User talk:Horologium/November 2009

Taco
Thanks for your prompt action here. I don't know why it's such a magnet for vandals, but it is. Strangely enough, it was unprotected earlier this year following a request from a vandal! Rivertorch (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the unblock. Mistakes happen :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbell24 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you reverted a vandalism removal; all I saw was a restoration of pure vandalism, and your IP block log is a mess. After a more thorough review of your contributions, I realized that you're not the source of the problem.  Horologium  (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley
I note in the revisions of the above mentioned article that you had reverted the page protection, but the page doesn't appear to be protected at all. Just wondering what the deal is... SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just noticed that Black Kite only protected the page for six hours. It automatically unprotected before I reverted DUMBbot. Oh, well.  Horologium  (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd Palin
Who knew? I frequently open diffs in tabs and review them as I get to them, and I recall first noticing the initial change, which was to alter the succession component of the infobox from "First Gentleman" to "First Dude." Not being familiar with the "in joke" — I never am, let's be clear — it appeared to be quite obvious (although relatively harmless, all things considered) vandalism. Thanks for the heads up, I will be less generous in my future "dude" nukings. In the grand scheme of things, though, it would seem like that article would be a prime wp:coatrack wp:blp vulnerability? Should it be indefinitely semiprotected, given the number of eyes on it are far fewer than Sarah Palin? user: J  aka justen (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, indefinite semi-protection would be ideal, but you'll never get an admin to agree to it (if I found this on RFPP, I'd decline; there's simply not enough vandalism to justify any semi-protection, let alone indefinite). Flagged revisions would be a nice thing for BLPs, but the "this is a wiki" crowd don't want to let that happen. In any case, that article is on my short watchlist (I keep it down to less than 100 items), so unless I'm not online, it'll get fixed fairly quickly. If I am offline for more than a day, I check *all* of the revisions of the items on my watchlist to make sure no vandalism slipped through. (Why yes, I am anal-retentive; why do you ask?) (grin)  Horologium  (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There actually seemed to be a lot of support for the concept of indefinite preventive semiprotection for wp:blp articles over at the Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy debacle, err, discussion. Especially given the ongoing delays with flagged revisions, I imagine.  I'm impressed you're able to keep your watchlist so streamlined; I really should apply some discipline to mine.  In any event, do you think the "dude" bit is notable enough to be encyclopedic and biographical?  If so, I could use one of those articles you listed and source a small mention into the article.  One other thing, which I imagine you already noticed: what do you make of User:Palin faye?  user: J  aka justen (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the "first dude" thing is not particularly encyclopedic, but it is a self-identification which was widely adopted elsewhere (as evidenced by the number of reliable cites). The uptight, control-freak portion of my personality makes it necessary for me to keep a small watchlist; I'd go nuts with a large list. As for User:Palin faye, I'm keeping an eye on that account; if it becomes active, it will likely need a rename because of the real-life implications. (I'm sure you are aware of the name's associations.)  Horologium  (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

May contain nuts
Thank you for this. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. I was over at your user talk page, apologizing for missing your instructions. :)  Horologium  (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus
Horologium, greetings. A user has just moved Northern Cyprus to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus without discussion. The page was moved (with consensus) to Northern Cyprus back in 2007 and has sat peacefully there since then. I tried to "unmove" it back to Northern Cyprus, but couldn't (usual reasons of course). Would you move it? There needs to be discussion on this first. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Just discovered that the guy did it with a cut and paste :p I reverted.  Sorry to bother you.  Cheers.  (Taivo (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Rogue
Courtesy notice - your actions are being discussed here. Regards. 7 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii spelling
Please read the manual of style for the Hawaii article. We have discussed this several times, and the consensus is to use proper Hawaiian language typography in the body of the article, but avoid special characters in article names. Thus all the piped links. At least many of them should be going back in. English words should be spelled in English, but Hawaiian words should be written in Hawaiian. You might disagree, but that is the style we agreed to. W Nowicki (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What I see is a proposed guideline, one which (after four years) still does not have consensus. Please do not use a proposed guideline to direct spelling or grammar changes.


 * Please read Naming conventions (geographic names), which is an accepted guideline, for why I have removed the okinas from the article. Again, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Hawaiian language Wikipedia. All of these places have English names without okinas (which appears to also match classical Hawaiian), and that is where the articles are all located; none of the articles have titles with okinas, although I suspect that redirects exist. In English, we don't normally refer to Deutschland for the large European nation; similarly, we don't refer to the island as Oahu.  Horologium  (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (Added later) You should also read Manual of Style, which clearly states that one spelling should be used throughout the article. Hawaii was a train wreck of multiple spellings; in some cases, both spellings were used in the same sentence, and more than one section had both spellings used without any discernible rhyme or reason. The only sections where both spellings should be used are those in which the name is under discussion.  Horologium  (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus within the project to use the modern orthography; we just are not familiar with how to make it more than proposed. On the contrary, we use the GNIS as our source of names, which for example lists Oahu as the officially correct name for the island. See feature id 359508,. Are you claiming that the U.S. Board on Geographic Names is not a reliable source? The GNIS and 2010 census generally use the state place name database, which also uses the okina.

Well I certainly agree on the inconsistency of the word "Hawaii" itself, which is why I generally take the okina out of that word: it is in most English dictionaries, so is an English word. However, most other place names do not appear in common English dictionaries, so are not English words. For example, "Lanai" is not spelling "Lānai in English". See. It is a simplified spelling, which is sometimes used, but still a simplified spelling. For example, the city "Saint Paul, Minnesota" can be simplified to "St Paul, MN" but that is not its name.

As discussed in the Hawaii manual of style, the compromise was to use the simplified spellings for the names of the articles, since it makes the URLS less messy and searching easier, but use the GNIS names in the body. Another good comparison is with the articles on Irish, Spanish, or French place names. Are you going to change all those place names to remove their special characters too? All we are asking is that Hawaiian language be given similar rules as European languages. The burden of proof is on you to show why not. W Nowicki (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Irish and French articles are covered by approved manuals of style. If you read Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), it says to use the English name for geographical places, unless the Irish name has gained favor in English usage. This is not the case for most Hawaiian geographic features. There seems to be a difference of opinion on the article talk page about whether the okina is a diacritic or a letter, which has to be resolved before Manual of Style (France & French-related) can be used as a model, since French uses diacritics, not non-standard letters. As to the Spanish articles, there is no MOS and no consensus.  Horologium  (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, the default position for the moment is to use the talk page before removing okina's. Please do not continue to remove them until talk page discussion is resolved first. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded on the article talk page. Note that I have not gone through the hundreds of related articles making changes; I have confined myself to the state article page, and Attack on Pearl Harbor, where I changed several spellings to maintain consistency within the article a couple of weeks ago. As W Nowicki notes (above), the spelling of the state does not use the okina in English. As for the rest, this page from the state's official website appears to agree with me, but hey, what would the state know about its place names? Changing place names from widely-accepted English exonyms to Hawaiian in the English language Wikipedia is a form of cultural imperialism, but I don't feel like fighting that war everywhere; I'll stick to Hawaii and general topics with no particular affinity for the state.  Horologium  (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)