User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Jun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenmei banned from contacting Caspian?

I was pushing for higher sanctions against Tenmei, but I don't contact him much and isn't much affected by him. Caspian Blue, on the other hand, seems to be constantly in contact and in conflict with Tenmei. I know this doesn't relate in the Tang Dynasty case, but since the case is almsot finished and this dispute hasn't been resolved in ANI, could you add a clause banning Tenmei from contacting Caspian Blue and Korea-related articles in general so these 2 editors don't conflict? thank you.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

diff. An example of Tenmei's attacks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For items related to the ArbCom case, you should be posting to one of the ArbCom case pages in order to keep everything together. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback use

Regarding this, it would have been better if you left an edit summary. Why did you revert it anyway? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember doing that; it must have been an accidental click on my BlackBerry. Apologies, and please put it back (I can't readily do it from here as I'm in transit). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
BlackBerry? Those are as good as doorstops! Get a proper smartphone! :) -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What's really sad is we have an experienced Arbitrator who thinks "My blackberry did it!" is an acceptable excuse for vandalism. Brad, you gotta know that's nearly on the same level as "my dog did it!" :p Sarah 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If it was my iPhone did it, then it'd be a better excuse! Jatos (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if it's any consolation, this has happened to me a few times. It's so easy to do without noticing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup

I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening and was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, and think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. --Aude (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be there! See you then. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Maps and directions are now posted on the meetup page. If you are coming from Union Station, you can either take metro (change trains at Metro Center). Or, what I probably would do is take the red Circulator bus ($1) [1] which goes directly from Union Station to Foggy Bottom (and Georgetown), and it passes by Bertucci's. I'm hesitant to take the metro train on weekends, because they often do maintenance work that causes delays. If you are coming from the Library of Congress area, then you could take the orange line from Capitol South station and not need to change lines. --Aude (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Dear Mr. Myshkin: I ask you to intercede in the Macedonia case to do what you can to remove the description of our fellow humans as meatpuppets. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments about queries

Tony1 had some thoughtful responses to my followup questions: User talk:Vassyana#Your queries at the Dates case. --Vassyana (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Posadas de Puerto Rico case

Thank you! On both accounts. :) I don't often haul my stuff to DYK because I'm never sure what's going to catch other people's interest, but I thought that one was particularly fascinating. I appreciate your help! --Moonriddengirl (talk)

Userspace page

You may have already noticed, but I have replied here.

Colbert Report

Congratulations, you were mentioned on the Colbert Report on Thursday, June 4th! You're famous now! Congrats, Matt (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was coming to say the same. Congrats, Brad — you're a cultural icon. Take a bow from the top of The Statue of Liberty. (and just think, if this keeps up, you might actually become notable) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Um ... What?? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Go watch it at http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/ . Matt (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It's actually here, and there's a throwback to the cabal. So, if you want to make it official, photo submissions can be made to me via email. :D لennavecia 13:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Does this make you notable? :-) Rosencomet (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Stupid WP:BLP1E... J.delanoygabsadds 15:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Only Carcharoth, FloNight, Newyorkbrad, and Wizardman are mentioned by name. Hmmph. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think they only had room for one unpronouncable name, and Carcharoth had you beat.  ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Carc's name is easy. Mine imminently unpronounceable ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd pronounce it [əɺɛvs] in a pinch. — Coren (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
And I just say "reversal" which it's not really, but kind of fits anyhow. Jd2718 (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wait! Where is our lolcat decision?  :-) — Coren (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice one! Acalamari 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, not available to Great Britain. Stupid laws getting in the way I guess :( Majorly talk 03:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Por vous, Majorly. (Viewable in the U.K.) AGK 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

NPR

Hey Brad, (Ira) I heard you on NPR the other day. You had a good interview, you conducted yourself well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you're the only Wikipedian I've heard from who heard that broadcast, so I appreciate the comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NYT interview

Congratulations for being interviewed for this article ! It must have been an interesting experience... Cenarium (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And yes, it was. I spent about an hour with the reporter discussing various Wikipedia-related issues; he's one of the most knowledgeable journalists about the project, and it was time well spent for both of us, I hope. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

More BLP cruft

A few pages that may interest you:

