User talk:Horologium/August 2007

William Cooley GA Nomination
Hi Horologium, glad to see you back. I was planning to nominate William Cooley to GA, and just would like to ask if you would be able/willing to give em a hand if any problems arise.--Legionarius 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My access is erratic at best, and I will be moving to another resort tomorrow, so I don't know if I will have internet access. I can look in from time to time, but I can't guarantee anything until the middle of the month. I see you have been tweaking and expanding the Cooley article, and it looks pretty good. Wait until after the GA reviewer assesses it, and work from there. Good luck! -Horologium t-c 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you came back! Have fun.--Legionarius 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * GA it is. Undergoing A-Class review.--Legionarius 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cooley is an A-Class article now, and I would like to ask if you would be able to help in an eventual FAC. What do you think about FAC our old friend Coral Springs? I submitted Jim Naugle to GA, mostly because I wanted a peer review... the peer review process is very slow to bring responses, if any. --Legionarius 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum in Category:Wikipedians by physiological condition
Why did you remove that before? Do you not understand that autism is first a physiological condition? It affects brain development, and sometimes there are issues like head size, etc. Its mental manifestations are only one area that is effected. There are also fundamental cognative ability differences, motor function differences, etc. As autism is deeply physioneurological, it is not something that can be treated with mere psychiatry and cannot be passed off as a mere mental issue. There is no cure for how a person is born. - Gilgamesh 09:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (discussion continued on User talk:Gilgamesh)

UCFDs
Hello. Any chance that any of those can be grouped in some manner? I'm not trying to force anything, but that's an awful lot of closing that someone is going to have to do next week. --After Midnight 0001 01:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I sent them up in so many smallish groups was two-fold; the first was because I didn't want a re-run of the fiascoes from my last two group nominations (Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and the subcats of Wikipedians by computers, both of which ended up at DRV because of one or two subcats and small groups of fanatic users), and I wanted to impress on everyone the absolutely insane number of cats created by userbox creators who have no concept of restraint (more then 70 categories just in the English language subcat). In retrospect, I think that that may have been a bit POINTy, although I wasn't thinking at the time about how much work I was creating for closing admins. If you can come up with a scheme for consolidating the cats that will not result in having 15-20 cats sent to DRV because of one contested cat, I have no problem. Horologium t-c 01:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying about contentious categories. I was thinking more specifically about all the "babel" type language (or pseudo-language if you prefer) categories, which I personally thing will draw very little attention.  Maybe one group for the ISO-639 renames and another for the 639 deletes?  At any rate, I'm not upset about it, but I may not be able to promise to close them in a timely fashion (which I'm sure you understand anyways). --After Midnight 0001 11:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made several consolidations, although not quite as sweeping as you probably would have preferred. I combined all of the "national" variations of English into a single nom (except Australian, which has some different issues, and different comments); all of the simple renames into a single nom (excluding the ones that have multiple issues); combined the clearly fake languages into a single nom (excluding the ones that were nominated earlier and had been the subject of comments); and combined the two inappropriate -N cats into a single nomination. I'm also going to let Black Falcon know about this discussion, since I deleted his comments to the national categories when I consolidated them. Horologium t-c 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So much for them being uncontroversial...and she's only arguing over three of the five in that group. Gahhh. I think there is a curse on me, wherein group noms will attract the attention of one or two intransigent editors. Horologium t-c 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's OK, still most of them will be OK, I think. As for the rest, whoever closes them will sort it out.  I hope that you don't feel that I led you astray.  The way you did it, they can actually be closed as either individuals or as groups, so no worries, it will be fine no matter how it goes, I think. --After Midnight 0001 21:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, I'm not blaming you, or even feel that you pressured me into doing something less-than-optimal. It's just my slightly paranoid "Everyone is always picking on me" outlook asserting itself. I'm usually fairly good at controlling it, but occasionally it takes over. It's not a crisis of biblical proportions if the renames don't go through; I just thought this group would be the least controversial of all the nominations I submitted. (wry grin) Horologium t-c 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * you inquired about my very different views, and I've responded at some length at my user talk page. DGG (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you very much. --After Midnight 0001 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cooley, Coral Springs, and Naugle
Cooley is an A-Class article now, and I would like to ask if you would be able to help in an eventual FAC. What do you think about FAC our old friend Coral Springs? I submitted Jim Naugle to GA, mostly because I wanted a peer review... the peer review process is very slow to bring responses, if any. --Legionarius 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was concerned when you brought Jim Naugle up for GA status, due primarily to the weak references of the article (which we discussed previously), and the almost total lack of detail about his life between college and election to the city council. Without trips to the Sun-Sentinel morgue (offline archive)) I don't think it will ever make GA status, and in fact, the reviewer demoted it from "B" to "Start" class. The changes you have made all improve the article, but it's still rather weak.


