User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2015/Jul
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Newyorkbrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
you were mentioned
At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2
The first implicit mention was by SilkTork [1] where he apparently makes statements concerning internal deliberations by ArbCom. The second (explicit) was by Rich Farmbrough at [2].
[3] used the term "deceitful" [4], [5] iterate the "arbitrator knowledge" claim at length which I find a tad distasteful in an RfA. To my knowledge and belief, neither of these persons is covered by the current AE ArbCom case "injunction." [6] Collect (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for this, Brad. I went to do it, but you already had. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
my gift basket
as long as Ms White is bringing up two year old conversations, let me remind you of some other 'casual kibitzing' from that 'informal jokey' forum: <clipped, due to tripping the edit filter>
i doubt Ms White is honestly bothered by my ill-advised remarks to her on IRC, made two years ago, but if so, she has my warmest apologies, and she is welcome to compare my remarks to remarks made by her friend, seen above, and on his Encyclopedia Dramatica article.
if you oversight this, you may as well sweep this (scroll way down) under the rug too. i have left the Wikipedians alone lately, aside from IRC log dumping and updating ED articles on them, and I would like to request that you afford me the same courtesy kthx. i am composing my departure note to a WPO moderator right now, so that Ms White will not feel threatened by my typed words. 173.85.198.203 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Really poor revert. [7] Never mind the close paraphrasing issues, why the hurry to add an unsourced chunk of fluff to an article which has survived without it for years? --NeilN talk to me 23:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Several editors have suggested that the IP editor appears to be Mr. Randi himself, or perhaps someone working closely with him. Given that there appears to be no dispute as to the accuracy of the edits, I perceive little downside in leaving them in place for a short time while the editor is being asked to check in on his talkpage. In these circumstances, and consistent with the views of others expressed at ANI, the upside of treating a BLP editor with courtesy in the event that it turns out to be the article subject, outweighs the downside of allowing the edits to remain for a day or two if it turns out it is not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so it'd be okay for a mayor of a city to add the unsourced details of the twenty-odd awards he's been given to his biography? --NeilN talk to me 23:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would be, among other things, politically unwise for him or her to do, given the sometime practical consequences of politicians' being reported as editing their own articles. But if it happened, it would make sense, not to instantly revert every word of what was added, but to assess the additions on their merits, including but not limited to issues of verifiability and undue weight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- IPOF, almost all of the "fluff" was verifiable quite readily - I find the instant removal of material which is not only citable but trivially citable to be problematic, as I find little of it (other than some fluff) to be remotely in a contentious category. Importance of any material to the BLP is, of course, debatable, but reverting what are primarily "statements of fact" as a copyvio is pushing the limits. Were this opinion material, the position is reversed. Again - IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that being factual doesn't make something exempt from our copyright policy. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Direct statements of fact are not subject to copyright, I would note.[8] "John Doe's phone number is 555-1212" is the type of "statement of fact" not covered by any claim of copyright, as noted in famed SCOTUS decisions thereon.
- I'm pretty sure that being factual doesn't make something exempt from our copyright policy. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- There seems to be a double standard here. I do not think a such a list would be allowed to stand if it was added to a biography of a subject holding views unpopular with the mainstream-focused/science-first Wikipedia community. BLP courtesy only for some BLPs? --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would hold precisely the same position on any BLP, as the principle is not predicated on who the person is. Collect (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I saw this on ANI after the crowd dispersed. One problem, NYBrad, is that you let it stay in its raw form, replete with references to "Mr. Randi" that need to go. Secondly, it is commonplace for subjects of articles to add stuff in exactly this manner, and no, the practice that I've seen observed is to take it out. However, the other side was wrong by edit-warring over it, rather than starting an RfC or going through dispute resolution. Such reverts are absolutely not protected by BLP, are not exempt from 3RR, and the edit warriors should have been dealt with appropriately. Assuming this IP is Randi, he was right to do these edits only if
it washe was removing negative unsourced material, not because he feels the article doesn't make him look good enough. So both sides of this dispute are wrong as far as I'm concerned. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I saw this on ANI after the crowd dispersed. One problem, NYBrad, is that you let it stay in its raw form, replete with references to "Mr. Randi" that need to go. Secondly, it is commonplace for subjects of articles to add stuff in exactly this manner, and no, the practice that I've seen observed is to take it out. However, the other side was wrong by edit-warring over it, rather than starting an RfC or going through dispute resolution. Such reverts are absolutely not protected by BLP, are not exempt from 3RR, and the edit warriors should have been dealt with appropriately. Assuming this IP is Randi, he was right to do these edits only if
- I would hold precisely the same position on any BLP, as the principle is not predicated on who the person is. Collect (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- IPOF, almost all of the "fluff" was verifiable quite readily - I find the instant removal of material which is not only citable but trivially citable to be problematic, as I find little of it (other than some fluff) to be remotely in a contentious category. Importance of any material to the BLP is, of course, debatable, but reverting what are primarily "statements of fact" as a copyvio is pushing the limits. Were this opinion material, the position is reversed. Again - IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That would be, among other things, politically unwise for him or her to do, given the sometime practical consequences of politicians' being reported as editing their own articles. But if it happened, it would make sense, not to instantly revert every word of what was added, but to assess the additions on their merits, including but not limited to issues of verifiability and undue weight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so it'd be okay for a mayor of a city to add the unsourced details of the twenty-odd awards he's been given to his biography? --NeilN talk to me 23:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
My position was simply that the material shouldn't be reflexively reverted wholesale. I wasn't expecting the page-protection, though I'm not criticizing it. Hopefully the page will emerge in a state that everyone is comfortable with.