Feel free to pass these links along to anyone else who may be interested. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The first of these is definitely a good summary of the various proposals and where they stand, and the second also bears watching. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your poems get better by the day

Very nice one at the mock RfA. Enigmamsg 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That one wound up longer than I anticipated—and thus fit nicely into the parody, which is all about exaggeration. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AndriyK

I dare say you think my amendment proposal is a bit innovative and perhaps hasty. But it's a quick way of solving a recurring localized problem without any drama or getting anyone in trouble. It's not necessary for this user to be blocked or handed broad restrictions for this, but it is necessary that ArbCom hand administrators the authority to issue restrictions specific to this behavioural pattern either just for Horlo (don't see why it'll stop otherwise) or in general. The editor is rude sometimes, but not enough that he'd get blocked for it, and doesn't spend enough time on wiki to edit-war over 3RR regularly. You can see though from the diffs it is slow drawn out nuisance behaviour (I gave just some recent examples, I can provide earlier parallels if it is useful). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry for troubling you on your personal page, but I wasn't able to find any information about how to respond to a Request for Arbitration against me. As you are the Arbitrator involved, could you please let me know where (sorry, specifically - do I start a new section; do I simply answer each accusation at a time; should I reply in the section: "Statement by other username") I can post a response? Thank you, Horlo (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Horlo, yes, you just create a subsection on the arbitration page. Tell you what, I'll create it for you now, and you can just fill in your comments. Deacon, I'll comment further there once we have Horlo's statement. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Horlo (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your insightful words. I have quoted you in my essay; I'd be grateful if you could ensure your fellow arbs have read it (as it seems you have?), before closing the case. I really appreciate the insight and wisdom you've brought to this case. Thank you. --John (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei doesn't accept ArbCom's findings

diff. Tenmei exclusively rejected ArbCom's findings on his disruptive behaviour, which shows that he will continue this behaviour in the future. This is quite worrisome, and shows that the sanctions on Tenmei are ineffective and harsher ones are needed.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

Although I will try to check in from time to time, I will have limited online availability until Monday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia but can you please add a Canadian Female Models wikipage for Honorine Uwera. She's a Canadian top model so it's very strange she doesn't have one already. Thanks! -- Fiercecanada (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'm afraid that the subject-matter you've mentioned is one with which I'm not familiar. Assuming that the person you've mentioned meets our notability guidelines, you might want to locate a relevant Wikiproject that would have an interest in creating such a page— or you can do it yourself—it's a wiki! Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know. No problem with you raising this for review, I just hope that both sides are looked at, including Ryulong's recent renewal of the issue on my talk page (after I had posted to suggest we never contact each other again). I would appreciate if my comments are not continually reverted, prior to this review. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And more thanks...

...for this; ANI was my next step. I took the time to provide more food, however....  Frank  |  talk  23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm impressed that nothing spontaneously combusted.[2] :-) Risker (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And more more thanks

For speaking up on my behalf, Kendrick7, in the recent ArbCom case. Yeah, I know I'm blocked (for insulting User:Tim Vickers, who never even bothered to notice my insults, I have gathered) but if not for that whole Seigenthaler controversy I would have remained an IP editor indefinitely. I still hope that, like Iran, the project might see a rebirth of its fundamentals some sunny day. Having wrote, and helped write, so many of our policies, I hate to have the stigma of a topic ban following me around forevermore, but, eh, what can you do? But, you haven't seen my last edit sirrah: as a plaque reads on a neighboring high school where I grew up: I shall return. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

Meetup?

Did I miss a DC meetup? I checked my calendar (which apparently is not syncing like it is supposed to) and saw that there was one a couple of weeks ago? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where you were. Thought perhaps you were spending the summer some place else. The next DC meetup will probably be early September, after Wikimania. In the meantime, you should think about attending Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wiki-Conference 2009 at the end of July. --Aude (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you missed it. We had some good discussion, I met a number of new people ... and those who hung out till the end of the evening (at our third successive location) got to hear Newyorkbrad's real-world incarnation channel various Monty Python skits and songs at an alarmingly excessive volume. Now if that doesn't deter you from returning, I don't know what will. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Double vote on "Obama articles"

