This page 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.

Hello Newyorkbrad! Today I completed my second month on Wikipedia. I am enjoying my time here. I hope you are doing well. Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007, Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I have practically been living at Arbcom (gallows humor), would it be possible for me to volunteer as a clerk's assistant? I am becoming very familiar with procedures and this activity might help keep me out of trouble (more gallows humor). - Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The arbitrators just appointed a new Clerk (Cbrown1023) yesterday, so we now have five active Clerks (David.Mestel, Penwhale, Picaroon, Cbrown1023 and me) plus two fairly active clerk-assistants (AGK and Rlevse). I will put you on the list of people who are interested, and you should start to keep an eye on the pages (which as you indicate you've pretty much been doing already), but given that it's December 2, I suspect that any decisions on further clerk personnel are going to wait until the new arbitrators are installed after the elections. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was a WP:AN and a WP:BN, but I wasn't sure about arbitrators. Thanks for letting me know! Icestorm815 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are actually several relevant pages depending on specifically what you need. I think Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration should have all the relevant links. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make a prediction - at the end of the election, you're going to set a record for the most number of supports for any position, ever. Raul654 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Any position, yes. Any vote, no. See my comment below about the Main page redesign vote. I've also never seen a full analysis of WMF Board elections and Steward elections (which obviously spread their net wider than just en-wiki) to try and determine the total number of people taking part. For that matter, a full analysis of en-wiki ArbCom elections would be interesting to see how many people vote in total (if you look at all the candidates). Should be a fairly simple analysis - someone should try that one day. Carcharoth 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice the time :D. And then read my updated vote...which was a few edits later. --( Review Me) R ^Parlate Contribs _@ 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that my vote is out in the open, I just want to say good luck in this election. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're on fire! Maybe you'll exceed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Can't sleep, clown will eat me.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should take my comment back. I'm not sure even bad luck would stop this one. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Up, up, up and away! Good luck....not that you'll need too much more. - Rjd0060 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

128 votes in support in 3 hours! Is that some sort of record? CSCWEM got 403 votes with 303 supports. The elections run for two weeks. Someone's already put you on WP:100. Hmm. I wonder if the en-wiki record (as far as I know) of the Main Page redesign poll vote (687 support and 213 oppose) is within reach? I suppose not, but you never know. I still get shivers down my spine every time I look at that Main Page redesign poll. 943 different users stirred themselves to express an opinion (forgot the 43 neutrals). Sorry. I'm reminiscing now! :-) Carcharoth 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in. Took me 4 edit conflicts before I could get my 'support' in. Jd2718 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. What a great decision to stand. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to thank you for clerking and also thank the other editors for arbitrating this case. We're all volunteers, and contributors like you and they take on an extra burden and responsibility with these duties. I know I speak for the community when I say thank you for voluntarily taking on these critical additional tasks. Best regards,-- Tenebrae 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Your appreciation is ... appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stone me it's a Landslide! Rightly so, congratulations mate -- Joopercoopers 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hear hear. I supported other candidates (and opposed many), but Brad was the ONLY one that I had absolutely no reservations about at all. - Crockspot ( talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• forget WP:400, let's shoot for WP:500. Thatcher131 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• At about 407 now. :) Impressive. Acalamari 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made up my mind on which candidates to support for arbitration committee, but coming to your vote page I find it's already become a ridiculous pile-on. For that reason alone I'm not voting to support you. This is a note of my moral support for your candidacy. Best wishes, I know you can easily handle the job. -- Tony Sidaway 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking if we run up the vote too much, it will be harder for next year's popular candidate to break NYB's record, even with the inevitable growth of the project and voting base that will occur over the upcoming year. NoSeptember 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your election will be well-deserved. I'm very impressed with how you handle yourself, even during tense issues. --David Shankbone 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, the tension about whether or not he will get elected is nerve wracking. :-) And if next year's best candidate is half as qualified as Brad ... well, we should be so lucky. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I like Gentgeen's oppose best. Oppose per Catch-22. There should be a template for that. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the discussion currently about the edit count restrictions here and add your comments, if any? I'd be interested in your opinion on the matter. Its under the "lost suffrage" section. Avruch ^Talk 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As a candidate myself, I'm reluctant to comment on the rules for the election while it is still taking place. I can say from my own experience on the committee that ran this year's election for the Foundation Board of Trustees, it is hard to know just where to set a minimum edit count to deter socking and ensure that voters have some reasonable commitment to the project, without disenfranchising genuine contributors. I may have some further thoughts on this after the election is over. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you are probably busy, and about to get busier, but there was some discussion about John Peter Zenger here, and I promised that I would dig up a source. Since I am now "retired" from the main namespace, I thought I would pass the reference along to you, and perhaps you can pass it along to someone who can make good use of it, and find another copy of the book. I did not see this book cited or listed in the article, and any article about Zenger would be incomplete without at least listing it as a reference for further reading. Two templatized versions below, one for the special edition leather bound reprint that I have, and one for the edition that it was reproduced from. (The edition I have may probably only be found in the libraries of NRA members, but it might be easier to locate than the 1963 or earlier editions. I have seen other titles from the special edition series on eBay and amazon.) According to the publisher's notes, there were a number of 18th and 19th century editions, some of which are in the NY public library's rare books and manuscripts collection, but the 1963 edition is considered the most complete and authoritative. Cheers, and good luck with the arbcom, you have my full confidence that you will be one of the greatest arbiters of all wiki time. - Crockspot ( talk) 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Alexander, James (2001). A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Palladium Press. pp. 238 pgs. {{ cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) ( help) (No isbn number, the title page states "Privately printed for members of the Library of American Freedoms.")