 * As to the other two articles, Coral Springs, Florida has a better chance of making FA class, but again, there are some issues with the references (lots of internally-generated, ie self-published citations). Additionally, the history section is thin. Part of that is because the city is relatively new, but there are only two brief paragraphs to discuss the last thirty years of the city's history, which is not going to cut it at an FA review. I have looked at some of the FAC reviews and FA reviews (for candidates that are being nominated for de-listing) and the level of scrutiny is intimidating. (Take a look at the Miami review as an example; it failed FAC and it is more comprehensive.) For William Cooley, I question if the article can ever make it to FA status, because there are simply too few details about his life, and there are some details that cannot be pinned down (the date of his birth; his life before he came to Florida; the name of his wife; when he died; the number of children he fathered and adopted.) Unlike most of the FA biographies, there is no full accounting of his life in a published biography (the Cooper Kirk monograph in Broward Legacy is the most comprehensive), and because he lived in a sparse wilderness of what was then a backwater state, there is little documentation available. If he had lived in the more "civilized" cities of the northeast there might have been more information, but a settlement of 70 people, hundreds of miles from the nearest city, does not generally produce much in the way of written records. Horologium t-c 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is all in good fun. I brought JN up because peer review is almost useless - very few bother to respond. Bringing it up to GA is like a deluxe peer review process :-).


 * I will respect your desires regarding CS, since our views are very different on this matter. I try to keep only relevant facts in an article, so I am OK with not much history for CS in the thirty years in the history of town - nothing too exciting happened there in this period. I understand that it looks too much of a gap without this caveat.


 * I am still try to put Cooley for review, because those facts cannot be pinned down and it is likely they will never become available. I am trying to get some peer reviewing before it goes there, though.


 * Since there is a lot of research necessary to make an article, I am trying to improve those three articles in the meantime until I can build a full featured article.It is a good learning process.

So, are you back? How was your vacation?--Legionarius 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Vacation was good. The weather was great the second week; sunny skies almost all day long, which is unusual for SW Florida, which usually gets a thunderstorm every afternoon in the summer.


 * Good luck with Cooley, but be prepared for what may be some strong criticisms of the piece. You seem to be better equipped to deal with criticism than I am; more power to you. (smile) Horologium t-c 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! Criticism is good for growth of the article, what is the ultimate goal of the process (I think :-). Let's see what I get back. I will give a couple days for discussions and see what comes back. Glad your vacations were a FA :-).--Legionarius 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your nomination! :-) I am still waiting to hear from mrprada on his JN review, looks like he is too busy. The biggest problems that he found were the references, what he said they were not there, but they were. I may FAC William Cooley soon, if I have the guts... my main problem, as you know is the writing. What are you working on now?--Legionarius 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually cutting back on my participation somewhat, at least for a while. After the big burst of activity trying to clean out Category:Wikipedians by language at WP:UCFD, I'm a little burnt out. I'm just tying up some of the loose ends there. I'll be back up to speed soon, after recharging my batteries.


 * I saw that you ran William Cooley up the FA gantlet; good luck on that. It already appears that it has run into some opposition, but it's not clear if that will be enough to sink it. Horologium t-c 18:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lokks like it is a contentius place. I expanded the lead in WC, let's see what comes next.--Legionarius 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Masri
Sorry I changed them back because there was no voting about the templates, only the categories. FYI if I knew about the change of the categories, I would have opposed it. The users who speak the language should have been told about this change. I don't agree with it. Egyegy 03:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are redirects in place, so I'll let your edits stand, instead of edit-warring with you. The template should match the category name, although I'm not going to push this as strongly as I pushed the cat name change. It's astonishing to me that of the six categories that were nominated as a group for name changes (to comply with internationally accepted standards), this one is the only one that drew any opposition. There was a long debate in the UCfD with one Egyptian woman who opposed the move, and several others (including me, the nominator) who supported it, citing the overwhelming number of language cats which conformed to the ISO classifications. Since the catgories were tagged for seven days before they were renamed, it wasn't exactly a secret.


 * You don't need to create another redirect, you already did that when you created Template:User arz-4 and the rest. If you click on it now, that's where it will take you. You sound aggressive. It was only you and one other person agreeing from what I can tell after reading the exchange. If more speakers knew about it, they would have opposed it because it doesn't make logical sense to the people who are going to use these templates. Egyegy 03:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)