User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3

Archives from July 5 to October 26, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1. Archives from October 26 to December 19, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2.

North American behaviour
Don't worry, I lived in Indiana and I have a pretty good opinion of people from North America. :) Sarah Ewart 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship, again.
I think there's a few million suitors standing at the altar waiting for you to get yourself up there. I've read User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2, User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2, and User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2 (and the other section there with the same title). You certainly have plenty of people willing to nominate you. Count me as one of them. I saw a number of your comments on the Seabhcan arbitration and elsewhere which brought my attention to you. What really got me and pushed me over the edge of being willing to nominate you was this edit today on Malber's talk page. The ability to separate personal feelings from doing the right thing is exceptionally important and too often missing in administrators.

I don't seek out people to put as feathers in my cap in nominating people. RfA isn't a game, and nobody should be proud or ashamed of how many nominations they have or how many succeeded. I do seek out people whom I think would make outstanding administrators. Before nominating someone, I conduct thorough reviews which last sometimes as much as half a day's work to comb through everything. You say you want a smooth RfA and would rather wait too long than go up to soon. Excellent attitude, and certainly understandable given the sometimes harsh environment that RfA can be. Thatcher131 had very much the same concerns. I had to drag him kicking and screaming to the altar finally. I expect he'll be a member of ArbCom someday. With my reviews, I try to find the things that could cause an RfA to trip up, so there are no surprises, nothing left unturned that could cause an RfA to derail. It's stressful enough without having to wonder if someone will find some soiled piece of laundry somewhere and air it out as the one devastating piece of evidence to destroy someone with. Such an attempt was made on Thatcher131's RfA, and it failed.

So, I don't care if you accept my offer to nominate you or not. It's not for me. It's for you. I you want my services in reviewing you for a nomination, I offer them. You've passed a number of my standards already, and six months of active editing is up on 3 January 2007. I think an RfA on or following that date would be appropriate, and highly successful. Have a look at User:Durin/My guidelines for admin nomination for more information on how I go about nominating someone. I don't guarantee that I will nominate someone; just that I will conduct the review. I'm at your service. --Durin 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Durin, thank you very much for your most kind comments. I've known who you are at least since Thatcher131's RfA which you shepherded through (I thought he was one of the more highly qualified candidates since I've been active and I found the opposition to him unpersuasive, although as I said in casting my support !vote for him at the time, I hope he'll be able to write some more mainspace articles someday, in addition to adminning). Incidentally, I share your opinion of him both as an admin candidate and as a prospective arbitrator, and strongly urged him to run for the ArbCom this year, a suggestion he rejected both vociferously and memorably.
 * I'm reluctant to be too specific about my adminship plans here lest I be accused of "advertising" which of course is deprecated, but I do anticipate an RfA sometime after the first of the year. I also appreciate very much the offer to nominate me, as I know how strong your nominating statements are. I'm afraid I am going to have to give priority to a couple of editors who made earlier offers to nominate, and therefore most regretfully decline your offer to write the nomination, but would certainly welcome your thoughtful support and helpful comments when the time comes.
 * Thanks again for your kind words and happy holidays. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. Barring some revelation of serious negative behavior on your part, you can count on a support vote from me unless by the time I get to it it's something like 50-0 :) (which, honestly, I expect it's going to reach easily...even 100-0). --Durin 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize until recently that you're not already an administrator. From the above, you're obviously not in short supply of nominators. You'll have my support when your RFA finally opens; I also expect it to be stellar :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 12:51Z 

Re:Deletion
Hey, there was an 8-4 vote for deletion even after the first three keeps, this means that those who voted after she had read your reasons and voted based on them. If you think it should be overturned, reply back to me and I will undelete it so that you can start a new AfD to try to get a better consensus. Cbrown1023 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk, thanks. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi who is this? WikiMan53 T/C edits Review Me! 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)-
 * Hi back - responded on your talk. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Didn't mean to be rude just very confused. Please forgive me

PS: How do you have your watchlist watch everything you've edited?

WikiMan53 T/C edits Review Me! 22:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk before you crossed it out. Hope my answer helps anyway. Newyorkbrad 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks and again please forgive me. UMmmmm, no admins have stopped me over the edit count thing. Do u think it would be safe to keep it? WikiMan53 T/C edits Review Me! 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

2 things
How do you know if a watched page has been changed and do you think this is vandalism? WikiMan53 T/C edits Review Me! 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for being overly kind in your edit summary and not saying "fool of" in front of "an Arbitrator". :-) I'm sure you could have used the "not a personal attack when it's true" defence (not that it is one). ;-)

James F. (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, in a certain (in)famous edit, you described me as "quite rational," so I was glad to return the favor. :) It's good to see you back here; I was getting quite worried we'd lost you. Newyorkbrad 16:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's... odd
Ok, that is a strange thing. Check out the edit times. Did you get a edit conflict or something? We both got him at EXACTLY the same time with exactly the same thing. User:Logical2uTalk 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we posted the warnings at the same time (although I didn't get an actual "error conflict" message). You must have reverted about one millisecond before me, as your "rvv" rather than mine shows up on the history, not that it matters. I was going to revert my duplicative warning, but decided not to bother; let him know that two people are watching. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible
I can't do anything here. I am being told that I am banned again and people are removing the few edits that I did make. Could you help me out here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yanksox removing my comments. Maybe I should just create an account, or change IPs, so that nobody can tell it's me... but why should I have to do that!--203.109.209.49 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I wasn't online sooner when you posted this but it looks like Thatcher131's post to ANI has hopefully resolved it. Please see the post I just added to the ANI thread as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Light Current
As an uninvolved administrator, have you considered taking action to stop Light Current from trying to taunt people and use the threat of retribution to drive them off? How does such behavior fit with the policies, goals and purposes of the encyclopedia? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah would you care to highlight any taunting?--Light current 03:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing. I'm actually not an administrator, at least not yet, and haven't studied this case in detail, so I am not in a position to do much myself. For what it's worth, though, my sense is that he has been skating on thin ice for awhile, and I'm hoping he will figure out where the reasonable limits are before there is too much trouble for everyone. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So tell me Newyork brad, what gives you the kudos to tell me what to do? Your 4000 edits?


 * Ahh, when you are nominated, as expected, I'll be one for "thought he was." Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AHa! Caught you both plotting! Dont count your chickens! --Light current 03:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, a carefully planned plot, undertaken between me and a user whom I'd never exchanged a word with before tonight, prompted by an observation of mine with which no one other than yourself has disagreed, involving my viciously observing that I lack the ability to take any action whatsoever, and brazenly concealed by being carefully placed on my talkpage. I haven't, by the way, even commented on the merits of the recall petition you signed, though I think they are very weak; all I said was that you undermine your position by tick-tocking your target; and I still think that is so. Newyorkbrad 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your ill informed and inexperienced position then! If you had ever been the subject of admin agression, you would know the tick tock routine! 8-)--Light current 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

E-mailing arbitrators
Ah. I thought there was a way to e-mail arbitrators. Is that mailing the mailing list or mailing them individually by wiki-mail? If you look at the 12 edits I made here, I was wondering if there was a better way to deal with this than putting the same message on the talk page of 9 arbitrators, 2 clerks and then explaining myself after the fact on my talk page. Oh well, together with your e-mail, something will hopefully happen, though unless someone gives the ArbCom a real world contact (e-mail or phone) to work with, they can't confirm or deny anything, so I'm left wondering what exactly they can do. That post that concerned both of us sounds real enough, but I agree with those who say that those who are concerned should contact the Foundation and get it sorted at WP:OFFICE level. There is a limit to what can be done on-wiki, as I am discovering (I don't have any e-mail address enabled). Carcharoth 00:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a way to e-mail the arbitrators' mailing list directly ... but I don't know what it is. I sent an e-mail to Fred Bauder and to Dmcdevit with the request that they forward it to the other arbitrators (hopefully one of them will be online today and do that). As for the post in question, I'm not sure whether it's "real" or roleplay at this point, but it raises a host of issues; the case needs to be resolved promptly. Newyorkbrad 00:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Caution
Thank you for your advice. I will do my utmost to avoid all further personal development. Merry Christmas. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 22:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, dude,
take it easy, that was just contributions made from many people some of them were jokes, others were serious, i think i kno the person who runs this page and it makes me angry that he tries to act like he runs the school i go to... i didnt mean to hurt anyone... lol, but in many peoples opinion, Omar Collington IS a notable alumni, and Temini Matters is a joke alma mater at the school

thanks for the heads up


 * You're welcome. I just thought you should know about the discussion that was going on. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this
Daakshayani 11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted, but I am not an administrator, let alone a checkuser, and am not the right person to consult with respect to this issue. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York
Come see: Wikipedia Club of New York. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Came and saw; looking forward to the events with enthusiasm (even though I just scolded you on another page). Thanks for taking the lead on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
 

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship  (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion talk 16:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Accepted with the caveat that the administrator in question is a good administrator, though I disagreed with him in this instance. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And granted without prejudice to, or criticism of, any particular admin. :)