• Alexander, James (1963). A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. pp. 238 pgs. Library of Congress card catalog number 63-19133. {{ cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) ( help) (This edition was also distributed in the UK by Oxford University Press.)

You should feel free to unretire and add these references yourself. I have some other articles that I already feel guilty about not working on, so shouldn't add to the list right now, but User:GRBerry recently poked me about this article on this page, so you might try him. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'll point GRB to a diff of the above. Crockspot ( talk) 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brad. I was just looking at your voting page and you seem to be doing very well, so congratulations. I may or may not vote, and you clearly don't need my vote in any case, but I wanted to ask you about this incident from a few months ago which still slightly rankles with me.

If you remember (and I don't see why you would), the sequence of events was:

1. A fairly new user made this edit to an article.
2. User:MONGO reverted ('rvv') and left them this warning
3. I removed MONGO's warning as I thought it was inappropriate (WP:BITE, WP:VAND), and left him a message about it. I did not restore the user's edit to the article.
4. MONGO and I had a fairly civilised discussion about what had happened, in which we both acknowledged we had made mistakes. I apologised here for the misunderstanding. I then went away to do some real life stuff, as I considered the matter closed.
5. MONGO then raised the matter on WP:AN/I under the heading Administrator harassment from User:Guinnog (my user name at the time). You made this comment, which was entirely inaccurate and seems to show that you did not investigate what had actually happened at all prior to commenting. After another user pointed this out to you, you made only this clarification of where you stood on the matter (which I didn't understand then or now). You did find time to message MONGO about the support you had given him on the board.

I am very sorry to bring up something which happpened so long ago, but I thought at the time that you showed poor judgment in the way you handled the whole thing. It never seemed worthwhile to take it any further, as I know (and had already acknowledged) that I made mistakes too in the affair, as did MONGO.

When I saw you were running (and indeed a seeming shoe-in) for Arbcom, I thought that I should share my misgivings with you though, and give you an opportunity to comment on what if anything you have learned from the matter. I am posting this here rather than at the election page as it relates only peripherally to the election; I would have no problem about moving it there if you prefer.

Finally, let me say that that is just about the only time I have seen you slip up here; normally I look to you for a sure and reliable pair of hands, which is what you seem to provide again and again. It is just unfortunate that in that one matter where I did have a direct dealing with you, that you didn't seem to investigate before commenting. Best wishes, and thanks for your attention. -- John ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (formerly Guinnog)

Thank you for your message here. To begin with, I will admit that I was not aware of your username change. Occasionally I will look at an old discussion thread or RfA or whatever, and for a little while had been saying to myself, "I wonder whatever happened to Guinnog." Our rate of turnover and loss among experienced editors and administrators is one of the project's most serious problems, so I am very glad to see that you are still active, and I fault myself for not having realized earlier who you are.

The matter you mention had indeed slipped from my memory, but I have read the diffs you cite as well as the entire thread they are part of (now found in ANI archive #222). I believe that most of my post there, in which I deprecated the insertion in Wikipedia articles of unsupported and defamatory conspiracy theories about the events that took place in my city on September 11, 2001, was completely appropriate. However, I made an error in the last line of my post, which referred to the offending material having been reverted back into the article after it had been removed. As I say, I do not remember this specific post from eight months ago, but it is obvious that I either relied on a statement from someone who posted earlier in the discussion which turned out to be incorrect, or I misunderstood what someone had posted. When I learned that this was the case from another user's correction, I said that I agreed with the correction and that my post was modified accordingly. On rereading the thread it is obvious that I should have used a better and more apologetic wording at the time, and I am sorry that I did not.

