| Revision as of 19:09, 10 February 2014 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,738 edits →A kitten for you!: new WikiLove message← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:49, 11 February 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,094 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Feb) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=585556373 --> | <!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=585556373 --> | ||
| == about that word == | |||
| Re your comment to Kevin on Philippe's page . Meaning depends on context, and not everyone is a lawyer. "Illegal" is used in other contexts to means "invalid," such as ]' designation of a certain type of programming screwup as a ; see also ] and the similar ]. <small>]</small> 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You're quite obviously correct that many uses of "illegal" mean "against the internal rules" rather than "actually against the law." After all, if one of the Super Bowl teams is flagged for "illegal procedure" or "illegal formation," I don't expect a paddywagon to come onto the field, or the prosecutor to convene the grand jury. Nonetheless, my experience has been that use of the term "illegal" in Misplaced Pages contexts often has an inflammatory and distracting effect, and for this reason I would prefer that the term generally not be used. Regards, ] (]) 01:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Message on DS review page == | |||
| Hello Newyorkbrad, | |||
| I've left the message below the DS Review page , and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. ] (]) 22:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of ]; (3) improve Misplaced Pages's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Misplaced Pages, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.</blockquote> | |||
| Thanks for the reminder that I should check in on this important discussion. I will try to do so in the next day or two. ] (]) 01:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting a favor == | |||
| If any of my TPWs (1) attended the University of Texas at Austin, (2) is a member of the alumni association, and (3) would be willing to send an e-mail or make a phone call to help with with a ] research item, I'd appreciate it if he or she would e-mail me. Thanks very much to anyone who can help and apologies to everyone else who just spent the past nine seconds reading this. ] (]) 01:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Inactivity note == | |||
| I'll be inactive on Misplaced Pages from February 4 to February 17. ] (]) 03:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == DRN critique == | == DRN critique == | ||
Revision as of 00:49, 11 February 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: NYC Art And Feminism Misplaced Pages Editathon
 |
Please join Misplaced Pages "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Misplaced Pages articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in Brooklyn, Westchester County, and the Hudson Valley.
|
DRN critique
While discussing "incorporated" at Puerto Rico, Ahnoneemoos kicked off a DRN after I suggested discussing language for a RfC before DRN. The DRN ran away before a volunteer took it on at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Puerto Rico. The issue revolves around including sourced material in the article narrative for "incorporated" from the Boston College Law Review. -- Whether to allow both sides of a controversy into the article introduction -- how PR is "unincorporated" and "incorporated" as alternately sourced. But no volunteer has picked up the DRN, but three editors have voice affirmative sentiments versus four negative.
Since you were kind enough to treat me respectfully even as you opposed my arguments about a year ago, and you invited me to return for another discussion, --- I wonder if you would tell me what you think of the Ahnoneemoos DRN. Since it ran away, and it does not seem to be going anywhere, is it a newbie error of procedure? I tried asking for volunteer assistance at various projects: Puerto Rico, United States, politics, history. No response to date.
The two principle opponents of my broader "inclusion" language at United States last year simply reappeared again without sources to opposed the sourced "incorporated" for Puerto Rico as modern jurisprudence understands that "term of art". So I came back here again to your page this year to see what I could learn from you. I promise not to return for another year on this subject. Thanks in advance.
-- and I can wait a couple weeks for an answer. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- So now I learn, There is a scholarly controversy over the status of PR as sourced in a reliable publication by Duke University Press, and Boston College Law Review is a reliable publication, Lawson and Sloane are not affiliated with BC, the scholars do say PR is "incorporateded" and both existence of the scholarly controversy and "incorporated" viewpoint are confirmed at wp:reliable sources/noticeboard.
- But following an RfC as recommended at the closing of the DRN, --- Mercy11, Iryna Harpy, Caribbean H.Q and Tony the Marine, all patiently explained to me, "incorporated" does not belong in the introduction of a general article Puerto Rico which does not address "incorporated" in the body of its text. That political information is found in Political status of Puerto Rico or Proposed political status for Puerto Rico. I was wrong to propose placing information in an introduction which is not discussed in the body of the article. That is WP policy in the Manual of Style.
- This approach in the Puerto Rico community was an entirely different tact from the repeatedly unsourced argumentation and ad hominem attacks from TFD and older≠wiser which I experienced on this and prior occasions. I would be interested in your observations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Coming up in February!
Hello there!
Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Misplaced Pages enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?
Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.
If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/DC.
Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
chronophagousity
chronophagousity ? Google returns six hits, all of which are your usage. I'm guessing time eater, but am curious. (I understand your availability, no rush)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Pretty much, but it shouldn’t have a U in it. Chronophage, time-eater; chronophagy, eating time; chronophagous, time-eating; chronophagosity, the state or degree of being chronophagous. That’s what the etymology would say, anyway; the ‘true’ meaning of a word arises from its usage ‘in the wild‘.—Odysseus1479 23:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct -- but I think I am the one who initially used "chronophagous" as an adjective on Misplaced Pages. Perfectly fine word. Collect (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that rings a bell. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct -- but I think I am the one who initially used "chronophagous" as an adjective on Misplaced Pages. Perfectly fine word. Collect (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- My submission to the lexicon is tempivore: an editor whose wiki-life appears to be sustained principally by the consumption of (others’) time.—Odysseus1479 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Please accept this wiki kitten as my thanks for your continued efforts to improve this project. Your constant efforts are very appreciated!
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)