Tarinth 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ping
Check your email; I responded to something on my talk page in private over an hour ago and have not yet received a response. -- Cyde Weys 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Received, thanks, responding now. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied. -- Cyde Weys  01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee RfC
Hi Newyorkbrad - see. I bring this to you as you made a review on the RfC that seemed the most balanced and considered. Therefore if you have a problem with InShaneee's actions here, you would be respected. Personally I find it odd. Anyway - there is no offence meant on my part. Cheers Lethaniol 02:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a "regular" on the RfC pages, but my understanding is that when user/admin conduct RfC's get archived has always been kind of a gray area. On the one hand, there is obviously a conflict of interest in having the subject of the RfC do the archiving; on the other hand, if no one else is paying attention they will never get archived and the page will just fill up forever. And to be fair, InShaneee did ask first on the page whether it was appropriate to archive his own case page, and got at least one response telling him to go ahead, and waited for a day to see if anyone objected.
 * I think more important than the question of archiving is whether the subject has learned from the comments during the RfC and has avoided whatever was the controversial behavior that was the subject of the case. I haven't crossed paths with InShaneee in a few weeks. If hypothetically there were serious ongoing problems with his admin actions, that would be one thing. If, as I hope, he is behaving responsibly as an administrator, then I don't think it would be worthwhile to press things to ArbCom (which is incredibly backlogged right now) or Jimbo (who wouldn't get involved in this anyway) based on a disagreement with him about archiving a page. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me - I just wanted to bring it to someone else's attention.
 * P.S. only mentioned Jimbo cos it mentions it here WP:ADMIN Cheers Lethaniol 04:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Coulda said something to me first, ya know. Left my comment on the relevant page. Not a monster, in case you were wondering. --InShaneee 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your e-mail to me
Hey. I just read your e-mail to me. Just so you know, when you click the "e-mail user" link on someone's user page, and you send an e-mail, it does show your e-mail address to the user, as I knew this, and I saw yours. You wrote that it didn't, so I just wanted to make sure that you know you are wrong and people are seeing your e-mail. Also, I've decided to do the following:
 * I will keep the e-mail I'm using now registered with Wikipedia
 * However, I will create an account for Wikipedia (using Hotmail, which I have used before), to use for replying.

So, if you send an e-mail to me by using Wikipedia, it will go to my real e-mail account (with my name), however, I will reply with my Wikipedia-only account (which will be for sending only). --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied via e-mail, to test out your new system. :) Newyorkbrad 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I would do it right away! :). Probably sometime tonight. When I do, I'll reply via e-mail. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you'd done it already. There's certainly not a rush or anything. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Velten
I did email Thatcher131 about the matter a while ago, because she was the admin familiar with the situation who recommended that I unblock Velten the last time, but she didn't reply; I presumed she was occupied with other matters. If there's any more disruption from Velten, though, I'll probably contact her. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I hadn't seen any Velten-related news for awhile, so I was hoping things had quieted down on that front, but I guess not. (FYI, Thatcher131 is male.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page, Brad. It was Cplot. Cheers, Redux 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaker of the House corrections
Newyorkbrad,

I noticed your correction on the Speaker of the House of Representatives page that reverted an edit from a user named Eric! which incorrectly set the date for expiration of the 109th Congress as January 2nd. (I came across your username when I read your comments on Eric!'s talk page.) I noticed you keep a pretty close watch on the Speakers page and have since added it to my watchlist, too. I pretty much can't stand edits that could simply be corrected by properly reading the Constitution, probabaly because I assume everyone should know it inside and out. Anyways, from what I read on the Speakers' talk page, you seem to be far better than me in politely responding to the mistakes and questions of editors on that page. Kudos. JasonCNJ 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * EricL is a dedicated editor with interest in government topics; mistakes are forgiveable if people learn from them. You might be interested in the discussion of the term-end dates for Congresses and Presidents before the Twentieth Amendment at the list of presidents talk page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply that EricL wasn't a dedicated error who just made a simple error. I make mistakes all the time (just see the Speakers' talk page earlier this afternoon.) Great thing about wikipedia is the thousands of eyes that check over all of my edits. I'll check out the talk page you mentioned. Thanks again. JasonCNJ 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for feedback
I was bold and made a suggestion on the Giano workshop that I fear might get ignored for reasons having nothing to do with it's validity (or lack thereof) as a suggestion. I am not sure it would work, honestly, but things seem so heated and personal, its hard, as an outsider, to not think I (or other outsiders) could help. It's also hard not to get a bit ignored in such a discussion between old campaigners...;). I trust your judgement and I wanted to bring it to your attention, so that I can know if I'm totally off the mark here for some reason. (email me if you want to let me know w/o pouring fuel on any fires.)  Cheers. Dina 21:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like a reasonable and constructive suggestion. I am not sure that ArbCom will arrange any so complex a set-up for any single contributor, but it's a worthwhile thing to put all ideas on the table; the more that the arbitrators and Giano and others realize that the community wants this resolved without more anger and without losing anyone, the better. And thanks for thinking of me as someone who could provide useful feedback. Happy New Year. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR
★ MESSED ROCKER ★  05:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; same to you, and to everyone else reading this page. :) Newyorkbrad 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)



Opinion?
User:WikiMan53? I am starting to think less "kid" more "troll" but will admit bias towards the only opposer to my Rfa. (didn't look for diff, but can find it) ;) Dina 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten that was him; I see I tried to get him to reconsider his !vote at the time, which I'd also forgotten. His questions on his talkpage seem naive but mostly legitimate, but his !vote was fairly incomprehensible. Guess we'll watch and see, but thanks for the heads up. How does adminship suit you so far? Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting...I thought it would give me the ability to wade into conflicts and really sort them out for people. Instead, I recently got called a "bad admin".  But I like being able to sort out straight-forward matters.  It really mostly is just like editing, but with some more stuff to do. I'm glad you remembered, I should have supplied a diff and then I realized my admission probably didn't need back up...It was (and his subsequent apology on my talk page) what first drew my attention.  And why I feel that any admin action against him (though tempting, if he kept up that page move stuff) would be, well, tacky.  Dina 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hastert, Stevens thingy
Let's see. If Iran attacked the USA 10 times, and President Bush had to go into Iraq, before tommorow, which Congress would vote as fast as possible? The 109th? Or 110th? And if Bush and Cheney died Rice would be President? I don't know, it could be ethier. I now think that there has to be a Speaker of the House at all times. In that case who would it be? Hastert? BTW, I am logging off now, so don't expect a quick response from me. Carpet9 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The 109th Congress certainly couldn't vote; its Members are no longer in office. See the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution for the precise ending time. The 110th Congress opens tomorrow, so that's the one that would vote. The fact that Hastert is no longer Speaker is symbolized by the fact that the first day of the new Congress is called to order and presided over by the Clerk of the previous House, rather than the outgoing Speaker. It may seem like a technicality but a fact that there is no Speaker of the House right now (the evening of January 3rd). Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence
thank you for his good clerical work, in particular for the time you put in Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Evidence. &mdash; Sebastian 00:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; I'm glad you found it helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's next in line?
My mistake Newyorkbrad. Former Speaker Albert, wouldn't have disputed Dr Rices succession to the Presidency (as Secy of State is a part of the Executive Branch). He's worries were about a Legislative leader (Speaker/Pres pro temp) assuming Presidency, feeling that himself (House Speaker during VP vacancies Oct-Dec, 1973 & Aug-Dec, 1974), should only become Acting President. See Carl Albert page, for further details, on his hesistations. GoodDay 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know there's been a longtime constitutional debate on that scenario; hopefully it remains only a theoretical concern, though I believe it was once of the factors that led to enactment of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess (upon reviewing Carl Albert further), his true concerns were Party Politics (he a Democrat, Nixon & Ford being Republican). However, as the 1947 Presidential Succession Act makes no mention of Party Affiliation effecting succession, the then Speaker Albert's views were in error. GoodDay 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a legalist concern for him, but it was a legitimate concern in other ways. One of the main objections to the Speaker being in the line of succession is that it would often mean a transfer of the presidency from the (former) President's party to the opposite party. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, if President Nixon was incapacitated (Oct-Dec 1973) or President Ford was incapacitated (Aug-Dec 1974), a real mess would have occured (Albert, wouldn't have been able to assumes duties as Acting President, 25 Amendment mentions only the VP). GoodDay 01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this situation is now covered by statute; see Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which suggests that the line of succession (Speaker, President pro tem., Secretary of State, etc.) would apply in this situation as well. Newyorkbrad 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, such a tragedy will never occur. Thanks 'Newyorkbrad', this discussion has been very educational. GoodDay 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your bot's template
Thank you for your work helping to fight vandalism to Wikipedia articles. However, I am concerned by the sentence of your template reading "And most Vandal fighters assume it as Vandalism if you dont use a login." That is a serious overstatement and suggests that we assume bad faith for all IP edits, which is definitely not the case. I ask that you consider deleting or modifying this sentence. Or, if you took it from somewhere else, please let me know so I can discuss it with that person. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your words, as per your advice I am changing the statement now. Also if you could give me an idea on developing a new bot that would be great. codetiger 13:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bots are not one of my areas of expertise, but you might want to take a look at Bot requests to see what sort of tasks users are suggesting that new bots might perform. Of course, you should make sure that any bot follows the bot policy and is duly approved and flagged. If you have any questions a member of the Bot Approvals Group could probably help. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Checkuser
Yes, I know. Thanks. Essjay is currently in a short Wikibreak. I'll try to catch him when he returns. Redux 02:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused
Hello, I think you might want to converse with JC0312, he says 1947 Presidential Succession Act (along with the 25th Amendment) alows ONLY the Vice President to become President, when the President dies/resigns/is removed from office. He says the other officers can only become Acting President. GoodDay 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that post. The wording of the statute is totally confusing. I am going to do some research and try to clarify on this issue, but I have a real-life out-of-town trip coming up for a few days, so it will have to be after that. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it time yet?
So, when are you willing to become an administrator? I just thought I'd point out that it's "sometime after the first of the year." I know you have a host of people offering to nominate you, so I'll let them take precedence, but really, there's no earthly reason for you to wait. (Or maybe you do have an unstated reason, and what I'm trying to say is there's no reason for us to wait, all champing at the bit.) --Michael Snow 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Last month I posted that I didn't want my RfA to compete with the ArbCom elections or the holidays. I guess those are over now. :) I have also noted that there are editors (I'm not among them, but there are several) who think that six months of active editing is a good track record before seeking adminship, and had decided to wait until I could satisfy that standard. (I became active in early July 2006.)
 * I have a real-world out-of-town trip with limited Internet access for a couple of days next week, and wouldn't want to be in a position where I couldn't respond promptly to any questions asked, but will be ready soon after that. Because of the norm against "advertising" one's RfA, I probably shouldn't say more. I appreciate the kind words from you and the others who've spurred me on. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to formatting of AIV requests
Hi, I was pretty sure the edit might foul up the system, but I was left with no alternative means of reporting the user. I have indeed raised the issue on the bot's talk page (as that's where most feedback for it seems to be going). Still, it is useful to know about exactly what kind of dificulties this causes at AIV; i know what to be careful of if I'm ever forced to do so again (although since I raised the issue, I doubt anyone ever will be). Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at your post there and made a suggestion that might deal with this type of situation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings
Thanks for that response. I actually had not read through that link before. I want to be sure I understand this before moving forward, as I became concerned about unintentional 3rr issues due to the blanking warnings phenomena. --Kukini 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've encountered this same debate too many times myself. The link to the recent template discussion that CBD posted in the AN thread is also useful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bad usernames
You can find them at the new user logs. Go ahead and request the checkuser.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCU
It's pretty obvious they're coming from one person, so just keep adding them to the IP check section. No need for a case subpage, given the IP check section does what you need :) I moved your case to here. Cheers NYB, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As of right now it's listed in both sections. You may have copied it and forgot to delete it from the top. Sorry about listing in the wrong place. Regards back to you DB. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * New Cplot socks go to Requests for checkuser/Case/Cplot, becuase we have to make sure it's him first :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But in some cases it's pretty darn obvious. When someone posts 23,000 characters about how we need to stop the Federal Clowns editing Wikipedia, do you really think we should bother the Checkusers with it? I will if you tell me I should. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's absolutely blatantly obvious, and the main account is community banned or indefinately blocked, then yes, list it in the #IP check section, and request that the underlying IP's be blocked if possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert
Thanks for the quick revert of the vandalism on my user page. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Vandals are of course annoying, but vandals who target the editors who revert them are a particular peeve of mine. I also reported this one to AIV, but I saw you'd gotten there first. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: ProtectionBot RfA
Ah, ArbitBot! :-) Let's see...