I too am sorry that our only direct encounter so far was an unpleasant one, and hope that can change in the future. I thank you for your other kind remarks. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Obviously my quarrel was not over the original edit which I agree breached WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but with MONGO's characterisation (in edit summary and templated warning) of the edit as vandalism. It was offensive to me that a very respected figure such as yourself would have thought for a moment I would have restored material to the mainspace which violated our policies. Anyway, water under the bridge and (for what difference it may make) I have supported your candidacy. Thank you for allowing me to get that off my chest. -- John ( talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you for doing so. My only regret about your bringing this up is that if it was bothering you, I wish you had done so some months ago. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you are right and I apologise once more for having been unable to forget the perceived slight during the time that has elapsed; it seemed, and seems now, to have been a small blip in an otherwise stellar performance. I really appreciate the work that you do here, and I am sure that you will make an excellent arbitrator. I shall try harder to forgive and forget in the future; I suppose we are all growing and learning as we go here. Best wishes, -- John ( talk) 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad...that full thread is here, and continues sort of into the next thread below that. Ho, hum.-- MONGO ( talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at it yesterday when I was trying to remember the incident John was referring to. Looking back it appears that I made one mistake which I acknowledged at the time but could have been more clear. The rest of what I wrote I stand by. I don't think it's worth spending more time on the thread from eight months ago but I know that you have concerns about unsupported content on the September 11 articles and I agree that inappropriate and libellous content does not belong. Newyorkbrad 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought!!

opiumjones 23 ( talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.

1. He looks good in a bikini?
2. He hands out huge handfuls of cash?
3. He's everyone's third cousin's aunt's brother's best friend twice removed?
4. Orbital mind control lasers?
5. More seriously, he does a lot of work, makes wise suggestions, and stays very calm during tough conflicts. He gets engaged in tough conflicts, which is hard enough in itself, but he somehow does it without making enemies, which is unbelievable. He can often manage to make both sides in a dispute agree with him, no matter how much they disagree with each other. Maybe the mind control isn't that far fetched. Some of the Barnstars on his user page have links that you can follow. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Two main reasons: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ATren ( talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it was definitely the bikini. Risker ( talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ping. Email. Viridae ^Talk 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Received and will respond later today. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been contacted by User:Iamandrewrice, who would like to appeal his ban to the arbitration committee. In loking through the WP:ABN pllicy, I see that it says the committee or an arbcom clerk should be contacted by email. Given that banned users cannot access the Wikipedia email fnction, I said I would contact a clerk to ask how to proceed. I have also given him this address: arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Is this the appropriate address and if not, how does he proceed.

Thanks in advance for looking at this. I realize that banned users are not a big priority, but still felt some small measure of compassion for someone who used to be my adoptee. Thanks, Jeffpw ( talk) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Actually, blocked or banned users can still access the Wikipedia e-mail function, unless the blocking administrator specifically checks a "block this user from sending e-mail" box, which according to the block log doesn't seem to have happened here. Therefore, the user can still e-mail me and I will forward his message to the arbitrators. If there is trouble doing that for some reason, the address for the mailing list is on the Arbitration Committee page. I appreciate your concern for your adoptee and am sorry things didn't work out better. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? What is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections? I know that Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Can you please explain it to me a little more? And, do people vote in these elections? Can I vote? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Newyorkbrad! I have supported you! I hope you will do a great job in the Arbitration Committee. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. I'm pretty sure I know who was involved, and needless to say he's a long-term pest who should definitely be indefblocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: [1], It's 3am EST, Don't you think you should be asleep? Paul August ☎ 08:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And what time did you post? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. A request for comment has been opened regarding User:Kmweber's oppose !votes on WP:RfA has been opened here. You tried to get Kmweber to stop his behaviour on his talk page, so your endorsement of the dispute is required within 48 hours. Thanks, Auroranorth ( !) 09:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I will watch the page. However, I don't think I have much to add to the comments I made on the prior RfC over the summer. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Five Hundred supporting votes. Nearly 100% approval. Wow. Congratulations. I am going to try to study your edits to figure out what you do right. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad - As I recall, you were involved in the resolution of the Shawn Hornbeck issue some time ago. The final resolution has somehow slipped my mind, and I am not in a position right now to review it even if I could remember where to find it. However, if you have a chance to look at this [2], perhaps you can identify if that is in keeping with what was finally decided. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles on Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby were redirected (initially to the article about the person who had kidnapped and mistreated them, but later to Shawn Hornbeck Foundation which was newly created and is certainly a better target. My heartfelt and overlong thoughts on the entire subject can be found at the top and then in the middle of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May#May 28#Ben Ownby and Shawn Hornbeck see under the headings "deleting administrator's response" and "further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator"; see also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff text of final decision in page history; see principles 2 and 3. I do not believe it was envisioned that the latter article would grow to reincorporate all the material that was deleted, and in particular do not believe that it is appropriate to include Ben's name, but this is an editorial decision and I don't know that it was resolved one way or the other in the course of the deletion discussion. I hope that editors on these articles will resolve this issue with sensitivity and consideration. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brad. I'm not sure what step to take, so maybe you can help. I agreed to arbitration with User:Skyelarke over the content of the John Buscema article. I never agreed to arbitrate over any other issue, and I told him so on Talk page -- which, as usual, he erased but is visible here.

