User talk:Horologium/June 2008

Ni Hao, Kai-Lan
Oh, sorry, I see what you mean. I went through that site three times looking for where the copyvio was, but you meant that the IP was adding the copyvio. My misunderstanding (again; you were the one to inform me that American English was in fact allowed back in August last year!). The copyvio notice led me to believe that the text was still there. :) Oh well, I have no objection to overturning the decision, but I thought the number of edits was a bit too low to warrant protection for now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  21:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!
Hi there! I supported you in your recent RfA, and I just wanted to ask you how you are coping with the extra buttons. How are you doing? Cheers, Razorflame 22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've used them only a bit, since I ended up taking three college classes less than two weeks after my RFA. I've done a little bit of everything (speedies, expired PROD, AFD and UCFD closes, page protection, and a couple of blocks. Once I finish my classes at the end of the month, I'll be doing a lot more admin drudge work, but for now, I just pop in when I can and check my watchlist and do the easy fixes. Thanks for asking. (grin) Horologium  (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hey there, Horologium. Just wanted to drop you a note that I don't really think I'll be answering the remaining optional questions on my RfA - considering that the entire opposition came from my answering #4 and #5, I just don't think I want to give any more "ammunition" to the oppose. While I have remained calm and refrained from making a big deal about the opposes, it's hard to see them come - in one of those diffs, the admin who "blocked for incivility" was desysoped - read that again, desysoped - because it was a horrifically bad block. And it's being cited against me. Sigh ;-)

Anyways, I would be more than happy to answer any specific questions you personally had, either here or on my talk page. This message is not a plea for support, it is merely an explanation that your neutral !vote request probably won't be answered in the RfA. Tan  |  39  17:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. FWIW, I supported sanctions against Tango, although I didn't expect him to be de-sysopped as a result. That was done because he totally refused to acknowledge any possibility that he was out of line, and I think your response to the whole thing was not inappropriate. It's not something I would have posted myself, but of course YMMV. I may end up supporting you anyway, for a variety of reasons, including the nature of some of the unstruck opposes. Horologium  (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Usurp on de.wikipedia
This is to confirm that I am requesting usurpation of Benutzer:Horologium on de.wikipedia. Horologium  (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP thread on ANI
Hi, I'd like to check something with you. Are the privacy disclosures sufficiently addressed by Oversight and deletion at this time? The discussion intrigues me and I've prepared a blog post that addresses it in the context of other issues, but before I bring that live I'd like to ensure a link to the ANI thread doesn't compromise the individual's privacy. Regards,  Durova Charge!


 * That appears to be part of the dispute. I believe that the most egregious violations have been oversighted (the disclosure of his name), but his alleged home town is all through the archives (there were over 300 edits which had that information in them, dating back to March of this year. Some of the editors involved in the discussion apparently don't see a problem with that (and have been pushing for more to be added back to the article), but I believe that you and I are in accord that it should be cleared entirely. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I'll chew on this a little more. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 10:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

abolishment ->abolition. Substituting word for non-word.
Check a dictionary (both are words). Tedickey (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right; I stand corrected. However, I still think that abolition sounds better than abolishment, and Firefox flags the latter as a spelling error. I'm not sure which dictionary is used by Firefox 3.0, but it's apparently not American Heritage College Dictionary (4th edition), which is my hard copy dictionary that I used to verify your statement. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ouch.
LOL. Well, there is always an exception that proves the rule, right? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My own self-worth is directly tied to this
Everyone wants to think the articles they work on are the most important in the world. However, mine really are! Ok, but anyways, I left the importance levels un-assessed in the Everglades articles I added, and I'd agree with a mid-importance rating for Indigenous people of the Everglades region, and even hmmm Geography and ecology of the Everglades, but I think since the history of drainage directly implicates the growth of the megalopolis South Florida metropolitan area, and Restoration of the Everglades is the largest and most expensive environmental repair attempt in human history, and it's now an issue at least in John McCain's presidential candidacy, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades should be high. If the sustaining of quality of life of the largest urban area in Florida isn't of high importance, I can't imagine what would be. --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have two ball-buster finals today, and I have to leave in about five minutes. I'll talk to you tonight about these articles. I'm not dead-set on the priorities I assigned to a couple of articles last night. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Above all things, protect your balls from exams. The importance levels of the articles with survive the day. I look forward post-exam, to discussing all my wonderful, important articles with you. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I managed to keep them intact. As I said, I'm not entirely opposed to bumping that one up (and I think that you are right about the Geography article); I simply happened to notice we had a bunch of new GA/FA class articles with no priority on them, which didn't seem right to me. Now that I am through with school until August, I'm going to go through and fix a buttload more priority levels; too many people seem to think that anyone born in Florida is automatically at least mid-level importance. There are an astonishing number of politicians of marginal notability (state legislators) who are listed at mid-level, and some just-plain-silly categorizations. I'm going to tweak some of it and then address it on the WikiProject talk page.


