Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 11 February 2014 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Feb) (bot). 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)