User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Mar
 | 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. |
Saturday, March 5: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
| Saturday March 5, 10am-5pm: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA | |
|---|---|
   You are invited to join us for the MoMA Art+Feminism edit-a-thon on Saturday, to support the expansion of Wikipedia's coverage of women in the arts. We encourage both people new to Wikipedia, and people who have experience editing online, or have joined us for past edit-a-thon events. This is by far our biggest event of the year (over 200 participants in the last edition), and every extra hand counts, so please join and volunteer to help us engage new communities!
And bring your interested friends and colleagues! For those outside of the city, or unable to join on Saturday, check out Art+Feminism regional and global events as well. --Pharos (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
March events and meetups in DC
Greetings from Wikimedia DC!
Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:
- On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
- On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
- On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
March 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
| Wednesday March 16, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
   You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent (Art+Feminism!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also vote on nominations for the global Wikimedia Foundation board. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One likely talk this month will be on the Wikidata project.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Last attempt at discussion before DRV
I'm about to bring up your deletion of my userboxes before deletion review. Before I do that, I thought I'd take the opportunity to make another attempt at discussing the matter with you (and maybe @Iridescent:). Last time, we didn't really discuss it. You told me your view of the policy, and didn't reply to my questions or responses. I suppose it's possible that you're busy (in which case DRV seems logical), but if you're able to discuss the matter and care to, I'd appreciate it. Also, we are instructed to discuss the matter, according to ancient Wikipedia tribal custom. Dingsuntil (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- This appears to continue from this Feb 2016 archive. The response given last time was fine, in my opinion, and pushing your luck by making more fuss could lead to unexpected consequences because the focus of editors is supposed to be building the encyclopedia. Did you see the earlier response suggesting that your account might have been indefinitely blocked? And you still want to waste people's time with the issue? Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Yes, it does continue from that. And yes, I did see the response you mention. While I believed I might be blocked for recreating the page, I didn't believe I'd be blocked for appealing the deletion (if I might be, what's WP:DRV for?). Moreover, I don't think you ought to vaguely allude to "unexpected consequences" which might arise from my attempts to avail myself of the deletion review process. If there's a specific rule or custom you can point to, you should. Otherwise, while I assume you're looking out for me, it sounds like a threat, and sounding like you're threatening somebody tends to reduce the overall level of civility. Finally, I object to the suggestion that I'm wasting people's time and preventing them from building an encyclopedia. Building an encyclopedia involves more than just writing article text. I assume NYB would agree, since it was for that reason that he joined ArbCom. And I didn't ask NYB to delete my userboxes in what I consider to be an error of judgment. He decided to take on the responsibility of being an administrator, and to use his administrative powers to fix perceived problems. If doing so, and dealing with the fallout which results from doing so in a heavy-handed manner is a waste of time, he's wasting his own time. If he just wants to write article copy, he can can turn in his admin access. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should go right to DRV and explain why a userbox for a non-existent WikiProject Pedophile Activism and one concerning Jimmy Wales' sex life are essential to the project and how they help build the encyclopedia. I'd be interested in reading that explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 10:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Liz: I'm starting to think civility is one of those pillars more honored in the breach than the observance. Dingsuntil (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)There was no call to snark at you. Let's all stay on point. Dingsuntil (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)- @Liz, it did exist once, and the discussion about how to deal with it was one of the formative events in Wikipedia's history. @Dingsuntil, since you're determined not to let this lie, the policy under which you've narrowly avoided being blocked is
Editors who ... identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely
(a policy which, all your "I'm unaware of any policy..." posturing notwithstanding, you're certainly aware of given that you've previously linked to it), and the only reason you're not hardblocked is that NYB assumed you were trolling rather than sincere when you claimed to be a NAMBLA member; good luck with trying that line of defense at DRV. As I told you earlier, you're entirely within your rights to take it to DRV, but bringing this incident to more attention is just going to bring it to the attention of more trigger-happy admins any of whom would be quite within their rights to block you. ‑ Iridescent 10:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)- Yes, I saw the wheel war page. Clearly, I'm disagreeing with your interpretation, so there's no call to accuse me of dishonesty ("posturing"). I did not identify as a pedophile, nor was I trolling (one trolls when one attempts to make others believe one is sincere in one's extreme views, in order to make them overreact and thereby produce lulz), both of which I understand are unacceptable. I made a joke, which is neither explicitly prohibited nor is it, in my opinion, likely to bring the project into disrepute (especially compared to other things that have gone on in this dispute). You could of course attempt to persuade me that it might bring the project into disrepute. However, I want to advise you for the next time this kind of situation comes up that you've basically done everything in your power short of actually blocking me to move me out of the emotional place where I'm likely to be persuaded, so next time start out by being nicer (for that matter, stay nicer). Dingsuntil (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should go right to DRV and explain why a userbox for a non-existent WikiProject Pedophile Activism and one concerning Jimmy Wales' sex life are essential to the project and how they help build the encyclopedia. I'd be interested in reading that explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 10:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Yes, it does continue from that. And yes, I did see the response you mention. While I believed I might be blocked for recreating the page, I didn't believe I'd be blocked for appealing the deletion (if I might be, what's WP:DRV for?). Moreover, I don't think you ought to vaguely allude to "unexpected consequences" which might arise from my attempts to avail myself of the deletion review process. If there's a specific rule or custom you can point to, you should. Otherwise, while I assume you're looking out for me, it sounds like a threat, and sounding like you're threatening somebody tends to reduce the overall level of civility. Finally, I object to the suggestion that I'm wasting people's time and preventing them from building an encyclopedia. Building an encyclopedia involves more than just writing article text. I assume NYB would agree, since it was for that reason that he joined ArbCom. And I didn't ask NYB to delete my userboxes in what I consider to be an error of judgment. He decided to take on the responsibility of being an administrator, and to use his administrative powers to fix perceived problems. If doing so, and dealing with the fallout which results from doing so in a heavy-handed manner is a waste of time, he's wasting his own time. If he just wants to write article copy, he can can turn in his admin access. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've said before, the deletion of these userboxes was a very obvious call; the closer question was whether to block for them. I decided not to do that because I evaluated Dingsuntil as a good-faith editor with some legitimate contributions who displays a playful streak marked by extremely ill-judged attempts at humor, rather than an actual threat to the project or its editors. The tone-deafness he has displayed in this and the preceding discussions, however, raises the question whether he has now skipped past playing and into outright trolling. If I were to block Dingsuntil now, he would likely portray the sequence of events as "the big bad admin blocked me for challenging his decision." Anyone who knows me would know better, but even so, I will step out of this now and let events take their course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since you're taking yourself out of this, I'll only clarify that I'm not trolling, I'm totally sincere. I like my userboxes and want to keep them if possible. Dingsuntil (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Howdy NYB. I've opened up a second Rfc at that article's talkpage. It presents the same 3 options as the first Rfc, but (IMHO) in a neutral way. Would you check both Rfc over there? Either one or both should be closed. I apologize in advance, if my opening of a second Rfc was an error. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
PS: It might be a good idea, if you were to monitor that article's talkpage aswell :) GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The "like" issue
Hi NYB and thank you for your well thought out recent support. I really appreciate it. I just wanted to clarify the "like" issue that was brought up in the discussion. I don't personally have a strong opinion of whether the word should be capitalized or not in this context, but since we have recent articles such as "Moves like Jagger", "Love You like a Love Song" and "Love Me like You Do", I decided to lowercase it for consistency. I'm all for consensus as well, of course, and since that edit was made, there has been a huge discussion on the subject here. I'm not sure if it's worth the time to read through, but just wanted to point this out. Thanks for your time. Widr (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will take a look at it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
NLT
It's amazing how hardheaded, thickheaded, and even pigheaded certain admins are about this. Some people just love the position of community scold and enforcer. EEng 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think I'd put it in those words, but I appreciate your support on the substance of the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of course you wouldn't put it in those words. That's my job. EEng 21:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was it Juvenal who asked, "Who shall scold the scolders?" Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good one. Reminds me of one of my favorites, the Cato bit at WP:Autobiography#Creating_an_article_about_yourself. Have you visited the museums lately? EEng 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- In the case at hand, are those admins Juvenile? (Quis custodiet ...) Collect (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- You mean as in Who kids the kidders? EEng 22:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was it Juvenal who asked, "Who shall scold the scolders?" Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of course you wouldn't put it in those words. That's my job. EEng 21:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's no about loving the position, it's a sincere if mistaken belief they're "protecting" the encyclopedia. I prescribe Wikipedia:Wikidryl. NE Ent 23:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Consciously I'm sure they tell themselves that. But people of judgment who know better find other ways of helping and protecting, while those who (at some level) enjoy pushing people around accumulate in such positions, and neither question their own actions nor welcome such questioning from others. EEng 00:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)