfectly (you didn't, you know) wouldn't hurt, either. Longer-term, you have a place here, whether it's making your edits or suggesting improvements in how things are handled, though I suggest that you focus more on this project rather than promoting a different one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU Veignmacrae, Blaychess

What a can of worms! There are a bunch of other accounts that are pretty clearly the same guy, see my postings to WP:RFCU. Cheers, FreplySpang 19:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reassuring me about the MfD on my userspace pages. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danny K. Fenton

Thanks Brad. I've removed the block from Danny K. Fenton. Gwernol 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 12:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Candidate Summary

Thank you for your fine work. I was glad to be involved, if only peripherally. Jd2718 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (in NYC)[reply]

I think it will help. The table certainly looks good. And it did attract the candidate's attention, in a public way, which is in and of itself a service.

What is "BTW, will you be coming to the New York meet-up next month?" this about?

And, USSR, GDR, FRG (or whatever Berlin was part of), Yugoslavia, and I miscounted (not so hot for a math teacher, esp one teaching combinatorics just now). Maybe I counted West Berlin and West Germany as 2, even though I only passed through the latter. Jd2718 04:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's only three: the combination of the two German states was accomplished by the accession of the states of the GDR into the FRG, so the Federal Republic of Germany still exists. See here if you're curious. More importantly, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Newyorkbrad 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, right, only 3 new flags. But I think I need to dig up some old versions for Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. (I think). So that might make 6 out of service flags. And I added myself to the possible list for the W:Meetup/Manhattan.

But back to flags. I could weasel out with a technicality. The Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR held seats in the UN, and had flags quite different from their respective successor states. I only passed through Byelorussia on the train, but I spent an afternoon in L'vov, and on another trip time in L'vov, Odessa, and Yalta, but I need to check the timeline for the latter, since the USSR was breaking up, and while they issued our visas before we arrived, I am not certain who was in charge on the ground during the visit. Jd2718 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US HoR block length

Well, the vandalism had occurred via two edits over the course of several hours, which implied to me that the users of that particular address were relatively static. Mango juice^talk 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so. Still, the block is only 24 hours. But like the sign says on my talk page, any admin should feel free to undo any of my actions if they disagree. Mango juice^talk 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind it's an anon-only block. So anyone editing wikipedia with a registered account from that IP address would be able to edit. If you look at the contrib history of the IP address, you'll see that anons don't edit from there every day, or all that often. Which I suppose is a good thing, seeing as it's the taxpayers' money. Mango juice^talk 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Committee on Un-American Activities Question (Dickstein)

I know there were anti-communists who were attacked by the committee, but I know of none who the committee claimed to attack because they were anti-communists. I imagine it was similar to some of the things that are happening now -- that is arresting and holding someone for alleged involvement in terrorist activities even when that person may have no invovlement and may in fact be strongly opposed to terrorism. By making the correction, I was simply clarifying what the committee claimed to be doing. The outcome of its actions (ie targeting people as communists or facists who were in fact anti-communists)should certainly be addressed later in this article or in an article on the committee itself. (Of course, most Nazis were strongly anti-communist, but they were not targeted by the Un-American Activities Committee for that reason. They were targeted as facists and/or Nazi sympathizers.) 71.192.45.207 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers; also, when are you standing for admin yourself? *poke* -- nae'blis 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you, too: No one winds up with a 104-0 result who didn't thoroughly deserve it. As for your other comment, thanks for the kind words ... you're not the first person to ask about that, although I still consider myself kind of new-ish as an editor. I will give timing of an RfA some more thought but I know I don't want to do it while the ArbCom election is going on, so that gives me another couple of weeks to play with, at least. Thanks again, Newyorkbrad 06:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I consider myself newish still too. ;) -- nae'blis 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Heimermann

Good comments, I agree it is likely a young teen. I did accidentally put the wrong sockpuppet tag on the userpage for a short while before I put on the Sockpuppeteer tag on. I remove all tags from Asher's account based on your comments. I was watching User:Resources of Sheboygan Club make the same mistakes and saw a pattern. I'll let you decide if the sockpuppet tags should be removed from User:Resources of Sheboygan Club and User:NumLee. Royalbroil^T : C 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 06:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel ^Talk 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which succeeded. I've got a lot to learn, but your words of support mean a lot! Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools. Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Pigs Day

