User talk:Horologium/November 2007

Wikipedian Brights
Removed Category:Wikipedians by philosophy; still in Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Question: was the discussion completed with a decision or were you just Being Bold? -- Evertype·✆ 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just being bold, although it was after a (very) brief discussion with the nominator on the UCfD page. Since there seems to be something vaguely resembling a consensus that it is a religious belief/ideology/whatever, I left it in a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by religion and removed it from the philosophy category. As I have mentioned several times in this and other discussions, adding a category to multiple parents means that it is more likely to end up as a casualty if there is a mass deletion of a parent cat with all of its subcats. While I don't subscribe to the Bright movement (and frankly find many of its more vocal adherents to be as insufferable and dogmatic as fundamentalists of any religion), I recognize that there may be some utility to the category.
 * Seems to me that the formal process should be closed before such action is taken. -- Evertype·✆ 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was attempting to avert deletion of the category, since it appeared (at the time) that there was a risk of that occurring, and the only reason it was nominated was because of its inclusion in that parent cat. If you wish to get offended by my actions, revert my change, and then you can argue about it at deletion review. I don't care enough about it to get into an edit war over it. Horologium t-c 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended, but I think that as we have processes we ought to respect them. -- Evertype·✆ 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And to address something I brought up in the UCfD thread, you're right; it wasn't just you who repeatedly brought up Christianity, so I owe you a bit of an apology. It is just that Christianity was the straw man that was beat to death (as usual) whenever a subject involving theism vs. nontheism was discussed, and you had dragged it into the discussion twice at that point. Horologium t-c 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

fixing my comment
Thanks for the assist on the piping for the userboxes in the DRV on Wikipedian Brights. I knew there was some way to make them show up as blue links, but I couldn't remember/figure out the syntax. Is there someplace that all of the intricacies are documented? A couple of times I have come up with awkward wording to avoid having to make it obvious I didn't know how to format something correctly; a guide would be quite helpful. Horologium t-c 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. As for a "guide", Template:Tl seems to be what we have. It also has a rather long list of related templates there. - jc37 19:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou
Well thanks for you information. It is not me to vandalise. I'm a shy,senseative person knowing no harm to peole. Thanks for giving me warning.

Tom (Scrth)

tom 07:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

List of radio stations in Florida
So, you'd rather have a page full of outdated and inaccurate data rather than a work in progress? That makes a whole lotta sense... JPG-GR 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not gone through the two lists to check for accuracy, but I am fairly certain of the data in all of the smaller markets (the ones that I formatted). I did a *lot* of work on them to ensure their accuracy, and I created a lot of stubs to at least create blue links for most of the stations in several of those markets. Until you finish your project, please do not substitute it, because the primary effect is to eliminate an enormous amount of information. I'm not going to fight over the market thing; although I disagree with it, consensus appears to be against me on that, and most of the other states' lists use the new format. However, that does not mean that you should substitute a half-empty template in for one that is almost full. Additionally, your list leaves out all of the LPFM stations. While many of them are not notable (which is why they are still redlinks; I couldn't find enough information for even a stub on most of them), there are a few (such as WJND-LP that are notable. Are they to be excluded as well? Horologium t-c 21:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Change to WPFlorida template
Sorry about the delay, I missed the note on the talk page of the template (I've got 1000+ pages on my watchlist). Take a look at User:Kimon/WPFlorida and tell me what you think -- Kimon talk 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That works for me. (I'll respond on your page, too, since you might miss this response, otherwise...) Horologium t-c 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ -- Kimon talk 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