...on a slightly more serious note, thanks for the comment. I also notice that you're not an administrator yet, though you've declined several nominations. Would now be a better time for you? You could then help out protecting and unprotecting... thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Scroll up a few threads to "Is it time yet?" :) For the record, I've never declined a nomination, though I've asked a couple of people who were considering posting a nomination to wait a little while. It's been a little while now. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't asked you, but I was considering nominating you also. Imagine all the co-noms you'll get! :) --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I've seen people opposed for "too many co-noms" so I have to be careful. When the time comes, I will of course welcome everyone's candid comments on my qualifications. Newyorkbrad 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking through your archives. It seems you have over 10 people asking if they could nominate you. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't want to run too soon. People have ideas for time that people should have spent on the project and numbers of edits in the different namespaces, plus I myself wanted to make sure I was familiar with many of the different types of things that administrators have to do and deal with. (There are some I still haven't gotten to even after six months, but not too many admin candidates have done everything, so I'll live with that and hopefully the !voters will too.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose running at the same time as ProtectionBot might not have been a good idea. No, seriously, the right time to run is when you are ready. And when you have the time to take the time to answer the questions and have had time to write an acceptance/nomination statement. Carcharoth 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought ProtectionBot was an admirable candidate. I think I supported TawkerBotTorA a few weeks back, based on the fact that it had never made an incivil comment, never uploaded an unsourced image, never made a personal attack....... :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Inshaneee
Thanks for the quick reply, one question do you have a link to the outside view you gave on Inshaneee's actions so that i can read it.Hypnosadist 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be on the page for the RfC itself, outside views go on that page, and comments on them on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad 16:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thats were i got your name from, thanks for the quick answer.Hypnosadist 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past
Hi, I'm not really sure what you mean. The user broke 3RR, I'm don't see how it could be disputed. Could you please elaborate? Khoikhoi 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure it was a clear violation, plus it is a contentious situation, plus it's a longish block for 3rr (although I know the user has a prior block history which I assume you had in mind). But the discussion has already started on A Link...'s page, so perhaps you might (or might not) want to comment over there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Angus mentioned it to me yesterday and I was going to wait a week or so to submit, but I managed to read through all the pages I wasn't overly familiar with (WP:WHEEL, etc.) this morning and after encountering a vandal that I couldn't do anything about without the mop and bucket I figured now is as good a time as any to make the request. You should consider submitting sometime in the near future as well. You've been around nearly a year with this account and you've made some really valuable contributions.--Isotope23 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response. I've only really been active since July, but I anticipate being on the list soon enough; our RfA's may wind up overlapping. Again, good luck. Newyorkbrad 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

G&S
If you are at NYGASP tonight, I will be there. Come to the "Maslin Room" at intermission and say hello. The SavoyNetters will be hanging out there at intermission and after the show.(http://www.concentric.net/~oakapple/savoynet/) I am also hosting a singalong event on Saturday (Iolanthe and Trial by Jury). If you're interested, e-mail me at ssilversgs@yahoo.com. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tonight is impossible for me but I'm intrigued by the event on Saturday. E-mail to follow. Newyorkbrad 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

New York Governors
Checked the link to Governors of New York. There's even a discrepency there. Harriman listed), yet in above paragraphs, he's listed as). I'll start listing the NY Gov bio articles (that need fixing) to term ending 'even-numbered' years. GoodDay 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and I'll take a further look at this over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for supporting me on an AfD by saying "Delete per Kicking222 and The RSJ". It's the first time I've seen someone support me on AfD, so thanks, again (of course, someone might have supported me on an AfD before, I might have just not seen it, but oh well :)  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  02:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and may you reply on my talk page? Thanks :)  •The RSJ•    Talk  |  Sign Here  03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks! And I'll ask someone with oversight on that deletion summary. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Defusing
You seem to have a good head on your sholders and I second everything you said about ending the Husnock affair. Ive contacted those involved and asked them to tone things down. Can you have this case ended quickly? A threat was made against Husnock and people seem to be getting angrier by the day. Thank you for your concern and assistance. -A concerned Wikipedian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.241.187 (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * As I'm not a member of the Arbitration Committee or anything like that, there really isn't anything more I can do in the situation. I do hope it is resolved quickly. Newyorkbrad 11:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I am trying to have a Checkuser run on Husnock to prove where he is, if for no other reason to clear some of the ips out of Dubai as being sockpuppets of him. I've given up proving to anyone that he isn't in the UAE, people don't appear to want to listen and whoever Pahuskahey is, his arrival and interjection into things didn't help anyone, least of all Husnock; I've advised him to simply abandon his account at this stage. However, deep down I hope this is still a decent website with good people on it and all I want to do is clear some of the air around Husnock having made or having not made certian posts. A checkuser would really help, espeically if it shows he is in another part of the world and couldnt have made some of these posts. I'm sure you'll agree and I thank you in advance for your help. -213.42.21.79 14:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal reaction at this point is that Husnock and the other editors involved would be best served by dropping the matter. In any event, the arbitrators have checkuser access, so this suggestion can be presented to them in the Workshop or on the Proposed Decision talkpage if you really think it's a good idea. The other checkusers would defer to the ArbCom if checkuser were requested in a dispute that's subject to an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 15:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but I'd just like to second what Brad has said above. My personal opinion is that this lobbying for checkuser and for "good people" to do as you ask is just aggravating this situation. I think it would be better for Husnock and his friends if you just stopped this business right now. Also, you should be aware that checkuser is not the magic proof you seem to think it is. It is easy enough to get around if someone is aware of it and wants to make a point. Sarah 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
 Sarah Ewart would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Sarah Ewart to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Gee, if you had waited one day, we could have had the same promotion date (just a year apart). I'm going to have to oppose you over this obvious personal insult. jk ;) NoSeptember  12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever your reasons for waiting, I'm glad the wait is over. Your RfA is going to pass with flying colors. Welcome to the mop&bucket. --Durin 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, CONGRATULATIONS! :) :) :) - crz crztalk 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not counting chickens, but I thank everyone who urged me on, including each of you. Regards, Newyorkbrad 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To continue the analogy, these chickens haven't just hatched. They grew up, had kids of their own, got taken to the chicken plant, made into nuggets, and are part of some kids meal somewhere. This is long overdue, and I'd rather bet my life's savings on a $40 million lotto ticket than bet against your RfA passing. :) --Durin 06:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interpreting WP:SNOW literally, your RfA could have been closed as successful before it even began :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

--TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Daniel.Bryant; theres not a snowball's chance that it won't pass. I've had your RFA page on my watchlist for about a month. (How come when I continue the bulleted lists it shows all the bullets I've typed but it only shows everyone else's last bullet and the rest count as indents)
 * TeckWiz, I'm not a Wiki-formatting formatting expert, but I think it has to do with the fact that the paragraph before you didn't have any bullets at the beginning. That sets the counter back to the beginning again. Newyorkbrad 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that's right. The same bulleting issue presents itself when one leaves a space between the last bullet and the beginning of the text, and those of us who are a bit obsessive die a little inside when confronted with such ugliness at AfD, where it appears not infrequently.  Joe 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I totally had dibs on nominating you before any of these johnnies/jills-come-lately; I think I first raised the issue when you had fewer than 2000 edits. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want me as your nominator; after all, the the first user whom I offered to nominate was soon thereafter indefinitely blocked, whilst the the first user whom I actually nominated was, as we all know, desysopped in disgrace :). Joe 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had several extremely kind offers to do the nomination, but I did and do remember that yours was the first, and I thank you very sincerely for being the first person to get me thinking in terms of adminship, several months ago. More thoughts on this to follow in my post-RfA note to everyone. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Me? Desysopped in disgrace? :( - crz crztalk 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought Crz withdrew voluntarily as the pioneer of a new Wikiprocess and returned two months later in triumph ... but Joe may have different notes from me. Newyorkbrad 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just kiddin', folks (witness, e.g., the delightful smiley face I appended). In any event, Crz is, of course, amongst our best admins&mdash;he and Xoloz, to name two, serve well to support my belief that we ought to sysop just about any editor schooled in law&mdash;and he knows that I have much wikilove for him. Joe 22:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Abuse of admin powers
Thanks for backing me up on that or at least backing up the reasons I based that decision on. (I really wish I hadn't taken that case :-P) Good luck on your RfA! (not that I have any doubt in my mind that you won't pass). Cbrown1023 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in/First contact
I'll be on WP from time to time, due to caseload, rotten ISP. I'm to run all links by you. I'm sure BunchofGrapes filled you in. As of this timepoint, I've been following a weird bird incident. Can you list yourself on my page as a "Favorite Admin ?" Also need someone to keep a eye on my Userpage, talkpage. As for the bird incident, recently, Austin, Texas and Australia had experienced birds falling out of the sky DEAD. Google has some material on this matter. Seen the incident on the news myself. Really do appreciate the assisstance, patience. Martial Law 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin at this time so don't list me as a "favorite admin." An article about the bird situation would be appropriate if it is based on verified information and has reliable sources, although bear in mind the differences between Wikipedia and Wikinews. I don't know if anyone else has already started a similar article so you should check for that before starting your own. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for fixing that typo on my userpage. Somehow I notice other people's typos but never my own :) Opabinia regalis 01:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm exactly the same way, not just on Wikipedia, but in my real-world writing as well (usually the senior partner in my office finds the typos, either 5 minutes before the papers are due, or else the day after they're submitted). Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Drafts of science articles, same problem. Fortunately under a bit less time pressure. Opabinia regalis 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al
I tried to revert some obvious vandalism, and was astonished to see a new wiki page - a "spam filter" - rejecting my save due to the presence of a myspace reference in the article. To be safe, I deleted every reference to myspace that I could find. Add back at your own risk. :) Wahkeenah 01:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion somewhere, I don't recall precisely where, that the spam filter may be a bit oversensitive in this instance, or that there is a distinction between different types of Myspace pages. I will take a look for it, because while a Myspace blog certainly is not an appropriate source maybe 95% of the time, it can't reasonably be challenged in a situation such as the one I described on your page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, it's blog.myspace that has been added to the meta blacklist at the request of Jimbo. There's more details over at WT:EL.--Kind Regards - Heligo  land  09:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I see the new functions, but honestly I want to take a bit of time in my userspace to get familiar with them before I test out the shiny new buttons in the mainspace.--Isotope23 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, and makes sense to me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...For your assistance. Be advised I'll be here from time to time. I am a paranormal investigator. Been tracking a few cases. Martial Law 01:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really do appreciate your assisstance. Martial Law 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said on BOG's page, I'll be glad to answer any reasonable questions you've had after you've done your research. Be aware though that I'm not much of an expert on (or believer in) the paranormal. I find normal complicated enough. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Got a NEW case. I have a UFO case in AR. the incident has taken place on 1-9-07 near Van Buren and Magnolia. Got multiple witnesses, one is a USAF Col. who says they're extraterrestrial, while locals believe that The Devil is comming. As stated, I'm a paranormal investigator. Martial Law 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Something this new isn't going to satisfy our requirement of reliable sources for a long time. You can start compiling the information, but don't expect to be able to turn it into an article for awhile, or maybe not at all, depending on what it turns out actually happened (I don't believe in UFO's myself so I am sure there will be a more prosaic explanation) and what can be documented. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Prelim source is www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53820. Still after the local newspapers. Martial Law 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pres Pro Tem
I'm almost certain that minority-party senators still sit in the President's chair to learn procedure, but to avoid a future error, I'll cite it outside wikipedia if I find it. Thanks for the update! 157.201.154.219 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. If you take a look at an issue of the Congressional Record (in print or online), you can verify that only Republican Senators presided last year, and only Democratic Senators preside this year. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA
You so close to WP:200! You still have 5 whole days to get 31 support votes (your probably getting another one as I type this:) )--TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your note and for your confidence in me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only ever skirted around your contributions briefly (mostly during Arbcom cases I've been involved in of late), but I must say, my confidence in you is there. Peherps I'm premature here, but welcome to the fold mate. Sarah is rarely wrong ;) And welcome to WP:100. -- Longhair\talk 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That should be amended to "welcome to WP:200". Congrats Newyorkbrad! --Durin 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I post my congrats message yet? (looks at watch) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You may post as you wish, but I'm going to steer clear of any form of celebration or overconfidence. In any event, not only am I not the next hopefully successful RfA due to close this weekend; a peek at WP:RfA as of now indicates that as it happens, I'm not even the next Brad who's counting down hours. Thanks very much to each of you, and everyone; more on Sunday. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Congress
Would you be so kind as to go here and weigh in on the discussion? Thanks --Appraiser 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to comment. You've summarized your position well and it appears to make sense, but I want to wait a bit until User:Markles and anyone else who's worked on the templates have weighed in also. I've worked on some Congress articles but never edited any of the templates. Thanks for thinking of me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

UFO Info
Got a pix of the O' Hare UFO w/ this link: [http://www.rense.com/general74/filers51.htm UFO Cases, incl. pix of O' Hare Airport UFO. This leads to source info.], and the Ark case I'm on, which is People claim UFOs are "The Devil" and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53820 Ark. people claim UFOs are "The Anti-Christ/The Devil"]. Of the latter case, I have a primary witness who says these UFOs are a military exercise or someone trying to set up a hoax using aircraft. I'm heading to the UFO and UFO related discussion pages to place this matter. Martial Law 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about UFOs and don't believe in them, but if there is a UFO-related discussion page, that would be an appropriate place to raise this issue. Remember that Wikipedia articles must be based on documented, verifiable sources, so "a primary witness" will not be a good source, especially so soon after the events you are discussing. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to UFO and to for info.


 * When I was a kid, I did NOT have that luxury. The family had to deal with UFOs, aliens and trigger happy idiots. Later on, seen two UFO "fleets", found out about the Robertson Panel in which the US govt set up to make people who spot these things look like they're crazy, worse,after Washington DC got involved in a UFO incident, then I've met people who told me that if there is alien contact, the planet will Revolt against all authority, some, for religious reasons, some out of revenge for being made a fool of by their various governments. When someone sticks a weapon in "your" face, "your" paradigm shifts. If you want to see one, get a pair of 10x or better binoculars, a 10M candlepower light (Hunting/sporting goods outfitters sell them) and look up. The binoculars are to help tell a high altitude plane, satellite, etc. from a real UFO. Cheers. Martial Law 21:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One other thing, when you go hunting for these things, be careful. Cheers :) Martial Law 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :)
 * The light is to signal said UFO when you find one. Martial Law 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blimey (from a Limey)
Hell, blood, you gone and done a WP:200 ass kicking of RFA!

Okay, enough of that, I'm about to go to sleep and decided that I'd be the first of many, many, many to say well done, congratulations and way to go on your very impressive RFA. I most definitely look forward to seeing even more of you around WP and unreservedly offer you my support in the weeks and months to come, wherever possible. Good luck and nice one...! The Rambling Man 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Polar coordinates
I'm indifferent between "formulas" and "formulae"; the general usage trend is toward English forms of plurals, but I see that formula lists the Latin plural first. Maybe Wikiproject:Mathematics had a guideline on this; if they do, you can follow it; if not, as the principal author, make your choice.