Could you put a copy in my userspace? It sounds like it should be merged into Michael Spivak. Septentrionalis 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I thought I successfully supported you. It seems to have wound up at Yellow Pig's Day. Spivak's book made me a mathematician. Septentrionalis 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't supported me on RfA yet; perhaps someday soon you will have the opportunity. :) But our paths have crossed on March 3rd vs. March 4th, I believe. Newyorkbrad 19:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded. Still quite stunned at the honor. Thanks again and see you around! =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nero Wolfe

There's always a lot of confusion about Harvard U. and Harvard College -- they are, however, two distinct entities and there are two Wiki articles about them. Undergrads go to the College, and, as I recall that particular book, the boys involved were definitely undergrads.

As for copyediting, I'm always for improved phrasing and MORE info, not less. Perhaps inadvertently I think you removed a lot of informative stuff. As for info from the Mc. book, that would be welcome, I'm sure. I would particularly like to see the story summaries at the bottom of the page rewritten -- they were originally done by an enthusiastic fellow from a Canadian college, I think, who let his enthusiasm run away with him -- I did some brief copyediting to remove POV and the fannish, breathless sort of writing that belongs on book blurbs, not in an encyl. But there's more of it that I didn't have the strength to get around to. One major problem with Wiki is that the people who are interested enough to write many of the articles are also, of course, fans of what they are writing about, so it is sometimes difficult to remove that POV enthusiasm from what they contribute. It's a trap that I initially fell into myself.... Hayford Peirce 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of the opening stuff got disjoined about 6 months or so ago when various editors started putting in disparate stuff. That's another problem with unpaid editors at Wiki -- they are better at putting in bits and pieces of new info than they are at taking the time, and making a (maybe major) effort to do rewriting to tie everything together in a way that the editors of The New Yorker would approve. Hayford Peirce 22:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit comments

Hm. Do you think my edits too often lack comments? When I look at my mainspace edits, at least the first 100 of them, maybe fewer than 10 lack comments. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I relied, perhaps foolishly, on the voter's comment rather than actually checking your contributions. The tool says you're at 89% for major edits, which isn't an issue to me, but might conceivably be to others. You seem to omit summaries in situations where you are responding to a page with subheadings and the subheadings are already included in the summary; the tool and some users consider that as a blank summary if you don't add additional tailored comments. But I will delete the comment from my support as it doesn't seem to be 100% on point. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on my comments, and try to improve there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am at your service

- crz crztalk 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded via e-mail (that project is Original Research, can't talk about it here :) ). Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my stunningly stupid typo. One of the problems with Firefox's built-in spellchecker is that one gets lazy and doesn't check for words that are spelled correctly, but not the right word for the circumstance. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go

I saw your note on the deletion page. I would urge you to stick around despite the occasional aggravations that occur around here. Take a break if you need it but I hope you'll return and resume contributing. Newyorkbrad 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I intend to permanently depart when the afd storm settles on trek related articles. En.wiki is unworkable for me.

I am tired of dealing with people whose entire existence is to troll and/or destroy peoples hard work by dancing with any policy, guideline, or essay that may be remotely relevant.

I will only return when wikipedia become friendly. Wikipedia is a troll heaven.

--Cat out 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis expert case

Thank you for message. I am glad a good outcome has come to the case, and I'm glad that someone else sees that it isn't a matter of doubting the ability or efforts of the Checkusers, but of making sure to take into consideration all other factors as well. -- Renesis (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect bot help?

