User talk:Horologium/July 2008

Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Santa Fe River Trail
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Santa Fe River Trail. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Una Smith (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

New articles for Florida Education
Thanks for noticing. I'm still working on the (relatively) New State Board of Education. Mgreason (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

77.248.185.98
Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I increased the duration of the block on from 48 to 72 hours to reflect the multiple warnings this IP has ignore about not harassing other editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category sort
I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:". Hope you won't mind. :) --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem at all, and thanks.  Horologium  (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jump the gun?
I was writing the report and the notification at the same time. :) DarkAudit (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured that out, which is why I immediately reverted. Sorry about that.  Horologium  (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar
A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SSP & RFCU > SSP2 going slow
Dear Horologium...Since you agreed that the sock puppet process needed an overhaul, I was wondering if you would be somewhat active in making sure that it gets done. Currently, the merging of Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser is going rather slow. I would like to get the templating done soon. To do that the merging needs to be completed first, or at least the proposed process finalized. I ask you to take part in getting this done. You can start by reading SSP2 and then the talk page. I have already written two of the templates, but the rest will take a finalized process to write. Hopefully, you have the time to take part in this. Have a nice day! - LA @ 05:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy gabs adds 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits
Please do not leave me stupid messages attempting to threaten or "scare" me. They will not work. I will continue to edit and make notes and explain edits as I see fit, whether or not you personally approve makes no difference to me! AtlCrash (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)AtlCrashAtlCrash (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could read you would see that the issue has already been discussed in depth on the talk page. There is no sense in my editing the talk page to simply repeat information that is already stated. AtlCrash (talk)AtlCrashAtlCrash (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: "Duplicate Named References"
Since you may or may not have seen this, and seem to be interested in the issue, I'll forward it here:  Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"drive by tagging"
It would be nice to assume good faith rather than just revert edits and leave that as your edit summary, not really to nice imho. Just a thought. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dropping a bunch of tags (some needless) on a page without any discussion on the article's talk page qualifies as drive-by tagging. That's not a failure to AGF, it's noting that the person adding the tags didn't discuss the problem. If you look at what I reverted, you added who inline templates to words which didn't need specification; context made it clear what was being discussed. FWIW, my edit summary was more informative than what you left in the previous edit — nothing at all (other than the automated section edit notation). (I am assuming that you are User:Coffee4binky editing under your IP address, since you seem to be taking this personally.)  Horologium  (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That actually isn't me and I am not sure about what that other editor did. I went back to the Orlando paper and it seems that a citation probably wasn't neccessary based on the end notes. I do disagree that you need to discuss things before adding a fact tag to an article. Many times I will read an article and there will be material that is not sourced and a tag is perfectly acceptable imho. I do try to leave helpful edit summaries and I do try to edit in good faith. Again, I feel that your edit summary is biting in a way. I have made 1,000s of edits with a regular account but would rather edit with an anon IP at this point. Cheers, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I know which article we are talking about (Orlando Sentinel). I considered the tag to be unneeded because you threw in a fact tag after the statement that the Orlando Sentinel is the primary paper of the Orlando area. It's one of the 35 largest papers in the country, and the third largest in Florida (only the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald are bigger), and it's the only daily paper published in Orlando. There was really no justification for a fact tag. If you were a new user, it might have been a bit bitey, but your IP address talk page and edit history made it pretty clear that you are not a new user.  Horologium  (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, fair enough and enough said :) --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Please stop contributing to the edit war, you know better. Tiptoety talk 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was ordered off of Kelly's talk page, where I was attempting to explain to him why subpaging was being done, and got slimed as a wikilawyer for my efforts (before he vaporized the entire discussion). That was my final edit; I try to avoid playing the "I only reverted three times" card by limiting my reverts to two. I am on cable/wireless (802.11g) and that page loads slow, even with the Raul thread subpaged. We've had numerous complaints about that page running slow, and that discussion (in particular) is not going to draw in new eyes; anyone who intends to contribute to that thread will do it on the subpage. Until we find a way to reduce the amount of traffic on AN/I, subpaging appears to be the best possible solution, and AFAIK, Kelly is the only one who has reverted subpaging (not archiving, which is another thing altogether).  Horologium  (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I know that (I have been reading the thread), but sitting there and edit warring over it is a rather disruptive way to handle the situation, don't you think? Tiptoety  talk 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It might have been a bit pointy, but it appears that there is a consensus for my change (with Chaser's move and "spamming" to bring in more discussion). FWIW, the last comments were more than a day ago (23:25 UTC, 30 July 2008), so it's not like subpaging was responsible for the lack of fresh discussion. I understand (and to some extent agree with) Kelly's position, but this is not likely to benefit from remaining on the main AN/I page, but it was at the top of the AN/I page and took up a lot of real estate.  Horologium  (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, well I am not sure I would call that consensus quite yet and you still were engaging in edit warring. I do not wish to sit here and debate it with you, all I want to do is stop the edit war and let everyone involved know that the continuation of the edit war without strong consensus one way or the other will result in a block. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)