User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Nov

With regards to my request for clarification

I'd like to note that it appears that my request has been "hijacked" to focus on a different question than I asked. I don't use the word "hijack" in a bad faith, I am sure the editors who posed the other questions had good rationale, and I appreciate you and others addressing them, but I'd like to not ethat nobody seems to have answered my original question (where my edits to AE a violation, and was FSP right to threaten me with sanctions?). I hope I won't have to repost my request... (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:EEML). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

I've made the change you requested and removed your comment from the talk page. Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 08:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. (And sorry for the delayed response.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Replied, at Talk:Time, Inc. v. Hill. — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added a bit more info regarding the source you suggested for usage, at Talk:Time, Inc. v. Hill. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there are much better sources to be found and used than the one I cited after a 30-second Google search. I posted that mostly because I didn't want anyone to be needlessly poring through the reporters for a decision on remand that didn't exist. Thanks for your continued work on this article. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

OK, it looks like you, me and User:HJ Mitchell promised to close this ... would email be the best place to discuss this first? (Oh and I'm in the UK, so it's 1am here, and I'm going to bed now). Black Kite (t) 01:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I need to read up on the last couple of weeks of the discussion first. I'll try to do that between tonight and tomorrow, and we can move forward from there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. There's a lot of reading. Black Kite (t) 19:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Questions/General.
Message added 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Urgent. This needs to be resolved in the next 6.5 hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Responded there the other day, before I noticed this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

USEP discussion

I don't recall that you and I have ever interacted, but I hope you don't mind me asking you for a favour. There is a discussion going on at WT:USEP regarding the planning of the US Education Program. I don't know if you're aware of the background to this WMF initiative, but it grew out of a grant that led to collaborations with universities, in which professors assigned work on Wikipedia to their students. Wikipedians provide support to these classes, both online and on campus. The Indian Education Program which was attempted this past semester was something of a debacle, with so many copyvios inserted by the students that the foundation had to stop the program and ask the students to cease editing. That has no direct bearing on the USEP, but it brought into the discussion many new page patrollers and copyright cleanup editors who were concerned at the burden the IEP placed on the Wikipedia community.

The USEP has the potential to have an enormous impact on the encyclopedia. The Public Policy Initiative, the USEP's precursor program, was very successful in generating a large quantity of high quality text added to various articles by students. The volunteer support didn't work flawlessly but it sufficed. The USEP could scale that up dramatically -- both the possible benefits, and the costs to the community. Students are not expert editors, and are motivated by grades, not by Wikipedia's rules. Their messes have to be cleaned up by other editors. On the other hand, they are a labour pool that may be able to add a great deal of useful content. The stakes are high, in other words; success would be very valuable to Wikipedia, and failure could be painful, as well as being a lost opportunity.

I would really appreciate it if you would look at the discussion on the USEP talk page and let me know if you think I am right to say this is a planning process that the community should be actively involved in. You are a very well respected editor whose opinion is influential, and I would like to get your take on how USEP planning should proceed, and how the community and the WMF should interact. I have no particular criticism of the WMF to make -- in fact, I think they're working hard to make this successful and would welcome more community involvement.

Thanks for your time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for the kind words. From your description, this honestly does not sound like the kind of issue on which I have any particular expertise. However, I will take a look at the discussion, and if I can think of anything useful to add, will be happy to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think expertise is needed, or even necessarily a response on that page -- I'd just like another opinion on whether this is, as I believe, something with sufficiently high potential impact on the community that it should be publicized as widely as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, sir

Meh, I may have called you "the worst member of arbcom", however I credit that you actually know what words mean. With that in mind, can you please knock some sense into your fellow committtee members, before they make total fools of themselves. See [1]. I have no objection to the principle they may be (if I can understand their inarticulate grunts) trying to pass, but for pete's sake come up with some words that actually mean something.--Scott Mac 20:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeez Scott, you really know how to charm someone (chuckle). I think the whole thing is looking like being vacated and moving on anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm. On reflection that wasn't very civil of me. But since you've deferred from blocking me, I guess I'm in the clear now. Yes it does look moot now, but until a few hours ago it was two votes off passing. It might be possible to write a policy that would address the fact that 1400 admins each appear to have an individual veto on a block, but this certainly wasn't it. I've no problem with arbcom pushing aside the personal details of the case, and trying to clarify the policy uncertainly that is at the root of it, but it just needs to be done with more care. I fully expected someone to re-write Fozzie's sentiments into a coherent motion, but maybe that was a lost cause from the outset. We'll doubtless here more of this issue anon.--Scott Mac 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[Full of passionate intensity:] Grunt grunt grunt! bishapod place grunts here 23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

