User talk:Horologium/February 2011

Guerrero (ship) link
Thanks for fixing that in the Project page. I discovered after I posted that there that the damn thing was on the main page with the wrong link. I did not write that hook, and after having to reject 2 other alternative hooks offered by the reviewer, I didn't review the hook. Anyway, thanks. -- Donald Albury 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * D'oh! I didn't think to check the front page; I would have fixed it if it had occurred to me. It's not a crisis of biblical proportions, though. (smile)  Horologium  (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You were mentioned
I just responded to an NPOV report here which I suppose you should see (although there may be nothing for you to do except sigh). Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (Fixed the link) I left a message on the noticeboard. The level of tendentious, "I didn't hear that" stream of failure to assume good faith, personal attacks, and the infuriating refusal to notify me are just too much. I'm particularly irritated about this new attack because I don't have the NPOVN watchlisted, and without your note would have had no idea about the discussion attacking my motives. Thanks for letting me know about it, and perhaps you can say something to the editor in question about repeated failure to notify editors discussed in noticeboard postings.  Horologium  (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I decided to add this message: User talk:Userpd. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

SP/you were mentioned
Please see new thread re: Categories at talk:sarah Palin.Buster Seven   Talk  20:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Scorpia Rising Deletion
I would like to know why you deleted this article. I didn't create it, but was looking for it on Wikipedia. It is not a duplicate of the Alex Rider page, as it is a book within the series and all the other books have their own paes. Another user put that it was a hoax in the deletion blog, which is not true.

Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.215.61 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article which I deleted (in July 2010) read, in its entirety, "Scorpia Rising is the ninth book in the Alex Rider series.", which doesn't tell the reader anything at all. The previous version read: "No one but Anthony Horowitz himself really knows what will happen in his new book, apart from (guessing from the title) scorpia comes back with some new evil plan." That was sourced to a website of unknown provenance, with a release date of April 2011. It appears now that there is a plot synopsis, but the release date of 22 March 2011 (note the change) is still more than a month away. I will unsalt the title after the book is released so that the article can be recreated, but there needs to be a lot more substance than "it's a book in a series" or "nobody knows what this book is about".  Horologium  (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to work on a possible RfC/U
I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now at Requests for comment/Geo Swan

Chula Vista
Please help us in celebrating the centennial of a city which you use to reside in, Chula Vista. Another user has launched a project Operation Lemon Capital Centennial, to coordinate these efforts. Thank you in advance, and thank you for your service. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly
Is the problem, here? Let me go into a little more detail. The scale goes from 1-10 in either direction; a line with 20 "notches", if you will. Obviously the middle should be neutral. But to what extent? The middle three? The middle four? The middle five? Personally, I feel 1 on each side to be just as ridiculous of a neutral zone as when it was zero. There has to be a significant center. "No discussion" (see WP:SILENCE) isn't exactly a valid reason for reverting, so if you have personal objections please raise them beyond "no discussion". It's just a userbox after all.  Swarm   X 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a userbox used by a substantial number of users, including the user who created it; changing the parameters without any discussion at all is something that other users might have wished to discuss. While I don't operate under the impression that I have veto power over changes, and consensus might go against me, I would think that a discussion might have been appropriate, especially when the parameter you adjusted had already been widened once by its creator, after a discussion. It's a bit surprising that you tweaked a userbox which is used by almost 500 other users without any discussion at all. However, we both followed steps in the BRD process; you made a bold change, and I reverted it, and now a discussion can take place. Nothing in my actions contravenes WP:SILENCE; in fact, the very first sentence on that page notes that editing and reverting are both means of determining consensus. It's just a userbox, as you noted, but we both seem to have some strong feelings about it, as I reverted your change, and you challenged my reversion.  Horologium  (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm simply trying to place whether you reverted it purely because there was no discussion or if you had a personal objection. If it was the former I would have been baffled by the triviality of it, but since you appear to disagree, I'll just let it go. A debate over a userbox is the last thing I want right now. I didn't think the change would be controversial.  Swarm   X 03:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Current U.S. First Spouses
Hello, Horologium:

Several months ago, you initiated an AfD in which some discussion over the navbox Current U.S. First Spouses and its worth resulted. I have now decided to nominate that template for deletion – your thoughts on the nomination would be appreciated. You can access the template's deletion discussion here. Thank you. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)