Hi Brad. I believe you've inadvertently double voted on Obama articles on F7.1.1. Paul August ☎ 01:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It seems I'd inadvertently forgotten strike one of my "abstain for now pending the party's finishing his evidence" votes when I replaced it with my merits vote. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you might've missed a few, I think. PR9, 9.1, 9.2, 11, 11.1 -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
These were a couple I wanted to think about the wording of a bit more. (I've been voting in waves in these large multi-party cases, where the record to be reviewed is just too massive if I try to focus on all the evidence at once.) I will vote on the remaining paragraphs in the next day or two, although it's pretty obvious that absent my turning up something in the diffs, my remaining votes are unlikely to change the results. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Okey dokey. Although your votes aren't likely to change the results, you often accompany your votes with insightful comments that are greatly appreciated by named parties. From my perspective, I am hoping your comment about the scope of my proposed editing restriction (Wikipedia-wide, instead of just within the Obama articles) might give something for other committee members to consider. -- Scjessey (talk)

Email, maybe urgent maybe not. . .

Hi NYB, I just sent you an email. Could you check? Just trying to keep the drama to a minimum. . .but it could be a problem. (note: also sent copy to Cool Hand Luke). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Received and responded. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Whew! I'm glad you had time look at it. I had misread a couple of other diffs before I sent that out. Thanks again, R. Baley (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI on the Obama case talk page

Since I mention you, and the thing looks like it's about to end, you might want to take another look before it shuts down. There's nothing personal in any of my comments -- at least toward you, although I strongly disagree with some of your comments. [3] -- Noroton (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read everything and am considering whether and how to respond. I appreciate, at least, the candor of your input. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Regarding this - [4] - which I did not know about until just now - I have not edited any Obama articles since probably more than 3 months ago. I put myself on an unofficial topic ban following the WND siege, which occurred the night of March 8 / morning of March 9, which is when all those citations occurred. I was removing propaganda being posted by sleeper accounts and IP addresses which had come to attack wikipedia after being urged to do so by an article in WND. I was so disgusted with the lack of support I got for trying to defend wikipedia, that I gave up on the Obama articles at that point. So putting me on an Obama topic ban, if that's what this is, is just fine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had been notified on April 14th [5] about the thread as being a "party" to it, as you indicate, but not that I was actually being complained about. So I never checked it out, and soon forgot about it, until I happened to run into it yesterday. No big deal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments here. I'm sorry you didn't have a positive experience on that particular topic, but I'm glad to know I will still see you elsewhere around the 'pedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AndriyK

You won't consider an amendment giving admins discretionary powers on AE that limit the turgid edit-warring over these names? That's all I want. AE can't do anything based on current remedies. If no is the final answer to this, let me know and I'll withdraw the request. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it got archived nonetheless. I need to get better at mastering the art of getting powerful busy people to listen ... makes me wonder why I bother sometimes. Cheers anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; I was away for the weekend. Having studied all the input, I still think that procedurally, it didn't make sense to deal with alleged problems involving an editor who started editing in 2007, through an amendment to a case that was decided in 2005. You are free and encouraged to use any other form of dispute-resolution method that might be appropriate, whether it's a request for a warning under the discretionary sanctions provision of a more recent case, or something else. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NYB

Hi Brad. I realize that you're busy both in real life, and in important matters regarding WP. I just wanted to thank you for your support in my RfA. I would imagine that it carried quite a bit of weight in the community, and I wanted to thank you for your kind words. I will do my best to live up to the expectations that admins. should - Thank You! — Ched :  ?  07:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm not sure my support carries more weight than anyone else's, but I was glad to provide it. Happy adminning! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect...

...Your new home. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about involved/uninvolved admins

Hi, and sorry to trouble you with this topic. Recently I filed a case on User:Deacon of Pndapetzim at AE [6] to basically established that he was not an "uninvolved" administrator for Eastern European disputes. It seems the same issue has arisen again in relation to the admin User:Piotrus and Baltics-related disputes (the case known as "Digwuren"). I'll freely admit here that since getting drawn into some of this drama I've put several editors talk pages on my watchlist. Recently, admin User:Jehochman posted this "warning" [7] on Piotrus' talk page, warning Piotrus "not to comment" and threatening to "ban him". A few edits later, perhaps realizing he's gone too far, Jehochman re-edited his comment to a friendly sounding piece of "advice" [8] (which to me looks like a mafia tactic of making a threat then quickly following it up with "but I'm just kidding, we're all friends here" for disclaimer purposes).