Since he erased it, he clearly read it, and so has deliberately ignored this fact, something he has a pattern of doing. Since I did not tell him I would agree to an arbitration over non-content issues, what do I do now? Thanks for any information. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unlike mediation, arbitration is not a voluntary process. Whether to accept an arbitration case and what its scope should be is up to the arbitrators. If you have any views on what the scope of the case should be, you should post them on the arbitration pages themselves (either on the talkpage, in evidence, or as a proposal on the workshop). I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. However, I had a death in the family over the weekend, so I do need an extension. Thank you for any help. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I took at look at Skyelarke's contentions in preparation to add my evidence. It's over 2,400 words, plus he opens with a linked 350-word "preamble."

The page says, "Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words." His is nearly three times that, with his preamble, and over twice that maximum without. Is this allowed? Thank you for any information. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the arbitrators let us know if the evidence section is too long to be useful to them. In a case with only two parties, more leeway can generally be allowed than in some other cases where there are dozens or parties. (If you have any other questions, please let me know but please start a new section at the bottom of the page. I almost missed what you wrote here in the middle of the page.) Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider a bit of spacing between the words and the border on your userpage, like this? - Jehochman ^Talk 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else was kind enough to format the page, over a year ago; if you think some minor reformatting now is in order, I am happy to try it. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you revert to this version. ;-) - Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. We'll see what anyone else thinks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks nice. *Cremepuff 222* 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please check [3] - I made two adjustments re the Episodes and Characters case - I think I did it right. It also seems that maybe you mis-adjusted the RodentofDeath case (but I am far from sure). Sorry for meddling, it's really just that I'm finding this process interesting - a lot more interesting than the many lame articles I've been reviewing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

dang, I just saw the note re a cold; sorry to bother you. Try a hot lemon drink to clear things up. -- Jack Merridew 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've been resting and feeling a bit better. Your changes look good but I'll double-check things later on. Please see also my comments on WP:AC/CN. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've double checked the E&C case and agree it's ok. re RodentofDeath - it may be that your edit summary was off (or I'm just missing something). See: [4]. You're in NYC-area, right? Go to bed, it's late there! -- Jack Merridew 06:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello NYB; the represenatives and senators from those years (who served full terms), have their tenures in error as well (ending March 3, instead of the correct March 4). I'm not sure if this colossal mistake can ever be corrected. GoodDay ( talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already corrected term ending dates for all of the Presidents of the United States, Vice Presidents, and Speakers of the House and have an ongoing mission to correct this further as I come across additional instances. See discussion on various places around the wiki, such as Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the A.C clerk noticeboard, and reply to my talk page. -- Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 05:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Seen and responded as requested. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just opened RodentofDeath, that case needs a clerk. If I can or should be clerking, please tell me. -- Whiteandnerdy111 ( talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm! Unfortunately, official Clerks (or those working under official clerks) and Arbitrators should open up cases. Before you get around to being "the clerk" for a certain case, I suggest that you watch a certain case and assist the Clerk with it, by answering others questions and fixing formatting errors. I suggest you follow that and the other suggestions by Newyorkbrad if you would like to assist with clerking. Thanks again! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Newyorkbrad I apologize if this is the improper way to write you but I am not very good at this. I recently saw where a user Otto4711 had complained about my reportedly spamming? I do not spam. I had edited an article with links documenting the changes I amde to a ryan idol listing on wikipedia. The non usage of the worrds and descriptions I edited for the ryan idol page is criminal. he is known for gay movies and to the best of my knowledge he has never done a straight (heterosexual movie) yet when I add the vital information to the page otto4711 removes it. It is not good that John wilks booth was a kiler but never the less I feel his page should list that he shot the president. The usage of gay is not inappropreiate nor are the facts regarding the gay for pay and hustling comments I refered to outside links (books even) that state this. Even interviews with ryan idols own words claiming he was a 700 dollar a day prositute for men were deleted by otto4711 as he attempts to paint a picture of a clean heterosexual man who starred in straight adult films when this is not the case. my page clearly says Gay films, heterosexual films, etc (charlespeyton and I do not object to that because a fact is a fact and I am not trying to paint a perfect picture, just the truth and the facts.

So please let me know either by email, etc how I can communicate with this otto4711 and have my facts placed on the ryan idol page documenting the truth regarding his career etc. If he is ashamed of gay movies or calling a gay movie a gay movie, then he should have not done the gay movies. The world looks to the wikipedia for factual evidence and statements, at least I do. my email is charles@charlespeyton.com and you can try the wikipedia talk on charlespeyton if you wish but I am not sure if I will understand it enough to respond through that method. Please remove or disguard anything referring to me as a spammer or a vandel or whatever was or is said, I am just trying to do the right thing in listing the truth. thanks charles Peyton

