User talk:Horologium/July 2009

This is a stupid message
But this got me cracking up something fierce and I just wanted to thank you for that hilarity. Some guy (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The sad thing is that I wasn't joking. A few minutes later, I went ahead and reverted the IP, because it was totally incorrectly formatted, not to mention the contribution history. NOT:MYSPACE indeed.  Horologium  (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Since we're editing a difficult topic together and we seemed to have some different points of view, I wanted to learn a bit about you so I could "understand where you're coming from". I saw a section of your userpage labeled "my beliefs and biases" and I thought "AHA!" Then I actually read the section and it turns out I could have written it myself, about myself. Well, except for that hangup with pronouns. Then I noticed that you're from Florida; so am I. Living in the Midwest now, but born at Cape Canaveral (well, next to it) and had a home in the Florida Keys up until the real estate market tanked. I love island culture, hence the "Tropics" in Doc Tropics. I'm only mentioning these personal details because the similarities struck me as ironic under the circumstances. Even if it hadn't turned out that you have the good taste to reside in FL, we seem to have enough in common that we should be able to work together productively.

Allstar has expressed concerns about "whitewashing" that you seem to share. As I stated on the talkpage, I'm not trying to whitewash anything, just balance it. All relevant info should be included, but in the proper place and in proportion to its importance - that's where I'm coming from. I'm pretty sure that we share similar goals for improving article quality, and I'm hoping that we can craft solutions that all but the most partisan will acknowledge as reasonable. Anything related to the article itself we should discuss on that talkpage, but if you have any personal questions or concerns, just let me know. Sincerely, Doc  Tropics  23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Allstar and some of the others consider me to be a Sanchez apologist... (small smile). As you have probably noted, I reverted your change which restored the link to Malkin's blog. While she is notable, and her work in newspapers and magazines is citeable, her blog is not. Wikipedia's rules on sourcing explicitly state that the only time a blog can be considered a reliable source for a BLP is when it is written by the subject of the article, and only when the article is discussing the opinions of the subject. While Sanchez and Malkin apparently have a friendly relationship, her blogs (www.michellemalkin.com and hotair.com) cannot be cited in the article on Sanchez, because they are blogs.


 * I had essentially forgotten about this article until recently, although it has been on my watchlist (on and off) for over two years now; any attempt to change the verbiage seemed to result in someone reverting the changes and a return to the status quo. Most of the changes were implemented by a variety of newly-created single purpose accounts, which either attempted to turn the article into a shiny public relations piece or a hatchet job. (Look at the article's edit history and the extensive archives; a look at Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine might also be of interest; several of the personalities involved in the article were banned as a result of the arbitration, and one shortly afterward, during a dispute with another involved editor.) While the case isn't as broad in its scope as some of the ethnic conflicts (Armenia/Azerbaijan, Israel/Palestine, Britain/Ireland, Greece/Macedonia, and the whole Eastern Europe cauldron), the invective directed towards specific editors in this case has been very corrosive and vitriolic. You're in for a bumpy ride if you decide to stay.  Horologium  (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining your revert in-depth, I had noticed it in the history and you had a good Edit Summary. I had initially thought it was an RS because it was only being used to verify that Malkin had written about Sanchez and used him as a source, which is obvious from looking at her blog, so it seemed like a legit usage. However, based on your objection I reviewed BLP policy (gotta love all the fine print) and found that the following "...or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP)..." is indeed specifically disallowed even in the face of what seems like a "logical" rationale. So no question, you were right to remove it. In the meantime, I found something else we agree on: "How R U? L8R BAI!" is not a sentence, it's an abomination.
 * Regarding the article's talkpage, I think it would help a lot if we could, as a group, elevate the tone of the discussion. The archives are indeed extensive and vitriolic; too many people on both sides express things in passionate personal terms because of the feelings it arouses. Also, I keep saying "both sides", but really I see 3 sides in the conflict: "Pro-Sanchez" editors, "Anti-Sanchez" editors, and Matt Sanchez himself. There have also been some attempts at balance by neutral editors, but not enough indiduals at one time to be really effective.
 * Finally, it's worth being aware that User:StephenLaurie has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet. I believe that this obsessed individual was poisoning the well and deliberately sowing discord between otherwise good faith editors. With less disruption now due to his absence, and more scrutiny on the article from many editors, I think we will see a change in how matters progress there. Call me an optimist :) Doc  Tropics  02:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

University of Florida vandalism
So, what exactly is a "dirty slim ball," anyway? LOL Nice job on the watch list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's rather sad to see someone attempt to insult the academic integrity of a school, when the insult itself is manifestly subliterate. The attacks on the UF article tend to fall into this category fairly often. Make what you will of that... (grin) I've been without internet access since Independence Day (with an occasional jaunt to a wireless hotspot here and there), but now that I am back online, I will be watching the UF article (and some of the daughter articles) for more of the same nonsense. BTW, nice job on your work to the article, although I still think that we are going to have problems with all of the self-published citations. See if you can find stuff from independent sources, such as newspapers or magazines. A lot of this stuff has to be published somewhere other than the university's own pages.  Horologium  (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)