World Association of Ugly People
This list of famous people in the club is well documented. See link. The current version of the article is up to date. Vandals are usually quite obvious with their edits, so I don't think policing will be too difficult. Clerks. (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User page categories not going anywhere
Hi! The categories on your main page (About me, etc.) don't lead anywhere when clicked. Some of us browse with Javascript disabled, so perhaps that's the issue. In any event, wanted to let you know that they're broken, at least to this browser (Fx with script blocking). Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the categories expand with javascript. Was there particular section you were interested in reading? I'll post it here in the comments if you want to read it. Horologium t-c 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I could read them in the "edit" window :) so it's not necessary. Just wanted to let you know that some users do have JS disabled by default and that the links would not work for these users. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a reason I have the sections formatted in that fashion. When they are all "closed" (the default) everything fits on a 1280X1024 display without scrolling. (I hate scroll bars). Horologium t-c 17:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! I don't like long pages and scroll bars either, but I have a laptop with 1280x800, so *everything* has a scroll bar :) Didn't mean to make a big deal of this... but pondering, *strictly* for academic purposes, I suppose one could create additional user sub-pages, e. g. User:Foobar/About_Me, etc. (or whatever the format is), and link the titles on the user home page to the sub-pages. Not saying that you should do that... it just got me thinking about it. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Giant penguin hoax nomination
I was just reading the (now-closed) AFD discussion on the giant penguin hoax article in which your nomination suggested you felt the Fortean Times is a dubious source. Actually it's a very respected magazine - and it is not a conspiracy theory publication. The Wikipedia article on Charles Fort explains the significance of the publication's origins. It's most definitely a respected magazine and a viable source since it, in turn, only publishes material and reports to which verifiable journalistic or scholarly accounts can be attributed. In many respects it's similar to Wikipedia in that way. It also is a publication with international distribution. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the publication, so I only had the Wikipedia article to use for guidance, and the article led me to believe that the publication might be a bit less than reliable. Coupled with a tripod website as the article's only references did not help my initial impression of the magazine. If what you say is true, you might want to take a look at the Fortean Times article, which seems to indicate it's only a small step above the tinfoil-hat crowd's usual output. Horologium t-c 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Here's the full citation for the article I mentioned:
 * Jan Kirby. "Clearwater can relax; monster is unmasked". St. Petersburg Times. 11 June 1988. pg. 1D.

I can provide some assistance with the Wikipedia page later tonight.

As for the Fortean Times, many of the articles are objective and scholarly, but the magazine does provide a forum for some kooky opinion pieces. We shouldn't discount it entirely, because it does have some great stuff, but we should judge each article individually (e.g., based on its author, its sourcing, its general subject manner, etc.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted template
I would have modified the template to make it clear it was not a valid tag and added Di-no license or something similar to the template, forcing the images to be properly tagged within seven days or deleted. With that method, the tag would be unused in a week. Deleting the tag may have much the same effect—BetaCommandBot will tag the images, and they should either comply within a week or be deleted. If you want, you could ask the deleting admin AGK to temporarily restore the template with a note like I've mentioned until the images have been dealt with.  Pagra shtak  14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fallible!
Oops more haste, less speed. Both mistakes due to clumsy cut and pastes. (I blaim the government :-) Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy Of The Assumption
Could you tell me why this article was removed from WP Florida? I thought all schools in Florida were in that? Callelinea (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As per a discussion at WikiProject Florida, we are removing all schools which fall under the aegis of one of the state's three daughter projects (in this case, WikiProject Miami). There are several hundred high schools in the state, none of which are really notable on a statewide scale, so if there is a cognizant daughter project, we're punting it to them. In this case, the school has been closed for quite a while, which makes it even less noteworthy to the state project. WP Miami will take care of it eventually. Horologium t-c 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help : )
Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User categories for discussion/Wikipedians by programming language (talk)

Exploratory thought
In looking over all the people I asked for help, it really stands out to me that you're the only non-admin (I've asked another non-admin, in order to keep you company : )

That said, what are your thoughts about adminship? In my experience, you tend to be a thoughtful, well-meaning, sincere editor. You're interested in organisation, and helpful with ideas and suggestions for solutions/resolutions. You actually discuss the topic at hand and look outside the box to see beyond the discussion as well. And when you've been "attacked" in discussions, though I've noted heated responses from you at times, I don't seem to recall you ever "going over the cliff" as I have so many others.

What are your thoughts? - jc37 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, LOL at your first sentence.


 * I'm flattered, but I'm not sure if I am ready yet for adminship. While I have 5300+ edits, some experience doing the new changes vandalism thing, a lot of wiki-gnome type tweaking, and I'm obviously active in UCfD (and to a lesser extent AfD and DRV), someone digging through my edit history may find some incivility and impetuousness on my part (and a huge error, on which I did back down), occasionally stubborn editing (never to the level of 3RR, but a constant back-and-forth on a couple of articles), and a lack of participation in most of the other meta-wiki stuff (RFA; AN/I; RFAr, and even AIV.) I've only been an active editor since April (only 20 edits prior to that, plus 2 IP edits), and I know that a lot of RFA contributors are looking for more time before giving the mop to others. Additionally, I only have 2 GAs and 1 DYK under my belt, so I'm not the fabulous editor that is an obvious choice. Ask me again in January, and I might very well take you up, but I take rejection personally (a failing of mine), and I don't think I'd enjoy being told I'm not yet ready for the admin bits. Horologium t-c 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ROFL - You remind me of User:Carcharoth in this regard. You're obviously more qualified than you think (and even more than I realised).


