User talk:Horologium/June 2009

Thanks!
All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Greece suggestion
You might want to have a look at this idea and see what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbMac2
I really regret seeing you say that you won't be as active on Wikipedia anymore and particularly that you won't be entering territory like the current dispute. Folks like you are exactly the ones we need to help keep things under control. I'm hoping eventually you'll feel you can be more active and even help out with things like this, even though I understand your frustrations. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will probably be staying, although I don't plan to edit Greece/Macedonia related articles extensively. My anger about the (at the time) permanent de-sysop of FPAS (coupled with the real-life hospitalization of my partner, who had another spinal surgery two days ago) made me somewhat verklempt. Since it appears that FPAS is only going to lose the tools temporarily (a measure with which he is acquiescing) upsets me far less. Once the case is closed, I will probably put my userpage back up, but I can't see the benefit in dealing with the ARBMAC2 conflict area. My rather pointed question about my involvement is an attempt to adequately define the term in relation to this and similar conflicts, but I don't know if I'm going to get a satisfactory answer, and without that, I'm not touching anything that will result in more pointless drama. I have enough drama in my life; I don't need more from Wikipedia.  Horologium  (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there! It's been a while, hasn't it...? :)
 * I've been following the ARBMAC2 case from a distance and the whole mess is ... discouraging, to put it mildly, to any uninvolved editor (admin and non-admin) who might think about becoming involved in these types of disputes. I am not familiar enough with the case to comfortably comment on the ArbCom's findings and remedies, but if a single issue in a nationalist dispute can result in this much unproductive activity (in terms of improvement to articles)...
 * Well, anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm glad you've decided to stay and to wish your partner a safe recovery. Best, –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, BF. My partner and I appreciate the sentiments.


 * From what I remember, you have been a calming influence on the Sri Lanka disputes. Maybe you can help at Centralized discussion/Macedonia? The dispute covers different a different set of circumstances, but the flaring tempers are similar. Since you don't have a history of editing any of the articles there, you'll be a much-needed new voice, without any of the baggage carried by some of the others there.  Horologium  (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have had a lot of real-life commitments in the past few months, so recently I have been inactive in the Sri Lanka project (WP:SLR), and I am looking for an opportunity to become active in the project once again. I am flattered that you think I could help in the Macedonia dispute, but I am unsure whether: (1) my experience from the Sri Lanka disputes, most of which were about the quality of sources and the best way to organize and contextualize information, will apply in the Macedonia naming dispute; and (2) I will be able to commit the necessary amount of time and attention to the issue. I will read through the various subpages, talk pages, and related guidelines linked from the navbox and perhaps that will give me a better idea... –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 18:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
 * All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
 * All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
 * The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : one year, one year, and six months.
 * The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: indefinitely, indefinitely, one year and, one year.
 * The Committee takes note that has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
 * is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
 * Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
 * Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
 * Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.


 * On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Sarah Palin
I fail to see how it is irrelevent, the article deals with her ancestors very thoroughly, so why not her descendants ? On your user page, you admit you're biased. (Jack1755 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I responded on the article's talk page. As for the ancestry part, that was all added today; it's likely to be brought up for discussion soon. I'm still looking through it, and it appears that it needs to be junked as well. And nowhere on my page does it say that I am biased. Please actually read what is there, and identify how that biases me.  Horologium  (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have a section on your user page saying My Belief's and Biases then ? (Jack1755 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Please read what is there, rather than assume that I am biased on this particular article. In any case, I am pretty good at not allowing my personal beliefs to dictate my editing (something which you would have understood had you read the section).  Horologium  (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Request
Horologium, if you're not too busy, would you be willing to look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Profsherman_reported_by_User:Paul_H. this]? User:Profshermen is on a rampage of writing fauning adoration for Robert Sarmast. Two of us have reverted him/her, but they are not talking on either their Talk page or the article Talk Page. They revert our deletions or requests for citations within seconds without so much as an edit summary. The Biography section is especially adoring unscientific content. If you're busy, I understand. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Looks like another admin handled it. Cheers.  (Taivo (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Signature -- you're a bit late
Umm thanks, but the response to your "request" was already taken care of nearly a day and a half ago. Raw signature lengths don't include the date, and as it is currently, it's 247 bytes, and afaik, that's less than 255 characters. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder  (T·C) " 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted. I ran across your signature, and did not realize that you had recently pruned it. (I included the date characters in the count because they are embedded in the signature; I specifically worded my post to note that because I am aware of how raw sigs work.) Thank you for your prompt response.  Horologium  (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder  (T·C) " 02:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Masterworks Chorale Deletion
I would appreciate it if you would restore the Masterworks Chorale wiki page. You deleted it citing blatant copyright infringement from the web site,. I am the webmaster for masterworks.org and I am a member of the team that wrote the copy at. I also edit the Masterworks wiki page. I don't think my use of my own copy can be copyright infringement. How can I show this on the wiki page? I want to make sure I satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia. I understand that wiki pages are not to be direct copies of web sites, but this page contains quite a bit of content found only here. When writing about an organization like Masterworks a lot of the history, facts and figures are going to mirror the web page.