I am sorry I am on the wrong computer to send the edits I tried to make but I see where they are on your wikipedia site so you can review them, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Get well soon, and remember: A cold is your body's way of telling you to relax and rest!-- Tenebrae ( talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! A cold? Did I not give you enough warm on IRC? :D *Cremepuff 222* 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need some flaming to warm you up... _{Newyorkbrad is a troll! :P} David Mestel^{( Talk)} 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will recover soon. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 05:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you're back in action. Hope you're feeling better. Come on IRC sometime. Kind regards, Red rocket boy 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I am indeed feeling much better now and appreciate your note here. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it isn't finished yet but congratulations on your great arbcom elections result! You'll make a great arbitrator! Oh, and good to have you back after your cold!-- Phoenix-wiki  ^{talk · contribs} 15:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I look forward to continue working with you as you continue with your own fine record of contributions. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to you, one of the few selected to join the Committee. Your work here has been phenomenal, and your voice in numerous discussions has proven a revealing light time and time again. I also wish you luck for your future endeavours as an arbitrator, and expect your success in this new position of trust and reference. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just embarrassingly realised that my congratulations is somewhat pre-emptive. Oh well, I'm sure the previous will be applicable in the near future. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 05:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your congratulations may be nominally premature, but I am sure Jimbo would say they are not pre-emptive. More seriously, thanks very much for the kind words, and good luck in continuing with your own excellent record of contributions. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I too want to extend my congratulations, NYB. Your contributions here have been nothing short of phenomenal from day one, and I'm sure you'll make a fantastic arbitrator, loquacious and reasonable. Best of luck to you! Glass Cobra 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Truly remarkable 97% plus support that you got there. Clearly the community pretty unanimously trusts you; that speaks very well to your integrity and good judgement over the last couple of years. Good luck with the cases! Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 09:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words. I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow Wikipedia editors and administrators, certainly including yourself. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, etc. Take note of a cautionary tale :P. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps instead I will enforce the standards of decorum reflected in this decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The incident, or Felder's opinion of it? Jd2718 ( talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully neither, actually. When I have some free time I should write New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct or a broader article on judicial misconduct complaints generally—but it won't be this week. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Newyorkbrad I apologize if this is the improper way to write you but I am not very good at this. I recently saw where a user Otto4711 had complained about my reportedly spamming? I do not spam. I had edited an article with links documenting the changes I made to a Ryan Idol Biography listing on wikipedia. The non usage of the words and descriptions I edited for the Ryan Idol page is criminal. He is known for gay movies and to the best of my knowledge he has never done a straight (heterosexual movie) yet when I add the vital information to the page otto4711 removes it. It is not good that John Wilks Booth was a killer but never the less I feel his page should list that he shot the president. The usage of gay is not inappropriate nor are the facts regarding the gay for pay and hustling comments I refered to outside links (books even) that state this. Even interviews with ryan idols own words claiming he was a 700 dollar a day prositute for men were deleted by otto4711 as he attempts to paint a picture of a clean heterosexual man who starred in straight adult films when this is not the case. my page clearly says Gay films, heterosexual films, etc (charlespeyton and I do not object to that because a fact is a fact and I am not trying to paint a perfect picture, just the truth and the facts.

So please let me know either by email, etc how I can communicate with this otto4711 and have my facts placed on the ryan idol page documenting the truth regarding his career etc. If he is ashamed of gay movies or calling a gay movie a gay movie, then he should have not done the gay movies. The world looks to the wikipedia for factual evidence and statements, at least I do. my email is <redacted> and you can try the wikipedia talk on charlespeyton if you wish but I am not sure if I will understand it enough to respond through that method. Please remove or disgard anything referring to me as a spammer or a vandel or whatever was or is said, I am just trying to do the right thing in listing the truth. thanks charles Peyton

I am sorry I am on the wrong computer to send the edits I tried to make but I see where they are on your wikipedia site so you can review them, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlespeyton ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The best place to address this issue would be on Talk:Ryan Idol to see if a consensus could be reached on this issue. If needed, you can file a request for comment or seek a third opinion on this issue. I personally have not heard of this particular person so I don't have a few on the content issue one way or the other. I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to do something about this, but not sure of appropriate action. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We could take him to arbitration, but who would clerk the case?Why don't you leave him another note advising him of the problem and referring him to the messages that Cbrown1023 and I left him before. Only official clerks or clerk-helpers should be posting in the "clerk notes" section on RfAr. If the situation continues after that then we can take it from there. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, one final warning to him, I'll say something about much stronger measures. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but I very much hope that stronger measures will not be necessary. I have a strong empathy for relatively new users who feel that they can pitch in well with clerking-type tasks, even though this editor has jumped in rather a bit too quickly. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, your ArbCom candidacy was the first thing EVER to hit WP:400 and WP:500. It's pretty obvious you're going to be promoted, and I wanted to say that, were I to have suffrage, I woulda voted in strong support. Maser ^{( Talk!)} 06:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind comment. Best regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Titles

Violates this, esp the “ulterior agendas” remark. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted

I’ve not been involved in arg violations much, maybe once before. Do you agree that a block is warranted here and for how long? I know it’d go in his enforcement log. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I see a violation here. Could you provide a specific diff and explain in a little more detail what you think is the specific problem? Although this colloquy is not a model of perfection, for this group of editors it strikes me as a reasonably civil talkpage discussion. (Please note that I am tied up over the holidays and may have limited wiki access for the next few days. If I don't have a chance to respond here, please consult with Thatcher131 or one of the other admins who are active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement.) Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the one I referred to [5], infusing bad fatih assumptions.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't block for that, but the remedies are actionable by any administrator, so I certainly can't tell any other admin how to handle the matter. A note on ScienceApologist's talkpage might be a more proportionate response. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I warned, thanks for the input. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article? If not, why don't you take a look at it. Also, read my comments in the Louis Slotkin FAC. The prose size is 11 KB. Here is an article that I wrote in (my spare time in) two days, and which I still consider a stub (prose size 9KB): Herbert Musgrave Phipson. The prose of this latter article is much better than the Slotkin article's, and it has no inaccuracies, which the Slotkin article still does. I can easily add another paragraph in fifteen minutes and make it 11 KB. Should I then submit it for an FAC? It has rare pictures of journal articles from 1885 that you will find nowhere on the web. The point is that the Slotkin article is (I'm afraid) mostly undeveloped, a little more than an outline. The main author said he couldn't find any more references, but while traveling (which I am doing right now) and relying on erratic wi-fi's, I was able to locate thirty references (in a few minutes). The sad tragedy is that I already, in a day of reading some of those references in my spare time, know more about Slotin and criticality than the article has in it. Does Wikipedia really want to add the imprimatur of an FA to articles like that? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The only point I was making—not at all directly solely at you—is that designating an article a featured article is not at all inconsistent with adding references and improving it. I'm sure the primary authors will be grateful for your additional suggestions and references. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Marlith ^T/ C 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you could give me some free advice? There is a Wikipedia user who is currently deleting large amounts of longstanding, accurate, and well-sourced material at the fetus article. I've reverted three times today, and so I probably can't do anything else. Is there anything to stop that user from now proceeding to rewrite the entire article? I know I'm not supposed to exceed three reverts per day, and I'm also not supposed to contact people to help manage the situation (that would be "canvassing" right?). So, is there any course of action for me at this point? Thanks for any advice. Ferrylodge ( talk) 18:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You should begin, if you haven't already, by posting to the user's talkpage or the article talkpage asking for an explanation of why the material is being reverted. If that doesn't work, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Content mediation or a "third opinion" might fit well in a situation like this. Good luck and regards. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did ask at the article talk page, but the article edits continued. Maybe I'll try dispute resolution. This is so time-consuming. Anyway, Happy Holidays, and thanks again. Congrats, by the way, on your huge landslide for ArbCom. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is time-consuming, but it also shouldn't be surprising that often the most controversial and emotional subjects in the real world become some of the most controversial and emotional subjects on Wikipedia. You probably have some hobbies or interests unrelated to this sort of topic, and you might want to try editing on them just as a change of pace and to see what it's like to work on a calmer area. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion. I do try to edit in some less controversial areas. However, you must know that when a completely biased editor tries to delete completely accurate information from an article, [6] the thing that editor wants most is for other editors to go away and edit less controversial articles. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

• A1. Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 19:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that placing academic degrees in the opening sentence is not necessary, is not in keeping with other similar articles, and doesn't really follow our style manual on how to signify academic degrees. The fact that each Justice has a J.D. or LL.B. is obvious, and the exact nature of their undergraduate degrees is hardly one of the most important facts about them. The information belongs (and I believe is already included) in the body of the article but not necessarily in the opening. If you don't get a response from the other editor within a reasonable time, I think you would be justified in reverting these edits. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A little picture for you to hang on the wall of your new arbcom office.-- Santa ( talk) 21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easiest to name it after the page that's in dispute, Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins? SirFozzie ( talk) 18:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but a little long...... Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply "IRC" will do. As brief as one could want. Marskell ( talk) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Whoever winds up clerking the case will get to make the final call. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I noticed that you were an administrator, which means (I guess) this is appropriately addressed to you or someone like you. If not you, who?