The point that I was reflexively more favorably disposed to edits potentially by this particular BLP subject, as opposed to others who might hypothetically do something similar, calls for some introspection on my part. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note my fix above. I think that yes, one definitely wants to react as you did when the person is taking out unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. Adding, on the other hand, is another ball of wax, very common, dealt with differently. What made the behavior bad here was the edit warring based on misunderstanding of BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I believe the editors who maintain the addition was not contentious are doing so out of the belief that Randi added it. Too many times I've seen seemingly uncontentious material be revealed as gross exaggerations or misrepresentations. --NeilN talk to me 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in the reverting of that material, but certainly awards are not "contentious" (controversial), and thus exempt from 3RR. Yes, if I were editing that page I'd have removed it, but as unsourced, not for BLP reasons. It just wasn't necessary to drag BLP into this, as it then becomes (as it was in this case) an excuse for edit-warring. Personally my view is that if the subject added the promotional material it is not a reason to add, but quite the opposite, as a violation of the bright-line rule and terms of service. That last point is something that you admins need to take into consideration when you reinsert this kind of material and, as in this case, protect the page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- And there's where we disagree. Awards can certainly be contentious material - you seem to be ignoring the "positive material" part of the policy. --NeilN talk to me 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that any of the material that was being edit-warred over was contentious? I see a lot of unsourced puffery, so call it what you will. But I do know that if I edit-warred over it I'd expect to get a block. I hope you're not suggesting that exceeding 3RR for adding or removing any of that stuff was justified. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not blocking over good faith removal unsourced BLP material which has copyright issues. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Surprised to hear you say that, particularly given the less than desirable outcome of that edit warring. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not blocking over good faith removal unsourced BLP material which has copyright issues. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in the reverting of that material, but certainly awards are not "contentious" (controversial), and thus exempt from 3RR. Yes, if I were editing that page I'd have removed it, but as unsourced, not for BLP reasons. It just wasn't necessary to drag BLP into this, as it then becomes (as it was in this case) an excuse for edit-warring. Personally my view is that if the subject added the promotional material it is not a reason to add, but quite the opposite, as a violation of the bright-line rule and terms of service. That last point is something that you admins need to take into consideration when you reinsert this kind of material and, as in this case, protect the page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I believe the editors who maintain the addition was not contentious are doing so out of the belief that Randi added it. Too many times I've seen seemingly uncontentious material be revealed as gross exaggerations or misrepresentations. --NeilN talk to me 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic
| Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
ad hominems in edit summaries
User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Headline_is_clear_-_I_followed_it_exactly shows my request for a simple apology for what I regard specifically as personal attacks in edit summaries ... "Wikipedia editors have no business pretending to be headline writers for newspapers they're not employed by" and "nor should they introduce spelling errors into people's names."
I used the exact wording and spelling found on The Telegram website.
I find the personal animus shown in the edit summaries, with the absolute refusal to grant so much as a simple apology, to be uncivil. And the accusation that using the exact original cite is something I should not do ("please show more care in regard to BLPs" was the response given) seems the perverse opposite of an apology - and seems to be yet another direct personal attack AFAICT). Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why request an apology? Apologies are meaningful only if freely given. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Likely true :( As a youth I was told to indicate that you were upset at claims made which were less than accurate about oneself, but it is also true that there are some on Wikipedia who are more interested in attacking others than in civility (sigh). Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. So if you are making less-than-accurate claims about Nomoskedasticity, and he's indicating that he is upset, then you should sympathize. But the, unintentional irony is a Wikipedian specialty. MastCell Talk 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- And where I accurately used a source - including its misspelling of a name - then your post is absolutely superfluous here. All I asked for was an apology for what appeared to be personal attacks in edit summaries -- but I guess that eluded your notice. ( Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again: don't ask for an apology. That just makes you look bad. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh - since I was told in the past that politely asking for an apology was the proper course of action by others, I wot not what to think ... I take it WP:CIVIL is no longer one of the "Five Pillars" as a policy then? Reduced to being "bosh and twaddle"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again: don't ask for an apology. That just makes you look bad. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- And where I accurately used a source - including its misspelling of a name - then your post is absolutely superfluous here. All I asked for was an apology for what appeared to be personal attacks in edit summaries -- but I guess that eluded your notice. ( Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. So if you are making less-than-accurate claims about Nomoskedasticity, and he's indicating that he is upset, then you should sympathize. But the, unintentional irony is a Wikipedian specialty. MastCell Talk 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Likely true :( As a youth I was told to indicate that you were upset at claims made which were less than accurate about oneself, but it is also true that there are some on Wikipedia who are more interested in attacking others than in civility (sigh). Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Commented on Nomoskedacity's talkpage (which just proves that on my BlackBerry, I don't always know where I am). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was raised to tell a person if I felt slighted, but never to feel I was owed an apology. Squinting at the 'slights,' they don't seem too bad even out of context. Of course, I'm not always temperate in my edit summaries, so YMMV.→StaniStani 23:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC) (NYB page stalker)