@Scott - problem is, as soon as one starts to dissect the request, it has a few little bits to it worth....well, not worth a case on their own really but the whole is somewhat interesting. I tried to break it down but looks like it's Just Not Done that way so...(shrugs) - at least it got me back on track to ferreting round in the abortion archives so a PD should be up soon on that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been travelling with limited online time and access for the past couple of days, but should be getting back in the saddle this evening. I'll take an updated look at this tonight and weigh in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sir

Hello, Newyorkbrad. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

- C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Received; will respond within the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by a bunch of thugs and assholes, please help

I am neutral. I saw some genuine improvements that were possible in the Barack Obama article.

It seems that the article is guarded and heavily controlled by some thugs. They will make up fake excuses to get their way. I calmly made some suggestions. They just removed them without any discussion. "For Pete's Sake" was a typical edit summary.

When they found out that they don't have the mental capacity to rationally discuss why my edits are good and they have no ideas, they just ban me saying I am a sock. Their excuse is that everyone they don't like must be related to one another.

My suggestions was that some law call SCIP is not very important but that there were other things very important to Obama. I also said that we should stick with Obama and be careful not to just have a summary of the world or politics while he was in office. Similarly, I suggested that the paragraph about Libya be written about Obama's involvement, not just a history lesson about UN resolution this or that.

You can see that my suggestions are all good. Yet when they are unable to even explain their reasoning, they just resort to banning. I think that maybe they want to anger people hoping that the hurt party will start to vandalize. If so, that is a very sneaky way to damage Wikipedia (piss off people hoping a few percentage will vandalize).

Once again, look at my Barack Obama edits. Looks at them objectively. You will see that everything I wrote is of very high quality. I should be immediately unbanned. My username is Jack Paterno (I don't like that name and asked to have it changed so don't use that as an excuse)) Jack Patern (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely for block evasion and abusing multiple accounts. See User talk:Jack Paterno if you want to know what his message to you is about. Hope you're well. WJBscribe (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll have limited online time and availability over Thanksgiving weekend (through Monday morning). My apologies. High priority to the WP:V RfC upon my return. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26!

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.

FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Photographer in New York?

Hi there NYBrad, I was trying to think of any editors in New York and your name popped up on my watchlist, so you're as good as any to ask. Are you by any chance a photographer? I have a friend in New York who has his pilot's licence, and I am certain that if I approached him and asked him nicely (and perhaps threw a few bucks in for juice) that I could get him to take a photographer who is active on WM on a flight over the city in order to get some aerial photos of the city -- this is something that we appear to be lacking. He has taken other friends up for joy flights, and they have returned with fantastic, very close up aerial views of Manhattan and the city in general (such as this and this). All that would be required, I guess, is for the person not to be afraid of flying, and to have photographic equipment which would be up to the job of delivering professional results. Is this something that may interest you, in the event that you would be able to deliver what would be needed? Let me know. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your e-mail. I am afraid I have no photographic equipment or skills at all. If you like, I can ask around at the next NYC meet-up and see if anyone else is interested. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The man you want is almost certainly User:David Shankbone. He's possibly our best (and certainly our most famous) photographer, and he's in New York City. That said, are you sure none of these [2] [3] are good enough for you? --GRuban (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have since been told of WM NYC, and a couple of the photographers such as Shankbone. I'll send an email to the chapter in the coming days. GRuban, I had a quick look at some of the flickr photos you linked to; and whilst my suggestion isn't for anything in particular that I am working on, but rather a general idea I had after seeing some of my mates coming back with great night aerial views of NYC, I would have to say that great night shots of the city isn't something I see very often myself, much less on Commons. If I was able to do the trip to NYC myself in the near future, it's something I would prob do myself; but alas :( Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 04:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)