Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NinaGreen (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 12 February 2014 (→Comment placed on Roger Davies' Talk page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of 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. --Pharos (talk)

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)

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)

Comment placed on Roger Davies' Talk page

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at :

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Misplaced Pages editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Misplaced Pages when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Misplaced Pages editor can find anywhere on Misplaced Pages a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Misplaced Pages editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Misplaced Pages editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Misplaced Pages, nor is it healthy for Misplaced Pages for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Misplaced Pages for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).