| Revision as of 13:51, 26 March 2013 editLecen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,620 edits →Please see this: Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:54, 26 March 2013 edit undoLecen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,620 edits →Please see this: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| ]. Thank you very much. --] (]) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC) | ]. Thank you very much. --] (]) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :I have read your post, which frankly is more direct than the original request for arbitration was. I will take another look at this, but I will have limited time on-wiki for the next couple of days (family plans over Passover), so it will be after that. Regards, ] (]) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | :I have read your post, which frankly is more direct than the original request for arbitration was. I will take another look at this, but I will have limited time on-wiki for the next couple of days (family plans over Passover), so it will be after that. Regards, ] (]) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I appreciate that. As the others suggested, today I seeked again mediation although I believe that the problem is |
::I appreciate that. As the others suggested, today I seeked again mediation although I believe that the problem is far beyond merely content dispute. This and this is what happened. They (Cambalachero and MarshalN20) have obviously no interest on resolving anything. --] (]) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:54, 26 March 2013
| This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Thomas E. Dewey
Somewhat to my surprise, it does appear you are correct about the term of office dating for New York state, ergo I have undone my edit to the article in question (as well as edited a previous reference to "1955" being the date that he left office, added by someone else in another section of the article). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Tea party arbitration extension
I have not participated in that discussion, though I commented on the case request, and have been interested in presenting evidence to balance out the current tenor of discussion. Would it be possible to extend the evidence to the end of the week? Even the actual parties of the case started out late when it came to providing evidence so extending it a few days would be beneficial all around I think.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29
In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Misplaced Pages entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Heads up!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Mike V • Talk 04:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Request for your view
Hello, Newyorkbrad. I've never corresponded with you previously, but I did read your guest posts on The Volokh Conspiracy several years ago and believe you would be a fair and impartial voice on a question of Misplaced Pages policy, specifically, Civility policy.
Would you be willing to take a look at the discussion I've started at Misplaced Pages talk:Civility and consider leaving your opinion, not as a member of whatever committee or special-tools user groups you are a part of, but merely as a reasoned Misplaced Pages editor?
I am of the opinion that a reasonable discussion of a content dispute is not really possible if one editor is allowed to hurl the uncivil and over-the-top accusation of "reprehensible" behavior on the other, and specifically, allowed to do so before any the content dispute discussion has been joined and the accused has had a chance, in the proper forum, to defend her/himself. It is of course unavoidable that editors will have different opinions and take different positions on matters of how best to improve the encyclopedia. But my sense is that reasonable and civil discussion will be most likely to yield a fair and impartial discussion/review of the content dispute, and that would best be done without coloring the atmosphere with uncivil accusations.
I am only asking for your view here on the Civility policy questions. I intend to take up the content dispute later, after the civility question is answered. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at this when I can. (I'll have limited online time and access for the next couple of days because of family plans over Passover.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see this
Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have read your post, which frankly is more direct than the original request for arbitration was. I will take another look at this, but I will have limited time on-wiki for the next couple of days (family plans over Passover), so it will be after that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. As the others suggested, today I seeked again mediation although I believe that the problem is far beyond merely content dispute. This and this is what happened. They (Cambalachero and MarshalN20) have obviously no interest on resolving anything. --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)