 * That said, I suppose Wikipedia may have to patiently wait til January for you to help out as an admin... - jc37 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Invading the conversation: I only have 2 GAs and 1 DYK under my belt Let's make Coral Springs a FA. That's an ultimatum! LOL--Legionarius (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhhhh, no. I don't know if you saw the carnage of the FAC for Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which somebody else nominated before the article was ready. It is a lot closer to FA status than Coral Springs, and the response was overwhelmingly negative. Coral Springs might be an "A" class candidate some day, but I don't think there is enough out there for an FA on it. Horologium t-c 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you read it, so I am duplicating it here.

 * Hey Horologium! Looks very good to me. Personally, I would add small write-ups with more detail about the symbol itself (i.e., a version of the first paragraph from each individual symbol), and/or detail on why/how they were chosen. I like to make lists sortable/colorful and adding a little write-up for each section is something I think enriches the list as well. Btw, happy TG!

you've got mail
Check your wikipedia e-mail. Horologium t-c 05:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks (I don't check it nearly often enough : )
 * And no worries, though expect me to bother you again in January : )
 * And I see that you've sent me mail in the past which has been overlooked (until now).
 * Would you mind if I posted part of the one before this (to the top of my talk page) - Just the comment, of course. : ) - jc37 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. (grin) Horologium t-c 13:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Florida parks by county
HI, Horologium. I'm interested in Florida State Parks, and read on Donald Albury's talk page that you were proposing combining each county's parks into single articles. Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate the original discussion on that topic. Can you point me to it? Thanks. Tim Ross ·talk 11:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, the discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Florida, near the bottom. (It's just a couple of comments, not a consensus.) The article I created was just a test run, so to speak; I've not redirected any of the other articles yet. As you saw, Dalbury has some reservations about merging the articles by county, so it may be the only one I do. Horologium t-c 13:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Found it. Thanks. Florida State Parks in Alachua County looks good, although for the reasons I just added to the original discussion, I'd rather not follow this lead for State Parks, but think it might well work for Historic Sites and such. To save you from having to locate my comments, here's what I said: Tim Ross ·talk 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have somewhat mixed thoughts about this suggestion. The number you mention for National Historic Sites and Parks, 900, is so large, and most are of such modest or local significance, that it makes good sense in my opinion to combine them is some way. Doing it by county might work well. In the case of State Parks, though, I'm not sure combining them would be that helpful. True, using parks-by-county would reduce the number of needed articles down to some 40% of what we have now, but that's not really a huge saving. And, there are drawbacks. Some counties (i.e., Alachua) have many parks and others have one or none, so we would still have some very large and some very small articles. Also, I suspect many more users are looking for information about some specific park than are looking for the parks in a given county (although, admittedly, the later arrangement would be handy at times). Anyway, I'd vote to keep State Parks the way they are, but would strongly consider combining National Historic Sites and their kin into county units. Tim Ross ·talk 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Florida. Horologium t-c 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Impressed
I'm not terribly impressed with how you've backed down on Talk:Matt Sanchez. I think it's readily evident that most of the noise is coming from Sanchez and not the so-called "SPA accounts" you refer to. Sanchez has been warned at least twenty-five times now with no repercussions. Meanwhile, several other editors have were blocked/banned. I'm no saint, but I'm certainly not bent on "destroying" Matt Sanchez. I am simply not going to let this article become a promotional puff piece. Aatombomb (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Only one (well, two, if you count Pwok and his sock) person was indefinitely blocked for his actions on that article, and that was because Pwok started abusing the Wikipedia e-mail system to send nastygrams to the editors with whom he disagreed. RYoung's block was for an entirely different set of issues (unrelated to the Sanchez bit). I think the only reason Sanchez has been given the leeway he has is because he is the subject of the article, and he has been the victim of repeated personal attacks, which were brought under control only by semi-protecting the article. In any case, I'm through with it. I decided (after another round of rapid-fire spewing on the talk page) that the article is unfixable, and I have better things to do with my time than listen to tedious bickering over an article which has been fully protected for over two months now. I think the article has had about 5 days that it was not protected since April; that's asinine. Blocking Sanchez will not fix the structural problems with the article, and unprotecting it will cause the parade of IP edit-warriors to paint Sanchez as Beelzebub's evil brother. Horologium t-c 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)