E-mail me if you need help putting your hands on the American Mathematical Monthly article or any other references. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since most dictionaries list formulas ahead of formulae, I think we can stick with formulas. — Mets501 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's worth it given the FAC comments, but a quick Google search on "robotics 'polar coordinates'" does turn up some hits (not counting the obvious WP forks) if you want to take a look at them. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting; I'll check those out. — Mets501 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Thanks for the reverts on my user and editor review pages. :) --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were two days from now (and things go well) I would have deleted those edits outright so you wouldn't have had to see they were ever there (because when I see that vandalism to my userpage has been reverted I'm always curious to see what it was, and I'm sure everyone else is the same way). There was no reason for this person or anyone to address you in such a fashion. He or she is right to the limited extent that it's important that you have a healthy balance between editing Wikipedia and running around enjoying the sunshine, but there's no reason to believe you aren't doing exactly that. Heck, I was the nerdy kid on the block once; I can remember myself at age 12, sitting in my room reading through an encyclopedia on a rainy day. You have no idea how I envy you who at the same age get to help write one. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering what you mean by deleting those edits. I thought only oversight can delete edits. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I know it's a good question because I had the exact same question a couple of months ago and I asked at the Help Desk. The answer turns out to be that any administrator can delete edits so that only other administrators can see them (they don't show up for other users). But a person with special Oversight access can delete edits so that not even administrators can see them. Newyorkbrad 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And just like admin deleted edits, oversight deleted edits can be seen by other oversight. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, as of now I believe that's true. Originally, not even by them, but that was changed for purposes of transparency. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolling
Thanks Brad! I think there must have been some quirk in the software because I didn't get any edit conflicts. I saw Floria's edit but it looked like she'd only removed the last comment. Weird. I was blocking the accounts at the same time so maybe I just screwed up multi-tasking. Sarah 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Brad, in blocking and tagging those accounts, I discovered that one of them, is operated by User:72.177.190.208 which has been identified by checkuser as being used abusively. As well, Blotchum was hit by the autoblock for, , , ,  and for "briefs vandalism". Interesting. Sarah 20:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand yet exactly how one tells which user is affected by the autoblock for which other user, but it is interesting that these accounts are connected. Perhaps we'll get an idea when the Checkuser report comes back whether the other SPO's are more of the same. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, their page has autoblock unblock requests on it and I just looked through the page history and discovered other unblock requests for the various other accounts. But if you're trying to find an autoblock, you use this autoblock tool to seatch for them . Sarah 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea; the checkuser should confirm it. I was just recently in a case where a User had multiple sockpuppets. Acalamari 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As expected, Checkuser found all kinds of nonsense and made various blocks. Hopefully that will solve the problem, at least for this RfA. Newyorkbrad 14:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeking advice
What to do when I know something is wrong, but have no source and can have no source?

Sorry for picking on you, there is absolutely zero urgency to this. I respect your judgment, and I wanted to consult an uninvolved New Yorker. Also, while I am often careful and considered, I am not always so. Sometimes I am a lousy editor, so don't expect to see too much too good from me in this.

For whatever reason, I got drawn to List of bus routes in the Bronx and then List of bus routes in Brooklyn, and aside from causing trouble and fuss, I noticed that the Brooklyn article included a route that is, more or less Hassidic only, (operated by a Hassidic company, serving Hassidim, providing service from Williamsburg to Crown Heights, without stopping in between).

Unfortunately, I did not do a good job trying to remove the material. I provoked the editor on the page (looks like the page owner but that's another story.) His response was that the company has a franchise for the route, and that there is no source saying they don't provide service to outsiders, and so it should stay.

The original franchise application was made in the late 80s (or early 90's?). NYCDOT was under pressure from UMTA (today's FTA) to encourage privitization. The company had been hassled by brownies for idling and stopping where there was no bus stop, or, if I remember correctly, stopping at TA bus stops. They applied for a franchise. It was clever. I think Dov Hikind got involved, pushing for them. I do not remember my connection; I think I helped prepare 3rd party comments for an indirectly involved commissioner or assistant commissioner. We understood that this company was going to get busstops from the city, and maybe idling locations (imp for keeping A/C effective in the summer). We also understood that even though they were agreeing to be a common carrier, no one from outside their communities would try to board the buses, so we knew there would be no complaints.

So, now I see it in a list of (implicitly) public bus routes, and I want to take it out. Is that wrong? If so, why? If it was appropriate to seek to remove the material, how should I have gone about effecting the change? (if you look at the article and talk page, you'll see that I just angered the two other editors)

Thanks in advance for any ideas/criticism/comments, etc. And again, I have retreated from those pages. There is no urgency to my request. Thanks. Jd2718 02:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to look at this exhaustively, but one thing to check out might be the availability of public timetables. If there are any, what do they say? If there aren't any and you can prove it, that might be worth at least noting. Having said that, the fact that a majority or even the vast majority of the ridership are members of one community doesn't mean these are not bus routes. They would still be bus routes, albeit specialized ones. I'll take a further look later on. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The talk page has a link to a 4-year old schedule, mostly in English, but with a few phrases in (Yiddish?). The page also has a source saying that the company discourages non-Jews from riding (be careful, I may not have read carefully). Again, thanks for looking, certainly no rush, and I will be staying off the page for a while. Jd2718 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

O' Hare UFO Pix
Got a pix fom a pilot: Pix taken by Pilot or Aircrew. Thought you may want to see this. Do apologise if I had acted in error. Martial Law 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but not a reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia. Sorry. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * People are asking for pixes (Google:"O' Hare Airport UFO Pics"), and found two so far. Could that end up making news as well, like this:" UFO Pix Taken By Pilot/Aircrew! Pix Seen on Wikipedia ! " ? Martial Law 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The other pix is above this one, in "UFO info". Martial Law 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Again, we need reliable sources, not disputable pictures. Perhaps an editor with more experience in the subject area could suggest sources that would be more appropriate. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. Found a possible source on You(U)Tube. Martial Law 21:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a spoilsport, but YouTube links generally aren't allowable here because of copyright problems. :( Newyorkbrad 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefighters Disaster Control...
Found this. It is the Firefighter's protocol for handling UFOs. It is:Firefighter's Disaster Control: UFOs. Martial Law 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The link isn't working for me. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that warrant a article ? Reason, this has been referred to on many UFO related talk shows and referred to on the Documetary channels long ago. Martial Law 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the link. Google had it in error. Martial Law 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty dubious to me; it's not an official source or anything. Maybe someone who knows more about paranormal or UFO-related topics will be familiar with it. Anyway, what would the article you are proposing be called? Newyorkbrad 22:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Firefighter's Guide:UFOs. Martial Law 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is not really noteworthy enough for an article; but as I said, feel free to ask someone more familiar with the topic area. I need to do something else for the next couple of days, so if you have any more questions, ask me on Monday or Tuesday please. Have a good weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on RfA!
With the RfA complete and over, and a day to recover on top, I finally feel able to click a few buttons and write a few comments.

Of those, there's about a dozen editors I hadn't come across before, whom I particularly want to write a comment to. RfA is a good chance to see how others see you. It also shows a light on others, and those who judge sometimes show themselves in a flattering or unflattering light too. An inevitable aspect of any giving of opinion, so to speak. I don't think our paths have crossed, and yet you showed a high degree of confidence that I would use the access honestly and well. I'd like to live up to that, as being the best and most relevant "thank you" I can think of for your support and help. That, and to catch you around some time and see some of the areas you edit in, as well.

As a new user of admin access, I might well benefit from guidance for a while to come. I trust my existing approach overall, but its an area one doesn't really want to make even a single mistake, and where the judge is the eyes of ones peers. So advice would be a Good Thing.

To start that off, I've already asked for advance guidance from other long-standing admins active in a couple of areas that I'm likely to be involved in long term - dispute handling, and suspected socks. As time goes on, I might want to come back to you for advice on these and other issues too. If you feel like watchlisting User:FT2/Advice sought, I'd appreciate it :) it's my initial step to ensuring this new access is taken as responsibly as possible, during the next while.

Otherwise, do keep in touch, happy editing in 2007, and once again - many thanks! :) FT2 (Talk 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Well, you've broken the WP:200 barrier comfortably - if anything was a dead cert for success this year then your RfA would be it. I'm sure that the Bureaucrats will be queuing up to be the one to issue you with your shiny new set of admin tools. I would offer you assistance with any questions that you have about using them but I feel that I should be the one coming to you with questions about my judgement calls! Best wishes and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words, as well as for the offer of assistance. My experience as an editor hardly guarantees that I am not going to need assistance making admin judgment calls, and I am certainly going to need my hand held for awhile regarding some of the technical aspects. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes
You're everywhere, aren't you... omnipresent like some sort of lawyer wikideity... ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um ... no, I wouldn't put it that way, but thanks. Remember, six months ago, I was brand-new and making all the typical new editors' mistakes. Now, I guess I'll try to avoid all the typical new administrators' mistakes. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. There's no problem, just that most people never find my scratchpad... I usually keep it in a closet accessable through a small door underneath the picture of Richard Nixon... ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Magoon
Thank you for your kind words. I have actually already purchased both of those books on Amazon and am waiting for them to arrive. I think I should have found them before writing the article, but it seems to have come out pretty well anyway. I have an interest in Spanish-American War-era politicians and government right now and may try and advance another article from there up to FA. JRP 06:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Please let me know if I can be helpful, though my real-world research that I've tied into a couple of articles is from a slightly later period (see Peter J. Hamilton and Arthur Yager). I may try to polish up Insular Cases sometime, too. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My reply
Here is my reply to your reasonable question. -- Fyslee 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My reply is simpler: Ilena has never shown she can make edits peacefully. --Ronz 14:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An easy starting point
Heya, not sure where you want to start, but I've found that CAT:CSD is a nice jumping off point. --Brad Beattie (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've got that on my list of places to look for work, but I was thinking of starting off with a shift or two on AIV once I find the list of the block notice templates. In an instance of unfortunate timing, it appears that I may be somewhat real-world busy for the next few days, so it may be that I don't get to dust off the new tools extensively until next weekend. And I guess I'll still be my noisy self on the noticeboards. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * congratulations, you have my full confidence - advice? what do I know? no blocks for established user NPA's seems topical. Congratulations again and good luck. PS I have some subpages I've tagged for speedy deletes if you'd like to try your hand on them.--Mcginnly | Natter 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My words of wisdom, for whatever (likely little) they're worth is to start with CSD, it needs help pretty bad. --Matthew 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a fix...
You're welcome, and as long as you asked, there is something you can do. There is a minor error on the main page in the "Did you Know" section that needs to be fixed. In the Seb Clover blurb, it says he set "the a world record". Either "the" or "a" needs to be deleted. -- DS1953 talk 06:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to miss my first request here, but I was asleep when you wrote this. Looks like someone else got to it, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
I've admired your work in ArbCom and elsewhere from the sidelines for a while, I am sure that you as administrator will be an even more valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Orderinchaos78 13:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canadian Folklorists
Hey Brad, my pleasure to help out. You're going to make a fine admin.