ALARM: Most of the citations in articles I've created over the past year seem to have suddenly turned RED ... not only in this specific article but in several others I quickly checked. What happened? I'm guessing that this appears to be a sudden systemic change -- an error not attributable to me? something bigger than me? -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You have asked a question that I should know the answer to—apparently, some reference tags were recently reformatted, or something—but unfortunately I am not quickly spotting the problem. I will ask anyone else who happens across this page to take a look, or otherwise you can post to the help desk ( WP:HELP) where I am sure someone will be able to explain what is going wrong and how to correct it. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not yet encountered a problem that left me so flummoxed. In each of the hundreds articles I have created, the consolidated in-line citations have been "named" with the first letter of the author's last name plus the relevant page number; ergo (despite the damning accusations in RED), I've NOT created a name a mere integer ... and, although there has been no problem prior to 27 December 2007/17:00 (EST) ... everything has suddenly gone awry. -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been pointed to a discussion on the Administrators noticeboard in which this problem is noted and resolved. If you purge your cache, or log off and back on, hopefully the problem will disappear. It seems to have been a temporary glitch, although I don't know of exactly what. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm please to discover --> PROBLEM SOLVED

This was a site-wide error, now fixed. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#What is this crap? "Cite error"? You may have to purge your cache however to see the fix.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw this [7], it looks like the mistaken removal of a section. Thought I would mention it to you since you were clerking that section. 1 != 2 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the main "Requests for arbitration" page. When a new case is accepted and opened, it is removed from WP:RfAr after it is copied to the new case page. (Otherwise all the cases would remain on WP:RfAR forever.) Unless I am missing something that is all that happened here. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I see. Thanks. 1 != 2 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I supported your ArbCom bid...but I was wondering how you felt about accountability of admins for their behavior in IRC, given the current Giano case. In particular, I was wondering if your position has evolved on publishing IRC logs since you made this statement to me regarding releasing material from an IRC channel (en-unblock) in which logging is expressly permitted. Do you still feel that release of such material should not be tolerated, and that release of such material is harassment? (The material you forbade me to post back then is here, by the way.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. In terms of the relationship between Wikipedia and IRC, that is a subject of discussion in the ongoing case. I expect to participate in that case, and will give your point here some thought. Feel free also to post to the workshop if you have a proposal for changing our policies in this regard. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not meaning to dig at you, honest. I was just hoping to remind you that these IRC behaviors have real consequences to the encyclopedia. This statement of yours convinced me that you have some real common sense when it comes to retaining content contributors for the encyclopedia, please retain that common sense during your ArbCom term! I've never been able to figure out exactly why you chose to threaten me over revealing Ryulong's IRC behavior, but I hope it was just a phase or something. I've been hoping for some kind of explanation for a long time. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall your asking, or we could have discussed it when I remembered the episode better than I do now. I will admit that I don't think I realized at that time that quoting logs from the unblock channel (unlike some other channels) was expressly permitted. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think I explained that immediately, but it didn't get me anywhere at the time. But I wasn't an admin then, so I guess I didn't deserve decent treatment. What would have been the point of suppressing exposure of Ryulong's IRC behavior then - was it simply "drama" avoidance? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a longer memory than I about this matter, which is understandable as you were the user blocked at the time, and as I said I don't recall specifically what my thoughts were beyond what is on the page. From the last sentence, my concern may have been that you were focusing all of your effort on this issue to the detriment of your other editing; but I am guessing. I hope you don't think that I think in terms of "non-admins don't deserve decent treatment," as I most certainly do not. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...do you still believe that editors badly treated by admins should just drop their concerns, because it may affect their other editing? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that valid concerns about administrator conduct should be pursued through reasonable channels. I don't believe that an editor who spends substantially all of his or her time pursuing a grievance, whether or not wholly or partially justified, is likely to have an enjoyable Wikipedia experience. Then again, an editor who spends a lot of his time dealing with arbitration cases is probably not maximizing the enjoyment value of his Wikipedia experience either, yet here I am, so perhaps I will leave it at that. If you want to pursue this matter further, I will need to refresh my memory of exactly what happened back in June, which I won't be able to do tonight. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where your grievance-pursuing remark above originates; please review my contribs. I'm happy to await your memory-refreshment, but I mainly was wondering what would motivate you to dissuade an editor from complaining about admin misconduct that seems fairly blatant to me. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard. FloNight ( talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to working with everyone. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on it being official! Keep up the good work you have done everywhere. But take breaks if sanity demands it... balance is important. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words and for the advice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your new appointment as Arbitrator! Good luck, and don't wear yourself out :) Majorly ( talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Happy to have you aboard the arbcom committee. Obviously well-qualified and no doubt you will do great. -- Aude ( talk) 23:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, and everything. Not that it was unexpected... David Mestel^{( Talk)} 23:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