 * FWIW, have you considered creating an Everglades topic for Featured topics? You've done an astonishing amount of work on a closely-related group of articles, and it might be worth it to create a topic; you've already established a category for the articles... <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have considered nominating the articles for Featured Topic. Everglades, being the lynchpin, and now being leviathan, has to go through some edits before I nominate it for GA. I appreciate the suggestion and the comments, though. Did you see the front page of the New York Times and The Miami Herald? Restoration of the Everglades is a hot topic. Excellent news, as far as I can see... --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop
There's a discussion happening. Trying to enforce your will during the discussion IS out of process. Please stop. S. Dean Jameson 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the discussion; I have participated in it. I am also aware that at least eight people have explicitly endorsed the merge, and another editor has implicitly endorsed it (through his redirect). I count only four opposed to the merge. Since the admin who closed the AfD clearly stated that a merge was appropriate, I am attempting to comply with the terms of the AfD closure. Your refusal to allow the merge is you attempting to enforce your will, not the other way around. In fact, until Everyking reverted me, you were the only person to revert attempts to merge the article. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not consensus. Majority doesn't rule on WP, especially when the sample size is 12 editors. I haven't been bullying, I've simply reverted your out of process blanking/redirect during an open discussion. The AfD defaulted to "keep" per policy. Now there's discussion happening that hasn't resulted in anything resembling a viable consensus. S. Dean Jameson 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should reread Sandstein's rationale on his talk page, which is a clear finding that the article should not exist on its own. 33.3% outright deletion and 33.3% merge, versus 33.3% keep does not equal "keep". <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. It defaults to keep without consensus, which wasn't present. Even Sandstein has said any plans to merge should be fully discussed on the talkpage, and that his closing statement shouldn't be used to justify a merge without such discussion. S. Dean Jameson 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I know you are watching this page, and don't like warnings on your page, I will note that you are once again at 3RR on the article. You will get blocked if you revert again. I'm not going to revert you again, but it is likely that someone else will, and if you revert them, you will be reported to 3RR and be blocked. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know where I am. And I know that tag-teaming on an article to put an editor on the edge of 3RR is unacceptable as well. S. Dean Jameson 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not tag-teaming. I have never interacted with before. Not all editor functions that disagree with yours are out-of-process, and its a bit insulting of you to accuse two administrators of attempting to force you over the 3RR. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's very little other way to read what's happened. You two are attempting to enforce your view without consensus for it. You've now (along with Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The) put me on the edge of 3RR in doing so. How else am I supposed to read that? S. Dean Jameson 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot about Tony; that's three editors who have independently done the same thing. Perhaps you should interpret it as "my view does not have sufficient support", since you have reverted three editors all by yourself. (Yes, Everyking reverted me once, but you did as well, and you are the only person to revert the merge other than Everyking, and you have done it six times now, on two different days, involving five different editors.) <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's YOU that has to have consensus to do what you're trying to do. "Keep" is the default, per policy. Majority doesn't rule here, Horologium. You should know that. S. Dean Jameson 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, you do not seem to understand that merging is an editorial function, independent of deletion. As most of the information in this article is in the article Tim Russert, this is duplication, and it should be deleted and redirected (essentially the same thing as a merge). <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my attitude and tone
In looking back through my discussion with you (and others of your view), I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Wikipedia, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. S. Dean Jameson 20:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology noted and accepted. You seem to have taken criticism of this article very personally; criticism of the article is not a criticism of you (or Mr. Russert, for that matter). Please step back and realize that disagreement on policy does not make other editors "the enemy", or stupid, evil, bullies intent on forcing Wikipedia to bow before us; they are simply policy disagreements. There are knowledgeable people on both sides of the debate (Everyking has 112,000 edits on Wikipedia, and was an admin for almost 18 months); let's just let the RFC play out, and accept whichever result is decided. Even if the article is merged, the edit history will remain in place for posterity, or for future reference on a related topic. Merges don't destroy anything, they simply toss it in to the closet for storage. (grin) <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Sometimes it's hard to see through the frustration, when you really feel like the "other side" isn't seeing your points, but there's no excuse for anger or rudeness, and (unfortunately) I delved into both. S. Dean Jameson 13:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened with my entry??!!
Hi I entered a FA-Q entry and you deleated it without even replying to my discussion topic...my reason?? What's up with that! It wasn't advertising! I don't even know who makes the T-Shirts! They are just very popular in Laos and I though Wiki users could profit from knowing what are they all about.