I'm fairly certain that this is what happened: Two teenagers, presumably males by their style, were doing homework and chatting on AIM, MSN or something and using Wikipedia. Clayzer is the actual Clay that the article was made about. The other account said, "Hey man, I'm gonna make articles about you" and so he did. They got deleted, no problem. As I said on AN/I, it is a game to them and I'm sure that the kids are experienced with forums and online communities, so they started splashing about after the block. No problem there, it's usual. You posted on AN/I, which was the proper thing to do. The kids found it, and the trolling began and Youser kept giving them chips and salsa to eat. The 24.xxx... IP that I blocked would have been Clayfanfriend, whatever his name is because you didn't block the IP, just the username (which is good, you shouldn't risk collateral for something like that), and Clayzer wasn't blocked so it didn't make sense that he'd log out to post.

I think what I've learned since getting the bit is that since you are the one processing the information submitted, you begin to see the patterns. Instead of just slapping a CSD template on a page and moving on, you are the one sorting through the mess so you have the opportunity to track down kids like this and put them in time out.

Also, it is odd when things happen like an admission of guilt, or someone apologizing, or someone working with you when you deleted their article instead of going batshit. Those times do occur, though, so they are more valuable when you get a thanks (I actually got an email from a user that I warned that apologized!)

Keep up the good work. Teke ( talk ) 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfA
I've been a bit busy recently, so missed the actual RfA, but needless to say you have my general support should you ever need it. Stephen B Streater 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn. Ditto. Tyrenius 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. If I'd been rejected by two !votes, I'd be cross with you both. As it is, thanks for the kind word. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're an admin, I actually thought that you were one already until I dropped by and saw the RfA! --KonstableSock 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If....
If you are a Admin, add yourself to my list of Favorite Admins, and make yourself a copy of my toolbox. I've got a lead concerning the O' Hare UFO matter. A police officer has also taken a pix of the UFO inquestion. Checking link. Martial Law 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Found and removed a bad link. Also came accross a "Wikipedia Has a Technical Difficulty" error. Martial Law 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin as of 24 hours ago. Just getting started, really. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Use your new powers wisely. Adding you to my listings. Go ahead and make a copy of my toolbox. You'll find it useful, especially in the performance of your new duties. Prepare for the onslaught of complaints and whatnot. Martial Law 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is what I'm referring to: User A reports to you that another User has cursed her out, using excessively foul, obscene language, and has threatened her bodily harm. How will you handle this ? Martial Law 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is only a hypothetical example of what you'll be facing. Martial Law 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll need this as a Admin:
You'll need this guide, since you are now a admin. I found it lying around here. Place it where you can get to it, preferrably on a sub page or on your user page. This guide is WP:AHTG, restricted to Admins. Find in my toolbox tools of this nature, such as "How to block errant Wikipedians" as well. I may be a Admin myself someday. Martial Law 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I already have this page marked; it was on the recommended reading list before I signed up for my RfA; but thanks for thinking of me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Cplot Sock...
Hey Newyorkbrad, congrats on becoming admin, I have another cplot sock for you: YallPunks. Keep up the good work.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind that! Physiq got to it.¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... I was dealing with another one when Physiq210 got this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on your adminship, and the huge support it received. I would've also if I had been aware of it. Milto LOL pia 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:61.91.220.140
Good move! Obviously you've been following and had seen the other related blocks. I undid your reversion on my talk page simply as pro forma; I don't mind vandals attempting to communicate with me. In fact, I'd rather they did. --Durin 03:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know exactly what was going on, but I saw you had blocked another IP used by the same user, so I went with the same block length. As for the comments on your talk page, a nasty comment in general I would have left, but these particular words were a bit much for me; but it's your page, so if you want to preserve the interaction, fine by me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In part, it's to preserve the ongoing verbal assault he's made in case anyone questions the block length and number of IPs it is being applied to. Also, on my talk page, I prefer the transparency. I appreciate that a number of people, yourself included, have been reverting his edits on my talk page. I just prefer having them so long as the vandal in question doesn't delete content on the page. In this particular case, the vandal in question is being persistent but the outcome of course will be the same as always. It's analogous to a person standing before Everest and screaming at the top of his lungs "You suck you suck you suck!" :) The mountain that is Wikipedia doesn't even shrug its shoulders at such vandals. You did well with the block. Investigating the situation like that...bodes well for you, especially being such a new admin. Bravo! --Durin 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Asher
A while back you were concerned about 's use of his real name since he's a minor. Would you mind taking a look at User:Asher_Heimermann/Contact? He created this today and it transcludes on both his talk and user pages. It seems really, really unwise, Metros232 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. Someone's supposed to be mentoring him and keeping an eye out. I'll see if that person deals with this in the next day or two, and if not I'll drop A.H. a note. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Since nothing has happened, I have deleted the sub-page in question and commented out the relevant transclusions. Maybe you could have an urgent word with whomever was supposed to be "keeping an eye" on this? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do, and I'm keeping an eye on AH's pages as well. Newyorkbrad 18:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill of Rights
Thanks for the message. I think what I was thinking about was that there is no reference to differing levels of judicial scrutiny, etc. on the Bill of Rights page. I think that when people aren't alerted to the ways in which those right in the BOR are interpreted, it propagates folksy myths about what they are. For instance, not until I was in law school did I learn anything about the incorporation debate (that still rages). I have more time now, so I may effort to amend the BOR article to alert people to the nuance in how we interpret the document, which is fundamental to our notions and understanding of it. Thanks for the reply. --DavidShankBone 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
True, your comments carry merit, and history was on your side. But let's abide by WP:DFTT and not turn WP:AIV into a farcical exchange. --210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AWB
Please send me a link to the page that describes how to upload and use it ... and you can delete this thread. Thanks! Newyorkbrad 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When you get something off the Internet onto your computer it's called downloading, and the reverse is called uploading :-). Anyway, see WP:AWB for basic instructions; there's a link to the user's manual there if you need more help. — Mets501 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew that. *sigh* This isn't my night. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hey Brad,

If you ever get a free minute here on Wikipedia, I would be most honored if you wrote a critique of my contributions at my Editor Review, found here.

Thanks in advance dude,

 S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad 08:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo I uploaded
Hey Guy! I need your help on something. I uploaded this photo: Image:Duff Goldman of Charm City Cakes.jpg and I'm not sure if the tagging for it is correct. I have an email with the photo and permission to use it here. It is a candidate for speedy delete due to the current tag. Thanks. JungleCat   Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone with much more expertise in image tagging than I have is watching this page, please pitch in and assist this editor? (And let me know you're doing so so I won't worry.) I drew the short straw and am spending tonight doing the clerk work opening a new arbitration case. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted on his talk page, Brad. Cbrown1023 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I owe you a favor, C. Newyorkbrad 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad (and thanks to Cbrown1023) . Sorry about the request as didn't know you were tied up with the arbcom. I think I have the tagging for the photo correct now. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I'd be busy either. A couple of the regular clerks were busy yesterday and I'm one of the people who pitches in there sometimes when needed. Frankly though I wouldn't have known much about dealing with your image issue anyway; it's one of the things I need to study up on sometime. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
You posted that there was an arbitration on me on Barrett v. Rosenthal. But I believe the only two people now involved in the arbitration are Fyslee and Ilena,. Am I misreading that? Jance 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered on your talk. Regards, Newyorkbrad 08:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I allowed to add Ilena's User IPs which she has also used to the page here, or should I send them to you by email and let you decide if they should be included? There are several. My email is activated. -- Fyslee 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not post IP information on-wiki. If you have information that you believe is important to the case but should not be shared on-wiki, please e-mail it to an Arbitrator or to Thatcher131 (the head clerk) with the request that your e-mail be passed along to the rest of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Got a O' Hare UFO pix...
Link is on Wikipedia Paranormal's Talk page. Am planning on setting up a article. Only sources are the Chicago Tribune and UFO Casebook links. Running that by you ASAP. Martial Law 07:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this ... UFO casebook links don't sound too reliable, though the Tribune might be. What's the article going to say? Newyorkbrad 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll talk about the UFO incident, hopefully from all sides. Martial Law 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Got 11 links + and one could Google Search: Chicago Tribune/UFO. Martial Law 08:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Links
MSNBC: UFO @ O' Hare, UFO Casebook: Alleged Pix of O' Hare UFO,, Pilot Audio Report About UFO,Multiple Witnesses spot UFO