Hi Newyorkbrad - seen your name twice in wildly disparate topics ?Forrester and OWOG and thought you may be able to point me in the right direction. I've renamed "Pain" to "Pain and nociception" Now I've got a little list of +200 "indented redirects" to correct. I think that a bot might be the go. Do I just contact bot owners and ask then for help? Please feel free to just point me in the right direction if this isnt your field. SmithBlue 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me (though I don't remember what "OWOG" is). Bots are definitely not my field but you can try Wikipedia:Bot_requests. I'll also ask a couple of people I know who run bots whether they might be able to help. Newyorkbrad 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetsBot has been put to work! —Mets501 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I just looked at this request in a little more detail (I was on the run this morning). You'd better make sure that this pagemove is uncontroversial and going to stick before you do all those redirects. I never heard before of the second word in the title he's moved the article to! Newyorkbrad 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of it either. Don't worry though, there's not 200 redirects, only 5 or so. —Mets501 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just think you need to look at this not only as the bot-owner Mets501 but also the pagemove-expert-admin Mets501, as the move doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere and is to a term 2% of the population at best will have heard of. Also, if the move sticks, it needs to be tidied up (see the redlinked disambiguation line on the page for a starter). Newyorkbrad 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general procedure is that if someone wants to move the page, they can (which is what usually happens). Immediately all double redirects should be fixed. Once the page is in its new location, if someone complains, then it can go to Requested Moves. The safest thing is just going to WP:RM first, but there's nothing wrong with being bold and just moving the page. —Mets501 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I trust you as the pagemove expert. (I just supported an RfA for a candidate who said that he wanted to be an admin to help with the backlog at RM, but the RfA doesn't look likely to succeed.) Have a good concert tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InShanee RFC

I realized that, so I removed my comment. Thanks. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your Userpage

Sorry, I realized I never replied to your thank you about reverting the vandalism. :( I didn't even notice it was that fast. :) Happy editing! Cbrown1023 22:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

I had a great time at the meetup! Very interesting stories! As for my user page, in the meantime I have nixed my name. I'll see if I'll be taking further action. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Brad

Thanks Brad. No surprises there. *rolls eyes*. Cheers, Sarah Ewart 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preposition stranding

Hi, as the AfD is now closed, I thought I'd respond here to your suggestion of renaming that page. I can confirm that "preposition stranding" is a very common, established linguistic term for the phenomenon and much more precise than "preposition at end" or any such. I'd strongly support leaving the page where it is, but feel free to introduce whatever redirects to it are convenient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've read on the issue and don't remember coming across that term, but I'm hardly an expert and will trust you. (Maybe a regional variation in terminology?) I will consider about the redirects, but clearly I am out of touch with current terminology; witness what happens when I look for the simple article on prepositions. Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps just a difference between technical usage in academic linguistics, and more popular grammar and style guide literature (you mentioned Fowler's Modern English Usage). Since the article is written pretty much from the "technical" perspective, I guess the title is suitable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find an AfD on preposition stranding. If there was one, and the article survived, this should be noted on the talk page of the article. Carcharoth 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Carcharoth: Sorry for the confusion, we were talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ending a sentence with a preposition, which resulted in a redirect to Preposition stranding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I forgot to put Speaker-elect Pelosi. If nothing changes she will be Speaker on January 3rd. thething88

Exactly right. Thanks for your note. (Note for future reference: New messages are easier to find at the bottom of the page instead of the top. Use the plus sign at the bottom to add a new section to a talk page. Thanks.) Newyorkbrad 11:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup

It was a pleasure to meet you! -Reagle 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Good luck with your dissertation. Newyorkbrad 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the meetup, but my girlfriend was not about to give up our Saturday evening, as we had other commitments during the weekend. Be well, -- Ssilvers 15:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, hopefully next time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Memoriam

Unsourced? I opened up Photoshop and drew a buncha lines. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just reacting to the message on your page - I didn't put it there! Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Werdnabot

Oh okay, thanks for letting me know. There doesn't seem to be that much discussion going on, so I can take over for the archiving until Werdnabot is functioning again. Nishkid 64 01:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Adminship

Hi there, I've been noticing you around and for the past two days have been casually looking through your contributions over the past few months. I think you would make a good administrator, based on your involvement in certain areas (mostly WP:AN/ANI) and the fact that you generally seem calm, mature and dedicated, we could use all the admins like that we can get. If you have any questions about adminship, I will be happy to answer them. I would be also be happy to write a nomination for you within the next day or two, if you're interested. --W.marsh 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just saw the above thread. But would still be happy to nominate you whenever... the timing really isn't very important as long as you have 4-5 months of experience, though I realize it might not seem that way before you've been through it successfully. --W.marsh 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I can only hope that my RfA, when it's time, has the same support level as (both of) yours deservedly did. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Hi! It is pretty common for users to appeal an ArbCom decision. Sometimes it is done on Jimbo's talk page and sometimes by email. It is a separate separate step in the process and there is no need to hold up closing a case. --FloNight 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes sense, because until the case is closed, there's theoretically nothing to appeal from. However, I hate the idea of a Steward hitting the desysop button while the appeal is still pending. I suppose what I am really looking for is the concept of a "stay pending appeal," but I've probably done enough wikilawyering already. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup NYC

Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Exams

I rocked Sec. Reg. Go me! - crz crztalk 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Adminship

Whenever you're ready, I would love to have the honor of nominating you. - crz crztalk 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I don't think I want to compete with the ArbCom elections, and after that we run into the holidays, so I am thinking in terms of January, by which point I will have 6 months of active editing. Make sense? Newyorkbrad 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I don't think it's a big deal, but as you like it. I am on standby. Let me know. - crz crztalk 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to be around for a long while, so waiting another few weeks is what I don't think is the big deal. Anyway, I don't accept nominations from people who are supposed to be on Wikibreak! :) Newyorkbrad 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down for early notice or co-nom :-) Guy (Help!) 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And me ;-) Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful. I will do my best to wield the broom wisely! | Mr. Darcy talk 20:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for you help

I'm crap with capitalization, and I need to read the Manual of Style (is that capitalization even right - don't answer that, I'll find out:)?).NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathannoblet

your post made me laugh - i hadn't thought about it that way. I agree re WP:CHILD, fortunately, my experience is that children forgive much more easily than adults --Trödel 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law

Hi Brad, in case you have time and interest, please take a look at this request for a new article I just left.[4] No rush and please feel free to ignore! --Irpen 10:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll write something up if no one else gets to it first, but it may be a few days before I can get to it. Is there a particular aspect of the issue you are interested in? Newyorkbrad 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing particular and nothing pressing. I have argued elsewhere, and not once, that complaints about the actions of editors should be posted to public admin boards rather than to the talk pages of cherry-picked admins, save few exceptional circumstances. Worse is when this goes to IRC and then someone comes from IRC with the block club. IMO, complaining to pre-selected admins is tantamaount to court shopping while on admin boards an unbiased consensus of the course of actions is more likely to be formed. When saying so, I noticed that C.S. showed up as the red link. I thought the concept itself is notable. I know of no one else in Wikipedia with professional legal background. That's why I contacted you. There is nothing more to this request and this is my only second request to this board. A very long time ago I noticed the lack of article reasonable suspicion while the probable cause was there earlier. I posted a request and someone created an article. I find posting such requests somewhat useful but those pages are rarely attended and I usually alert the editors with the appropriate backgroung to take a look. In this case, someone has just redirected the red link to forum shopping. Perhaps the problem is already solved. Cheers, --Irpen 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, forum shopping is indeed a synonym for "court shopping." I will take a look at that article and see if I have any ideas for improvement or expansion, but the crux of the matter seems to be covered. You might also be interested in reading about a particular form of forum shopping that was stopped by the Supreme Court in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins.

In general, I would caution against reading parallels to real-life litigation concepts into internal Wikipedia issues ... although a dispute over recusal of an ArbCom member that was hotly debated on a talk page a couple of months ago did inspire me to expand the mainspace article on recusal. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to Erie case. You probably mean this thread. How naive was of me then to have been thought that this was obvious. Interestingly, the only ArbCom member who gave his support to this idea was Fred, not surprizingly, the only one with a real-life legal background. I still think I was right. --Irpen 19:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Boring" comment

Maybe my word choice wasn't the greatest.

By "boring", I was referring to the notability of the content of an article.

Now, I will attempt to rephrase: If the only thing worth saying about this store is that its founder invented instant coffee, then would other articles of equal or lesser notability be up for deletion? (By the way, Benton, Missouri and Broadview Heights, Ohio aren't boring, they're just towns that are rarely mentioned.)

I'll chose words more carefully from now on.

Preston47 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just making sure, because new editors (I was one a couple of months ago) don't always find these policies easy to find or to follow. As for the notability of those towns, there's pretty much of a consensus that all towns and cities are considered notable. After all, other encyclopedias would have articles about them, and people would have a good use for the information, not least people who live in that particular town. Thanks for writing back. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]