If you will restore the page, I'll be happy to address any concerns you have. This is my first and only wiki page and I want to be a good citizen. Bonniefullerton (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There were a couple of problems with the page when I deleted it. The most obvious problem was that the entire first section was a word-for-word cut-and-paste from the Chorale's website, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. Since you were the author, take a look at Donating copyrighted materials, which addresses the issue (in stupefyingly tedious detail, sorry). The other issue is the lack of independent sourcing; the only citations were to the chorale's website and an "eyewitness account" by a former member of the ensemble, neither of which are appropriate sources for references. If you can find independent coverage of the chorale by reliable sources (such as concert reviews or something about that KQED recording), the article can be restored to mainspace. In the meantime, I will restore the page (including all of its edit history) to a subpage in your userspace for you to deal with the copyright issue and to appropriately source it. If even a few of the statements in the article are independently verifiable, the group should meet the requirements for notability, unlike most of the other deleted music groups who think that a Myspace page with a low-fi recording of their song is enough to merit inclusion. (smile) The page can now be found at User:Bonniefullerton/MC.  Horologium  (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User Horologium in the German wikipedia
You cannot usurpate another username if the current owner does not accept it and have done at least one edit, regardless how long it is ago. So, please don't write such threatening messages on foreign user pages. Thank you. --82.83.126.246 (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll respond, although it's not clear that you will see this. The "threatening" message I left on that user's page is a standard template on the German Wikipedia (Übernahme beantragt), suggested to me by someone who used to be active on both de.wp and en.wp. That message was left over a year ago; and it has since been clarified that de.wp is not going to allow users to usurp abandoned usernames if there are valid contributions (it was not at all clear what policy de.wp was going to follow in the wake of the introduction of SUL). Since that user is also User:Horologii here, and he has disabled his e-mail on both accounts (despite the invitation to e-mail him), and has no edits on either account since April 2007. (He is most likely using "Horologii" because by the time he came over here, I had already registered "Horologium" on en.wp. I am "Horologium" on 40 other wikimedia projects, 17 of which have valid edits, and only de:Benutzer:Horologium is not tied to my SUL.)  Horologium  (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Famous Floridians
Dear Horologium:

To my dismay, I understand that you are against my list of famous Floridians. Of course I realized that it was not exhaustive, but few things are. I made certain, however, that every name had a link to an article in Wikipedia on that person which verified his or her significant connection to Florida. That's not enough of a reference?

My biggest argument for this section is that it's INTERESTING. Reading about the native flora and fauna of the state is not going to be at all memorable to most of the people (75% of whom are not college graduates), who peruse this article. What's wrong with adding something fun to it? Many of the articles in Wikipedia have sections called "popular culture," which is mostly trivia. I happen to like trivia however, and so do most people. I would say that many people visit Wikipedia in the first place because they like reading about things that have no impact on their lives.

As a matter of fact, I got this idea from reading about the great state of Missouri --God bless her. I had no reason to read about this state other than being curious, and having time to kill during my summer break. I teach.

May I respectfully assert that you are being slightly too pedantic about this. I appeal to the Grand Poobahs of Wikipedia to let this section in!

Stacy CuthbertsonStacy511 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As an English teacher, I agree wholeheartedly about your disdain for Nu English.


 * As I noted on the talk page, such a list already exists—List of people from Florida. It doesn't need to be added to the main article.


 * Long bulleted lists are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia, although there are plenty of articles (far too many) with lots of lists. However, our better articles (Good Articles and Featured Articles) have few, if any, lists in the article itself. There are two state articles which have reached Featured status (Minnesota and Oklahoma) and four more which are Good status (Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia). None of these six articles have a list of people from the state in the article; none of them have a lot of lists of any type. Every single state has a separate list entitled List of people from _______, but most of the states don't have the same list incorporated into the main article for the state. See Wikipedia's guideline on Embedded Lists for an explanation of why such lists are deprecated. My intent is to continue pushing this article to Good Article status, which means that several of the lists remaining in the article have to go. (I've already split out several lists, but some have returned to the article and some new ones have been added. The Education section is going to be going on a diet soon.)


 * I won't get into a long debate over "fun" articles, but first and foremost, an article should be informative, and for the most part, a list of famous people from the state is not going to add much to the article. While I have little use for trivia sections in general, a list of people is at least something appropriate for Wikipedia, which is why it has a separate article. It should not be added to Florida, however.


 * Oh, my partner is also a teacher, although it looks like his health issues are going to prevent him from teaching any longer. His primary fields are English and Spanish, but he also holds teaching certificates for French, Italian, and German.  Horologium  (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment
Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'll take a pass. I checked in on the discussion while the first phase was under way, and I saw more of the same "flooding the zone" behavior that characterized the discussion on Talk:Greece and the arbitration. I can be excessively verbose sometimes, but the logorrhea and stonewalling coming from a couple of editors far outstrips me even at my worst. I fear that the whole process is not going to accomplish much; bans will eventually have to be enacted.  Horologium  (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I can understand your tiredness with the debate, I am actually a lot more optimistic than you. The big difference is that we now have the referee system in place, which means a rational result can be achieved even without "convincing" the other side (which, indeed, would be hardly possible.) At this point, all that needs to be done is to get a convincing documentation of where the real consensus outside the stonewalling faction lies. A firm and well-grounded solution is within reach now. Yes, we can! Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The referees make all the difference. Yes, some bans will be required after implementation, but the admins making the bans will have some teeth to back them up with after the process is over.  (Taivo (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC))
 * We do seem to be making progress. Horologium, I can't blame you for disliking the interminable nature of the debate, but we have now - at long last - reached the point of decision. There's no need for you to engage in further debate - the only thing necessary now is to indicate which proposal(s), if any, you prefer. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your second choice here, I'm afraid we're only allowed once choice per discussion page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. Took care of that.  Horologium  (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries - thanks. :) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, guys, I participated. (wry grin) If any administrator is watching this page, you might want to take a look at this contribution log; my first instinct is to drop the banhammer on him as a disruptive POV pusher, but YMMV, and I'm trying to avoid using tools in this dispute, as per my many statements to that effect during the arbitration. I ran across him a few minutes ago, and he doesn't look to be here with NPOV intentions.  Horologium  (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)