Paula Gil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correodpaula (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The entry I deleted was not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and Wikipedia is not for advertising. What was posted failed Wikipedia's requirements for notability and verifiability, it appeared to solely exist to promote the products offered by the company, and the context of the article was not clear. One of the external links was inappropriate (a blog on blogspot), and another one wasn't even a link at all (the second one). <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FAQ (Finest Available Quality) just got nuked too. Do not use Wikipedia as a place to advertise your products. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving the Giano ANI thread
Given the fact that a new subthread, addressing the Kittybrewster alternate accounts, had just opened in the past hour and was in the middle of active discussion, perhaps you might have considered some alternatives to a straight move. I am sympathetic to the need to cut the size of ANI, but perhaps keeping the active (and only peripherally related) subthread on the main board would definitely have been helpful in what is essentially a community discussion about another editor whose name isn't Giano. I've retitled the thread, but I wonder if you would reconsider and at least move the Kittybrewster subthread back to the main board. Risker (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your rename, but it was noted at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard that at least one admin was having trouble opening ANI (it was 337K when I split out the 57K dramabomb), and it doesn't look like that particular discussion is going to end anytime soon. If you've followed the other threads resulting from blocks of Giano, they tend to be as contentious, voluminous and long-running as Betacommand block threads. I considered doing the same with a couple of other threads to free up room, but that is both the longest and the only active discussion, so I decided to go with that. Please don't move it back on to the main ANI page. The Kittybrewster thread started as a result of Giano's actions, and breaking the thread would remove necessary context. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely understand your point, I have trouble with ANI from time to time as well. I've added a link directly to the discussion about KB. I'd hate to see a productive discussion fall by the wayside when it's in its infancy, but I agree there are context issues that need to be added.  By any chance to you know how to move the TOC of the subpage up to the top of the subpage?

I can never remember that little bit of code. Risker (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the ToC issue. It's . I seriously doubt that the discussion will fall by the wayside, but some of the rubberneckers at AN/I will not go to the subpage, which might improve the Signal-to-Noise ratio somewhat. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. You're probably right about the rubberneckers, too. Risker (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the words of kindness and comfort on my talk page. They help to give me strength in this terrible period. It is people like you who make me see that we are not only connected by the internet, but by the heart. With much love, Jeffpw (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay

 * Hey I understand your concern. I will not touch WPFL again. Jccort (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex's statement
I saw Alex B.'s comment on your idea of a group to review the arbitration committee at the RFAR, and I wanted to point at Cross-wiki_arbitration_committee as a model that might be useful in the concept your describing, just my 2 cents.  MBisanz  talk 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And I thought that I had finally come up with a novel idea... (grin) <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)