My question is - who gets to decide whether an admin is "involved" or "uninvolved" in these cases? By filing the Deacon case with AE I thought I was following formal Wiki procedures and guidelines and going through the appropriate channels - if an admin is "involved" there should be a statement to that affect made by either consensus or an AE ruling. However, here it seems like any admin can usurp the authority to declare another admin "involved" and threaten them with bans from the relevant discussions. This is beyond and above the fact that these kinds of threats assume bad faith and border on incivility. Once again, I apologize if this isn't the appropriate venue for my question - is this something that should be brought up at ANI? With the admins involved with AE? - but I still get lost in all the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.radek (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Mafia tactic? How about trying to make myself perfectly clear, but also wishing not to be overly blunt. Next time, please have the courtesy to notify me if you have a concern. NYB, this little vignette demonstrates why arbitration may be needed. Every issue spills over to multiple pages with multiple editors litigating ad nauseum. Enough is enough. Jehochman Talk 23:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The difference between your original comment and the final version is quite striking and I don't know how else to explain it. Also please see further comments at Piotrus' page. There is still the basic issue: who and when gets to unilaterally decide, without any kind of formal case, which admin is and is not "involved" and consequently threaten them with bans.radek (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
These decisions are made same as all others, by WP:CONSENSUS. I think that both Piotrus and Deacon of Pnadpetzim are highly involved in EE disputes and that both must act as editors, not administrators. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I was asked by Radek to comment in this thread, so I hope Newyorkbrad will forgive my filling up his talk page with my ramblings on the question posed.

Generally, I don't think it would be helpful for the community to enter into the business of formulating rules to govern when an administrator is considered to be "involved" (in the sense used in arbitration decisions). Such formulation would almost certainly result in ruleslawyering by editors sanctioned at arbitration enforcement (AE) becoming commonplace. The phrase "broadly interpreted", used widely in the committee's decisions, comes to mind after considering your question: an editor can be sanctioned by an administrator considered to be, by broad interpretations, uninvolved in that subject area.

In the rare event that an administrator does sanction an editor despite being involved, the proper procedure would be so: an appeal (on the grounds that the sanctioning admin is involved in the subject area, or with the party/parties, concerned) would be filed at AE; then, a consensus amongst uninvolved administrators would be built as to whether that sysop is indeed involved (and, if so, whether that sysop should be reported to the arbitration committee for improper use of his permissions). If a positive consensus is established, the initial complaint would be revisited on procedural grounds—and the original result overturned, amended, or reaffirmed as necessary. AGK 16:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenland

Your recent edit to Greenland seems to have acted as a consolidation of the non-consensus version recently introduced by User:Jægermester. Please see Talk:Greenland and the edit history of User:Jægermester.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My edit was just intended to fix some punctuation and make some tiny copyedits. I haven't looked at any content dispute and don't have a view one way or the other (I can take a look tomorrow if my input would be helpful). I just edited the version that was there at the time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful. Thanks.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on what I've read of the Greenlandic referendum and implementing legislation, I tend to prefer your version. But I am hardly an expert on the subject and would defer to the views of those with greater expertise. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that it isn't "my version" but a version made agreed upon by 6 editors, which was unilaterally changed by a newly registered user whose only edits have been inserting this. I reverted to the consensus version three times, then warned and took it to ANI where I was given a block warning for editwarring - I simply don't know what I was supposed to have done differently.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As best I can tell, what you describe as the consensus version seems to be standing up at this point. I'll take a look at the ANI thread and see if I have anything to add to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It is true that one of the other editors who formed the consensus changed it back after our echange last night. And it was even after that that I was warned - six hours after my last edit to the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete user/disc pages; warn jayron/redpen/mufka

Hello nybrad, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.

I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!

Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.

Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.

If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.

If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me. I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

(Notifying you personally because you were one of the arbitrators who showed some interest in the content side with your questions.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be travelling with limited online access or time until Sunday night or Monday morning. I'll respond to the threads above, and anything else, when I get back. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Jun&oldid=1143194234"