User talk:Newyorkbrad

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 Wikipedia. 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)

No plagiarism [1]. :) Both are perfectly cromulent words. --DHeyward (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick, User:Odysseus1479, User:Collect, User:DHeyward: Thank you for this interesting thread. I have to admit that I simply made up "my" word as a riposte to Collect's. Any appearance or non-appearance of "chronophagousity" or any cognate in the actual language is strictly coincidental.

On a far less light-hearted note, though, I am very unhappy that arbitration pages are showing up on Google searches via mirror sites. Several years ago, it was decided that arbitration requests and various other internal project pages (XfD, DRV, RfA, etc.) should be "no-indexed" as they contain references to both contributors and BLP subjects that are necessary for internal Wikipedia purposes but should not become part of people's search results. If for any reason the no-index settings are now being disregarded or are not being copied onto mirror sites, that is an exceedingly serious problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, we cannot control what mirrors do with our content, other than contact them privately and ask them to stop. I can do so, if you like. LFaraone 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that five independent mirror sites made a conscious decision not to include no-index or robots.txt codes embodied in these pages. In my uninformed opinion, it is more likely to be a technical glitch that is leading to the codes not being picked up on the mirrors to begin with. I'd welcome anyone's, including your, making contact with the sites in question, but I also wonder if there is anything we can do with the coding internally to reduce the chances of this kind of problem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 18 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)

Happy to help with the cat food, kitty litter and veterinarian expenses. Just ask! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just ask Cullen328, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 18 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 [2]:

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

Catching up after my time away, I have nothing to add to what others have said about this aspect of the DS discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Update

I'll be active again on-wiki on Tuesday. I'll respond then to the open threads above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon

You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March: Saturday March 1: Harlem History Editathon (RSVP), focusing on Harlem history, landmarks and biographies Saturday March 8: NYU Law Editathon (RSVP), focusing on innovation law and intellectual property (with social dinner afterward) I hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Unfortunately, I will be out of town on both of these weekends. I regret this very much, as these should both be outstanding events. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In the event you missed it

Apparently my discussion regarding COI and reliably sourced edits did not have the desired effect. You wanna take a shot? Tiderolls 18:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Block Review

Hi. I have been away from Wikipedia for a while and have only just seen the block on my talk page. I explained to this admin over and over again both on my talk page and on the article talk page why he was wrong about this issue. I actually even explained to him what the BLP policy was and why it wasn't a breach of the policy. Since I didn't receive a reply for several days I assumed he'd just skulked off, and I added the information back again. I thought it was a flagrant breach of his privileges as an admin to keep threatening to block me, but since I'm a reasonable sort I decided to let it go. Now I find out he not only removed the info again but carried out his threat to block me. This is important information that needs to go in the article and is not in any way a breach of Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, I cannot add this information to this article without this admin removing it and blocking me again. I also feel very strongly that this person should not be an admin, that he doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and that he abuses his privileges. Please tell me how I can add this legitimate information to the article without being blocked, and how I can request that this user's admin privileges be revoked. Jay-W (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett

I can promise you that I will be dropping nothing "expeditiously" [3]. If you imagine that I will permit this Corbett affair to be quickly swept under the carpet to save Wikipedia and its former employees face. Then think again; I thought you knew me better Brad.  Giano  18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As important as it is to reiterate the need for administrators to speak decorously and use good judgment, for reasons I hope I do not need to expound here, this particular dispute would be a poor vehicle for the Arbitration Committee to make this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• One assumes our illustrious founder was happy with the content on his talk page or is that now delegated to his employees add you for censorship? Furthermore, if you bothered to check the facts, you would note that Corbett made no mention of dead (sorry, you're American: "passed away") Wikipedians, directly or indirectly.  Giano  20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)