There are 7 others, but I'll use these 4 links as source material. Martial Law 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Got a bad link, replacing it now. Stand by. Martial Law 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the UFO Casebook pix, the UFO is in the upper right corner. Martial Law 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll make a good Admin, based on the evidence I've seen. Martial Law 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are these any good ? Martial Law 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in this area, they don't strike me as the best sources we ever had, but you can ask someone with more relevant experience. I'll try to look at them in more detail over the weekend. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RCA
Good catch on Brad Beattie, for some reason Taxman deleted it (instead of archiving it) yesterday, and the day before he did the same to FT2 - must be a mental hiccup ;). As for 1ne he is listed as WikiFanatic (8 Dec 2005), he has changed his name several times. NoSeptember  17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew you were the person to go to. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV Reports
No problem. However, I think a ban on the IPs would not prove to be very useful as (although I haven't checked) I believe most of them are open proxies being used by the(se) spam bot(s). I think a much more efficient way of going at it would be to simply ban the phrase supermortgagerate.info from wikipedia as I don't see any article that would contain it for a non-malicious purpose. Yonatanh 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are right although I'm not sure whether we have the technical capability to do that. I need to go offline for a bit, but perhaps you could post that suggestion to the discussion that's underway at WP:ANI. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Redstormman
Brad, the link to the sockpuppet case was actually on his user page. I'm pretty conservative with Mykungfu socks, but this one was extremely blatant (not least because St. John's University is one of his favorite targets). Let me know if you have any other questions. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have thought to check his userpage as well as talk. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Show some respect
Oi! Show some respect or you'll be next on the hit list! WP:LOC Sarah 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Proxy spamming on WP:ANI
Not like I know what I'm talking about but if it is obvious linkspam and part of a concerted effort I've been doing 24 hr blocks, though I'm considering bumping it to 48. You can always report them on WP:OP if you suspect it is an open proxy (I just found out about this project a couple of days ago) and usually if the same spam is coming from multiple IPs it is going to be open proxies or hijacked zombie machines doing it. I've been indef blocking anything I can verify as an Open Proxy and tagging it with, though since I'm fairly new at ID'ing these I've been collecting anything I couldn't ID conclusively at User:Isotope23/OP and if they continue to be used for spam I was planning on sending them to WP:OP (or if just for obvious vandalism and no other edits blocking them as vandals). Hope that helps.--Isotope23 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the URLs can be spam blacklisted at meta (there is a project that will block the URLs), though in the interim this has proven rather useful for identifying a whole load of open proxies that need a block.--Isotope23 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User name format
Would it be improper of me to suggest that participants in the RfA be listed in this format?: It would ease all of our attempts to conduct research. -- Fyslee 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A listing in that format appears on the main case page, here. Newyorkbrad 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo impersonator username block
You said: "I saw your block review at User talk:James Donal "Jimbo" Wales. It looks to me from his contributions, including his edit on the "real" Jimbo's page, that he's just blatantly trolling. Given that he has no contributions other than the silliness about his name, the bureaucrats wouldn't grant a name-change request from him even if he picked a valid name; they would just tell him to create a new account. I suggest just saying enough is enough and removing the request for unblock, but I didn't want to do anything without consulting you."


 * This sounds reasonable to me. In fact, that's why I refused to lift the autoblock (if one is hitting him) until he listed the specific username he was planning on using.  In almost every other case, I've immediately lifted a username block but here, I couldn't assume good faith.  Please feel free to go ahead and let the user know.  :)  --Yamla 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal
Thank you.Jance 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PETA News
Seen this on FOX News: www.petakillsanimals.com. There ia a criminal trial going on in one of the Carolinas. Matter is on the PETA discussion page. Martial Law 01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work. How you're doing ? Need assisstance from another Admin ? Martial Law 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had acted in error, I do humbly apologise. Martial Law 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Counting the chickens
And advance congratulations to you as well, good sir. May the Brad Cabal reign supreme! --Brad Beattie (talk)

Your RfA
I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
 * Administrators' reading list
 * Administrators' how-to guide
 * Administrators' Noticeboard
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the last user to support, allow me to be the first to congratulate you. Keep up the great job you've been doing. Tito xd (?!?) 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! Thanks to lots of people at greater length to follow in the morning. Newyorkbrad 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, it was a close one, you almost didn't make it ; ) <font face="comic sans ms" color="#006400">James086 Talk 05:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Have fun. Delete some things. -- Cyde Weys 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Mr Administrator!!! Sarah 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats :) Daniel.Bryant 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations are in order. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 09:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done, that was some support! The Rambling Man 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to add my congratulations; I watched your RfA but by the time I saw it you were already at over 150 supports so it seemed pointless to pile on. I'm glad you're an admin, you'll be a good one. --Guinnog 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many, many congratulations on your promotion, you deserved it! :) Thε Halo Θ  12:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've been an admin for a while now, and have continued to edit as an admin, but you have not used your tools yet. Perhaps you are a bit gun-shy. Well let me tell you, you have less than a 3% chance of causing permanent and irreparable harm to Wikipedia by using your tools. And if you do, we'll just desysop you and forget this whole episode happened. Ok? Sound fair? So, go forth and use them buttons. NoSeptember 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my Mom always told me I couldn't play with my presents until I'd finished the thank-you notes. :) Newyorkbrad 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job with the WP:200! The only downside will be if you decide to send out individual thank-yous... --Mr. Lefty (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats again! — Mets501 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pile on congrats! Enjoy your promotion - You have earned this. :-) JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"...my RfA, which closed favorably..." Favorably? I guess you could say that... You could also call it a landslide victory, and almost get away with saying it was unanimous if you ignored those two opposes per random numeric criteria. --tjstrf talk 17:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I noted on my userpage, the 225-to-2 margin was humbling, daunting, unbelieveable, remembering that I was a clueless newbie just six months ago. And I'm certainly not going to ignore the opposes: one of them made the valid comment that I should place more emphasis on mainspace contributions, which I intend to, and the other emphasized that he wasn't suggesting I had a mental illness, which is more than any of my supporters did. :) Seriously, thanks again for the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Brad, and I too look forward to your being an admin. You've done great work already. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats, I'm sure you'll do great. Trebor 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, I'm sure you'll make a fine admin. Cheers,-- Hús  ö  nd  18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations; that's exciting! Well done (not that anything else was expected!). -- Nataly a 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IT was a no-brainer :), seriously you are awesome. I know that you will use the tools wisely. <font color="#7b68ee">Arjun 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's been an avalanche. Congratulations ×Meegs 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and happy mopping! <font color="#4169E1">S <font color="#120a8f">.D. <font color="#120a8f">¿п?  § 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done Newyorkbrad! Highly impressive result.  I'm sure you'll do a brilliant job.  Cheers -- Samir धर्म  19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that you're an admin, I can consider pursuing an RfA; Roman Hruska would surely tell us that for every Cardozian editor like you whom we sysop, we also must confer the tools on a Carswellian (or, in more modern terms, an O'Connorian) editor, of which I am surely one. Many congratulations on your promotion; I am certain that the project will be better for your having more tools with which to do the awesome work you do. Joe 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I wish you had told me about your RfA. I'm not sure we've ever had any direct contact but I've certainly seen your edits show up in my watchlist on a regular basis. I'd definitely have voted in favour. That said, it doesn't look like you had any problem getting a consensus. Congratulations! --Yamla 18:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your kind words. Unfortunately, it's considered bad form ("spamming") to send out a mailing to the effect that one's RfA is about to commence, so one has to pop over to that page once in awhile and see who's running. At any given moment there will be excellent candidates, so it's time well-spent. Thanks for your support on this page, which is also appreciated, and best regards. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are more than welcome. I guess there may have been more extreme results, but 225/2/0 is the most dramatic that I can recall seeing. Well done.--Anthony.bradbury 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ashamed to admit that I snuck an occasional peak at the WP:100 and WP:200 pages during the week as the absurd excessiveness of the vote count started to creep up on me. Results in RfA's now aren't, of course, comparable to those in years past when there were many fewer Wikipedians. For what it's worth, there are at least two administrators who had a wider margin of consensus: Phaedriel and Can't sleep, clown will eat me. By the way, if anyone reading these words is in contact with Phaedriel, please tell her she is missed. Newyorkbrad 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your wonderful message and Congratulations! I suspect you've finally counted those chickens. :-P Cbrown1023 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done Brad! It's probably a good thing Sarah nominated you, instead of me – her nomination would have put mine to shame! Anyway, get using those buttons :) Best wishes. --Majorly (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats Brad! What a huge success your RfA was! All the best with the tools. ← <font color="DimGray">A NAS ''' [[User talk:Anas Salloum|<font size="-3"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? </fon

t color>]] 19:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Congrats and good luck, you'll do us proud. --Muchness 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember you from the ArbCom procedure discussion. Big congratulations on your successful RfA -- Wikipedia is better off with people like you as stewards of the project.  I welcome you to review and add to the dialogue ongoing at  Well I see you've already jumped in!  The news gets better and better today.  Congrats again, brad!  /Blaxthos 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congradulations and best wishes. It's not a job I'd want, but if you have the time, we need all of you that we can get! Best regards // <B>Fra</B> nkB 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey I just got your message! congrats & good luck!!!! (and by the way you have an awesome userpage) (ok I'm adding this unsigned thing because the keyboard i'm using right now doesn't have tildes, and whenever i click that john hancock thing it just drags the picture - hmm.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)


 * Congratulations! the wub "?!"  20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats on your successful RfA!--Isotope23 21:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Super congratulations, I know you will do fantastic things with the tools. Viridae Talk 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new Record! No, not the RfA vote record, which you yourself point out above that you missed. Your new record is:

