| Revision as of 01:50, 23 July 2014 editDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Ordinance 7.3: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:38, 23 July 2014 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits →Ordinance 7.3: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| It did lead me to an interesting and thought provoking read that I'm still digesting (and already grateful for having read), but not sure what contribution I made to warrant a thanks. . ] | ] | ] 01:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | It did lead me to an interesting and thought provoking read that I'm still digesting (and already grateful for having read), but not sure what contribution I made to warrant a thanks. . ] | ] | ] 01:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I see that I inadvertently typed your name instead of someone else's who had pointed out the typo. I have no explanatio except for premature senility. I am not sure whether an apology on my part is needed for an unwarranted thanking, so we'll deem the thank-you converted to a global thanks for all your efforts on the project instead. Regards, ] (]) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:38, 23 July 2014
| 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. |
Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride
| Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Misplaced Pages editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:
| |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Wikibreak wikireading
Two books I've ordered and will be reading soon:
- Dariusz Jemielniak (User:Pundit), Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Misplaced Pages. Pundit's related Slate article, "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Misplaced Pages", is here and is recommended reading.
- Charles Seife, Virtual Unreality: Just Because the Internet Told You, How Do You Know It’s True? The New York Times review, not very flattering to Misplaced Pages, is here.
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hey NYB, would you be interested in writing a book review of Jemielniak's book for the Signpost when you're back to editing? Ed 01:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps I'll cover both books if that's all right. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews in the Signpost or wikinews would be most welcome. And I could try to gather material for articles if you wanted. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would be even better! I didn't want to ask for too much, that's all. Ed 02:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that Pundit's Slate article makes too much of the gigantic number of policies, guidelines and essays. As a very active Teahouse host, my guess is that I rarely mention more than 20 or 30 of these in my interactions with befuddled new editors. Usually, linking to just one or two solves the problem. I think most productive, experienced editors are pretty familiar with our core content policies, which are not that difficult for a person of average intelligence to understand. If a major effort was made to weed out obscure or obsolete essays that no one reads and no one cites, what would be gained? And I rarely hear an editor saying, "Gee, I wish I could write a new policy, but it looks like they have all been written. What a bummer!" Cullen Let's discuss it 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, New York Times Book Review v. New York Brad Book Review. I know which one I would rather read. Ah, but what about the look and feel, ...here is NYT, narrow margins, individual icons for the reviewers, a small color illustration. Compare with LRB, double margins, a few icons rather than proper images. Oh well, the SP is wiki markup after all, not marketing tricks, and the readers will be mostly interested in content. —Neotarf (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the main gain in weeding out obsolete articles would be increasing clarity and simplicity of rules. Pundit|utter 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mind guidelines so much, but I do have a problem with the sheer profusion of essays, many of which are written in such a manner to come across as guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've felt for a while that part of the problem with those is that somewhere down the line it became acceptable to give an uppercase WP:SHORTCUT to everything, rather than only actual rules. Those shouty links have a sheen of frequently-undeserved authority. — Scott • talk 07:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mind guidelines so much, but I do have a problem with the sheer profusion of essays, many of which are written in such a manner to come across as guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the main gain in weeding out obsolete articles would be increasing clarity and simplicity of rules. Pundit|utter 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, New York Times Book Review v. New York Brad Book Review. I know which one I would rather read. Ah, but what about the look and feel, ...here is NYT, narrow margins, individual icons for the reviewers, a small color illustration. Compare with LRB, double margins, a few icons rather than proper images. Oh well, the SP is wiki markup after all, not marketing tricks, and the readers will be mostly interested in content. —Neotarf (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that Pundit's Slate article makes too much of the gigantic number of policies, guidelines and essays. As a very active Teahouse host, my guess is that I rarely mention more than 20 or 30 of these in my interactions with befuddled new editors. Usually, linking to just one or two solves the problem. I think most productive, experienced editors are pretty familiar with our core content policies, which are not that difficult for a person of average intelligence to understand. If a major effort was made to weed out obscure or obsolete essays that no one reads and no one cites, what would be gained? And I rarely hear an editor saying, "Gee, I wish I could write a new policy, but it looks like they have all been written. What a bummer!" Cullen Let's discuss it 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would be even better! I didn't want to ask for too much, that's all. Ed 02:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews in the Signpost or wikinews would be most welcome. And I could try to gather material for articles if you wanted. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps I'll cover both books if that's all right. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hey NYB, would you be interested in writing a book review of Jemielniak's book for the Signpost when you're back to editing? Ed 01:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Mail call
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.
Ronnotel (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please help me
Please help me out from user Redtigerxyz's edit war.Each and every single edits of mine interrupted by him.long before he did the same. again he started.Really this is painful for me.He might be join with some other editor then my move is so pitty.before he did the same so said.if you see the history of mine and him then you come to know.please help me in this.thank youEshwar.om 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Your WP:ARCA comment
I've read your response to my request for clarification. I understand why you may believe that the situation is so clear as to render a request for clarification superfluous, but I've perceived the dismissive, patronizing tone of your reply as insulting, and as not in keeping with your reputation for professionalism. I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider your attitude particularly to fellow administrators who want to help you with your job. Regards, Sandstein 09:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was trying for once to avoid the sort of long, discursive commentary for which I've become infamous. Perhaps I overshot the mark in this case, which wasn't the intention. I do think that the consensus on AE was sufficient that a clarification was required, but in any event, the clarification you were seeking has now been provided. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ordinance 7.3
It did lead me to an interesting and thought provoking read that I'm still digesting (and already grateful for having read), but not sure what contribution I made to warrant a thanks. . Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- I see that I inadvertently typed your name instead of someone else's who had pointed out the typo. I have no explanatio except for premature senility. I am not sure whether an apology on my part is needed for an unwarranted thanking, so we'll deem the thank-you converted to a global thanks for all your efforts on the project instead. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)