User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:46, 31 October 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

,

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

RE: redirect question

Hi Brad! The redirect is just a bit 'o wit, really, stemming from a discussion I was having with Sean Black and Kelly Martin, among others. The discussion basically started in regards to the correct way to deal with paraphrased copyvio's and disintegrated into deciding to redirect that page to a different silly dinosauar-type things each day. The bit about MOS is apparently a failed attempt at irony, in that the manual of style discourages cross-space redirects. I hope this helps and apologies if it doesn't (feel free to follow up). Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Brad! I can surely imagine the irksome nature it might have caused when you saw the edit on recent changes or your watchlist. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Reid's treatment in Giano case

I have read your messages and the discussion on the talk page. I certainly do not approve of John Reid's behaviour - not at all. I do, however, see that singling him out to be banned - as the only ban for any individual in this case - appears a bit unjust; he behaved badly, but I don't think a whole order of magnitude worse than others. I have therefore moved to oppose his ban and favor censure. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon from Gundagai

Thanks for your comment, Brad, I appreciate it. I must say I find many of your comments at RfAr and various talk pages very insightful and interesting. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I think you should get your mainspace edit count up a tad so we can take you to RfA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of these thoughts. :) More later on your page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano RfAR

I do my best to be fair and reasonable, and listen to the various arguments made. Other members of the Committee do the same; of course, we don't always agree on what is fair and reasonable. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Saw your post to Thatcher's page. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings? – Ch acor 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Thanks. I think you know what controversy it's become relevant to, as well.Newyorkbrad 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Interested in being nominated? Dragons flight 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I'd be honored if I could be a co-nom. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary usage

Oh? Someone actually read that? I am indeed aware of that setting, that sentence is quite old and should probably be replaced or removed, since my edit summary usage has been at a consistent 100%/100% for months now. Thanks for the thought though. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 07:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

In the Justice Holmes bio I meant only to delete the renewed reference to the "get down, you fool" story, but seem to have edited a past page instead of the current one, deleted some more recent postings inclulding your emendation of the Insular Cases issue, which I had no quarrel with. Is there a simple way to undo my mistake and get back to the page as it was when you left it? Sheldon Novick 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Sheldon[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Interested in being nominated?  [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
+: Ditto. I'd be honored if I could be a co-nom. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 == Edit summary usage ==