Congrats! Job well done ;). NoSeptember  21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no. "Spam" would be everyone getting the same boilerplate note. These were individually tailored notes. (Well, some of them, anyway.) Geez, now I have to feel guilty about saying thank you.... Newyorkbrad 21:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, "record number of thank you notes sent". Quite a job in any case ;). NoSeptember  21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant to link in the notes to the longer note on my userpage, as well, but I'm not going back and doing it all again. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think you'd take the time to thank everyone! Congratulations, you've definitely earned your mop. I've run into your contributions before, and look forward to doing so again in the future :) Fvasconcellos 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Thanks for the semi-personalized message ;-). If you need any help with the new tools, feel free to ask. Happy admining, Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Go gettem :) <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Puppy, for your words of wisdom. As a new admin I am most welcome to advice from my canine friends, unless with chihuahuas one must always watch out for a possible BITE violation. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats as well, Newyorkbrad. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My belated congratulations to you! Yes, I am taking time off studying for my exams (which only last three days and aren't worth much), but notes of congratulations transcend problematic schoolwork that can be temporarily cast aside. --210<font color="#0000C0" face="Comic Sans MS">physicq  (<font color="#0000C0">c ) 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)



No problems mate, swing that mop like your were being paid for it! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 1. 2 . Editor Review 08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats mate. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">Szvest  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up ®  10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to second the disappointment of the thread starter above. After returning from being "away" from Wikipedia for a bit, I find that you've had an RfA, and I was unable to support : (

Of course, it's a great consolation that your RfA was successful : )

Wishing you all the best - jc37 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A belated congratulations on your passing of your RFA! Good luck with your tools. I've joined in the crowd too late, but well better late than never. ;) Terence Ong 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

RFAR
Brad, can you fix this and get Nik to supply the missing info? I've got to take off for a while. Thatcher131 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure - I'm running out to brunch myself but will address this in an hour or two. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it after all. (After I dropped my wife off at the salon, I found a library with a terminal, rather than sit in the waiting area reading old magazines.)  It wouldn't hurt to keep an eye on the case, though, to see if Nik needs any more help. Thatcher131 15:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, and I rushed back and everything! :) I'll be glad to keep an eye on it. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well my wife's done in 10 minutes so I have to go now anyway (Bath and Body Works and The Christmas Tree Shop for valentines' day home decor--delightful) Thatcher131 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what the most exotic locations are that Wikipedia has been edited from? I guess you'd have to have some timestamped photographic evidence, including a view of the screen being used to make the edit, but I wonder if Mount Everest, and the North Pole and the South Pole are beyond the bounds of possibility? ;-) Carcharoth 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my case, we have home, work, and a couple of hotel business centers. I don't suppose any of those would qualify.... Newyorkbrad 16:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in randomly, but when I was in the press box at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on Grand Final day, I had a sudden impulse to update an article :) That's about my only random editing experience :) Daniel.Bryant 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD at Acting Vice President article
Simply expand this section. There's really no need to merge 2 articles. GoodDay 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal to me either way. My goal is to prompt User:Ericl to realize he's wrong and do the merge himself, so I'm waiting for him to comment on the AfD if he sees it. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. GoodDay 23:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've let Ericl know about the Afd. GoodDay 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks; I was going to. I had asked him one if he had any sources for the "Acting Vice President" theory, but he never responded; let's see if this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

GunnerMike89
Just between you and me (!), I think he's just a troll with too much time on his hands. Nuke the kid from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What...
What do you think of the FBI and the US Dept. of Homeland Security calling ELF,ALF, Earth First Single Issue Terrorists/Domestic Terrorists ? FBI website is www.fbi.gov, then you hit SEARCH, and get that kind of info. Same for the Department of Homeland Security. Some believe that these are'nt terrorists, while the US, other govt.s call these people terrorists. Be warned, due to the 9-11 attacks and hysteria, programming exists that can trace you. Martial Law 04:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Google search: FBI and Single Issue Terrorists and/or Domestic Terrorists, the already named terrorist groups. Martial Law 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The US and some other governments call each other terrorists. Of all types of organizations, governments have the least authority to label others terrorists. Αναρχία 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No way!
I can't believe I missed out on your RfA! Not that it would have changed the outcome much, but I think my support would have sounded something like 'Absolutely awe-inspiring user, just the sort I aspire to be' :) Take care, and enjoy the mop. Cheers, riana_dzasta 14:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind note. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you advised us to let it drop
I would ask you to have a word with Giano regarding this. --Ideogram 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that. I was a bit surprised (as was Lar himself) that Giano would choose Lar as someone to look at the situation, since they have had some disagreements in the past, but I see Lar says he's willing to look at the matter. Frankly, I think it's more productive for Giano to have taken his frustration to a third party than deal with it himself, in this instance. Let's wait to see if Lar has any comments to contribute that might be helpful.
 * Stepping back just a bit, I am frustrated with this entire series of threads and the amount of time being spent on them. First principles: this is an encyclopedia, and the main series of pages are the article pages. Backing up the mainspace pages are article talk pages where we discuss and comment on the content of the articles. In a tertiary position are Wikipedia space support pages like RfA and ANI and the arbitration pages and essays. These are critically important&mdash;indeed, I have spent a great deal of time on them myself&mdash;but at the end of the day they are ancillary, designed to deal with the administration of the project and protect the encyclopedia from threats and resolve issues, but not the core of the project itself. Then, in turn, there are pages like RfAR talk which are there to support pages that themselves are ancillary. These are also important, indeed as soon as I hit send I will be posting about a meta issue on RfAr talk, but by this point we are quite a distance away from where most article contributors would want to be spending much time.
 * The issue currently in dispute is even a step further removed from that. The question before the house now is who's been naughty and who's been nice on pages that are three or four levels removed from actual contributions. My suggestion was, and is, that people step away from that completely sterile discussion and find more useful ways to contribute.
 * By the way, I had not intended to step into the thread in which I contributed the other day and to which you are referring here, until you indicated that you were looking for input from voices other than the ones you had heard so far. Newyorkbrad 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do value your input.


 * You might recall I became involved in the Giano RFAr when I thought I could provide a new perspective on the matter. That turned out badly as my questions were taken to be hostile and I was promptly labelled a "troll" and had my comments reverted.


 * There are therefore two aspects in the current affair I am concerned about. On the personal level, I wish to establish that the term "troll" is being abused and that we should not revert comments from people just because we dislike them.  For Wikipedia as a whole, I have observed recurring problems linked to Giano, Ghirlandajo, Irpen, and, when they defend Giano, Bishonen and Geogre.  It seems to me there is a fundamental conflict here that is not going away.  At this point I can not pretend to be neutral, indeed I feel that Giano has wronged my friend Kylu and possibly driven her off of Wikipedia.


 * I will be the first to admit that my patience is short. But I have concluded that we cannot avoid the wikidrama that Giano et. al. generate by simply "being the better person".  These people need to learn their methods are not effective or they need to leave.


 * I also realize that many of their concerns are legitimate. It was this belief that motivated me to ask my questions in the first place (instead of simply ignoring the whole affair).  But the conversation has decayed to the point where they simply don't trust anyone who doesn't agree with them (you are either with us or against us).  There is no way to have a productive conversation.


 * To sum up: I think they may have legitimate points but they are unable to present them in a productive manner.  As long as they say stupid and arrogant things I will call them on it.  I am not claiming my approach is particularly productive, but I do not see any alternative.  In particular, avoiding the subject so that we can concentrate on "real work" is going to prolong the wikidrama, as Giano et. al. are not going to let it drop.


 * I would be happy to hear your further thoughts on the matter. --Ideogram 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification if you could please
Is it then appropriate for a user involved with an arbcom case to alter, change or otherwise remove wording that has been made in the request for comments section? Case in point, a user making a comment on my behalf was altered by the one who disagrees with it. Thereby changing it simply because he/she doesn't like how it was worded. I find that simply wrong. If a person wants to make a statement, then it should be up to the arbitrators to alter, change or otherwise remove it, rather than the combatant who is involved in the case. Simply wishing some clarity, and I'll thank you in advance for your assistance in helping me see what is and is not appropriateMystar 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am not an official ArbCom clerk, although I help out with the clerical tasks from time to time. Having said that, I think the rule on this is clear. No party to a case, or anyone else other than an arbitrator or official clerk, should edit anything submitted in an arbitration case by another user with the possible exception of obvious typos or emergency situations such as revelation of private contact information. If this has occurred in your case, you should revert the change and mention the problem in your evidence, with diffs. Newyorkbrad 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position and greatly appreciate your thoughts and help on this matter. I have done as you suggested and added my confusion as to why the user did that, as well as also asking for clarification of that action on the page as well. Again thanx and hope you week gets off to a great start! Mystar 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you neutral?
Your attempt to be neutral apparently primarily consists of telling me to drop it. The fact that Irpen continues to make slanderous accusations against me is apparently not important to you. --Ideogram 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My position on the arbitration page is that the sideshow should be dropped. Focus on the substance of the case. Irpen, though I might not agree with 100% of his choice of language, has presented a fair amount of very substantive evidence concerning the IRC channel. That's what the case is about, not whether the two of you like each other. Newyorkbrad 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All you have to do to prove your neutrality is tell Irpen, publicly, to drop his argument that I am "trolling". In fact all your comments are suspiciously directed at me.  --Ideogram 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)