User talk:Horologium/March 2013

Notification
The nomination that you submitted for WP:WER Editor of the Week (back in mid-January) has worked its way to the top of the Queue. We will notify the recipient on Sunday evening as has been our practice. Thanks for the nomination and we look forward to others in the future. ```Buster Seven   Talk  07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A big thanks!
Thank you very much for nominating me for Editor of the Week. I have to say i'm a little embarrassed, but also 'chuffed to bits' as we say here in England (That means very happy!). I'm also ashamed to say I didn't even know that Editor of the Week existed, but now I do, and i'm thinking of some editors I could nominate myself. I have to admit that in my own editing I never award barnstars or anything like that, but this award has made me smile so much I will be shamed into action! Thank you again Sir. Bleaney (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome. I remember seeing your name repeatedly on one of the articles on my very small watchlist (I only track about 100 articles at any given time), and every single one of them was an improvement related to schools in Florida. I was floored (or gobsmacked, as you might put it) to find out that not only were you not a Floridian, you weren't even an American. And as for the "EotW", I discovered it when it was mentioned on one of the Administrator Noticeboards in January; it's a relatively new project, and you were the first non-American to get a nomination, so you can take a bow for that as well. (grin) I'm not a big barnstar person (I've given out one or two in the six years I've been an active editor), but it seemed like a good way to honor someone who has been quietly plugging away. You've done way too much work to go without some sort of recognition, so I nominated you, and while it took a while for your name to work its way up the queue, you eventually made it there. Thanks for all of your efforts!  Horologium  (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The first non-American eh? Cheers for that! Bleaney (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Brenda Ann Spencer
Hi, Horologium! At this article's talk page last month, you informally suggested a rename/refocus of the article. However, you have not formally "voted" in the current RM discussion. You might want to do that. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I wrote a great big TL;DR block which basically reiterates what I said in the previous section, and addded some clarification relevant to on-wikipedia events which have occurred since I initially broached the subject. I still support my original proposal (which is also the proposal you support), and I clarified my reasoning to B2C and noted the contributions of the (well-meaning) IP editor who unfortunately made this an even bigger mess than before. Thanks for your support, BTW, on both of the discussion pages.  Horologium  (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Block of Tramadul
Hi Horologium. I saw your great comment on Tramadul's talk page after he was blocked by Drmies a couple nights ago. I really appreciate your passion for protecting BLPs. Anyway, I just wanted to make you aware of this comment I posted on Drmies' talk page because I mentioned your name in it. Thanks and have a great evening. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thank you for letting me know that you mentioned me. It's frustrating to find out your name has been part of a discussion of which you were not aware. I wish more people would follow your example.  Horologium  (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Aw, thanks a lot. You're very welcome. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just became aware of this SPI. Also, I just wanted to make you aware, now that Tramadul is no longer disrupting the article, that I sat down for a couple hours and carefully rewrote the convction content at Paul Frampton, in line with the discussion between all of the editors involved in stopping Tramadul. Please see the comment I posted on the talk page of First Light, who has been extremely helpful in monitoring the page for BLP violations. Again, I'm just letting you know about this in case any other editors with bad motives try to replace my version with junk content again. Thanks a lot for all your help in this matter. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For your work on Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2012
...William 14:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I deserved that. At least I cleaned up after myself. (rueful grin)  Horologium  (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm open to trouting, so if you ever catch me in something silly, feel free to whack back. Cheers!...William 22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI - Article Probation on Men's rights movement
This is not a warning, only notifying you for the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- v/r - TP 01:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Your recent editing history at Spirit Airlines shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jetstreamer Talk 15:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jetstreamer...you need to learn the difference between edit warring and fighting off POV pushing by an IP hopping editor. A quick review of the page history makes it clear what's going on.--MONGO 16:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was warring, even though you think it wasn't. Moreover, the reasons you mention are not included in the list of exemptions.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)