CONGRATS, MOST well-deserved. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'd like to reiterate the appraisal above, I hope both you and the community enjoy the results. :) Regards, Rt . 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Kirill 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! And to echo above, you're well-qualified, and will do great. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another congratulations here, Brad. The community is the real winner, though. Risker ( talk) 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Best wishes in the new endeavors! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :-) WjB scribe 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I now extend due congratulation. Well done, Brad. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good luck, and keep some aspirin handy. Kafziel ^Talk 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a close call, but I see you barely managed to scrape by! Do you anticipate a recount? (Congratulations!) -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised that Jimbo had to reach so way far down the list to pluck NYB for this assignment. Some sort of conspiracy, I think ;) NoSeptember 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. :) *Cremepuff 222* 18:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Per NoSeptember ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _{( Review)} 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Never before has there been a candidate more suitable for the position than Newyorkbrad. An unbiased point of view and clear judgement are exactly what we look for in arbitrators, and Brad is exemplary of these qualities. Congratulations Maser ^{( Talk!)} 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Go NYB! ≈ MindstormsKid   17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrat's Brad! I know you will do fine. Enjoy your holidays. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to stay congratulations on having the most supported ArbCom candidacy of all time, and for being successful. :) Good luck with your new tasks. Acalamari 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed! Wish you to keep on being the same tireless, always sensible, and dedicated Wikipedian. Happy New Year too. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I put this note in the right place, but could you or the arbcom please comment on it? thanks -- Duk 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the same page, I've put this, which concerns you. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the heads up. Responding there. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just a light and frivolous memoir but on the other side of the world here, I had a lecturer named Brad who spoke about New York frequently. So much that one of my class mates made his computer chime with the theme from New York, New York every time it started up. Possibly not even synchronicity but fun to recall and share anyway. : ) Just cruising ... Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs"... What an astonishingly stupid remark. This is the stuff suited to make at least myself regret I supported your ArbCom bid. There are some who should be desysopped. Most of those would fail any future RfA. There is only danger involved in granting them the bit for life. Please don't protect those people, that's not what you're supposed to do. I  dorfbaer I  talk I 22:20,  December 30, 2007

Thank you for your support in the election. With regard to this comment, I'm afraid I must not have been clear in what I said. It was a reference to the specific scenario in which an adminstrator voluntarily resigns the tools (because he or she is busy, wants to take a break, etc.), and then later decides to resume adminship. If the administrator resigned outside the context of an ongoing controversy, he or she is permitted to regain adminship without a new RfA, whereas if the person resigned (for example) while an ArbCom case against him or her was pending, the "controversial circumstances" clause means that a new RfA is required. Over the past few months, a trend has developed under which admins who could have simply requested the tools back decides instead to go through an extra RfA, mostly to generate positive comments. I understand why an ex-admin wants to do this but the fact is that we usually have a dozen or more new RfA's pending at a time without burdening the community with extra ones. This has nothing to do with the situation in which a sitting administrator becomes abusive and needs to be reprimanded or desysopped. I hope this is more clear. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very much so, thank you. For the record, I happen to agree that Majorly shouldn't have started that RfA (although it was even worse to later withdraw at that support ratio). But generally, I'm all with Walton as far as his stance on adminship and reconfirmation goes. An RfA cannot determine everlasting community trust, which is albeit only one minor criterion for users to be suitable as admins. I  dorfbaer I  talk I 10:31,  December 31, 2007

Shouldn't you be asleep, Mr. Lawyer? :-P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then sleep, darn it! :-P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"the danger of unnecessary "confirmation" RfAs"... What an astonishingly stupid remark. This is the stuff suited to make at least myself regret I supported your ArbCom bid. There are some who should be desysopped. Most of those would fail any future RfA. There is only danger involved in granting them the bit for life. Please don't protect those people, that's not what you're supposed to do. I  dorfbaer I  talk I 22:20,  December 30, 2007

Thank you for your support in the election. With regard to this comment, I'm afraid I must not have been clear in what I said. It was a reference to the specific scenario in which an adminstrator voluntarily resigns the tools (because he or she is busy, wants to take a break, etc.), and then later decides to resume adminship. If the administrator resigned outside the context of an ongoing controversy, he or she is permitted to regain adminship without a new RfA, whereas if the person resigned (for example) while an ArbCom case against him or her was pending, the "controversial circumstances" clause means that a new RfA is required. Over the past few months, a trend has developed under which admins who could have simply requested the tools back decides instead to go through an extra RfA, mostly to generate positive comments. I understand why an ex-admin wants to do this but the fact is that we usually have a dozen or more new RfA's pending at a time without burdening the community with extra ones. This has nothing to do with the situation in which a sitting administrator becomes abusive and needs to be reprimanded or desysopped. I hope this is more clear. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very much so, thank you. For the record, I happen to agree that Majorly shouldn't have started that RfA (although it was even worse to later withdraw at that support ratio). But generally, I'm all with Walton as far as his stance on adminship and reconfirmation goes. An RfA cannot determine everlasting community trust, which is albeit only one minor criterion for users to be suitable as admins. I  dorfbaer I  talk I 10:31,  December 31, 2007

Shouldn't you be asleep, Mr. Lawyer? :-P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then sleep, darn it! :-P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, an editor is threatening to revert my March 4th edits on the US Congress articles, back to March 3rd. It's starting all over again. GoodDay ( talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Link? Also, you might point him to the prior discussions on this issue, such as at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've found the discussion and posted to the Project Congress talk page. If the dispute continues I recommend Mediation and would be glad to participate. Please don't become overly upset about the issue, however; these types of things come up from time to time, and it will be discussed and resolved. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)