User talk:Horologium/October 2007

Category:User als
Hello, you reverted my edit there. As I understand, many people continue to use to identify themselves as speakers of Alemannic German without knowing that this code shall describe Albanians per  Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007. -- Matthead discuß!    O       17:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New discussion on Category:User als
Hi Horologium

I have reinitiated a debate on Category:User als because I think important points have not been considered. It is at User categories for discussion. I'd be happy if you participated since you initiated that debate in the first place (at User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007). -- j. 'mach' wust ☛ ☏ 10:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
You recently commented on Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
William Cooley is a featured article. Obviously, without your help this would be impossible. Thanks again.--Legionarius 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Threat to 'Freedom of Speech'
Please explain why making comments such as this:

How about in 2004, when he was still escorting at age 34...was he being 'exploited' then? No, he was making $$$. This man was a prostitute who sold his body for money.

are a 'violation' when Matt Sanchez admitted on national television, as well as in the online and print media, that he was in fact a male escort? I find it 'dangerous' that we as a society declare certain subjects too 'taboo' to discuss in a public forum. Ryoung122 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it because of the date issue. I (personally) believe that Sanchez was an escort earlier in his life, while he was making films or shortly thereafter. However, there is no evidence to support my belief, which is why I haven't said anything about it. OTOH, while Sanchez has made conflicting claims about escorting in his past, he has denied the *2004* allegations every single time, and that is the reason I redacted that portion of your comments, using the same BLP guidelines under which it has been removed from the article in the past. There is no reliable source that can conclusively prove that Sanchez was escorting in 2004, and until there is one, that information must not be added to the article. Hannity and Colmes is not a reliable source, any more than Rush Limbaugh or Free Republic, or for that matter Democratic Underground or Daily Kos, or any blog, liberal or conservative. All of those fora have agendas, which make them unreliable because they cherry-pick information to advance their positions. Horologium t-c 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag style for locations without a county flag
Hey, which do you prefer for locations in Florida without a county flag/seal?

Option A:
 * subdivision_name2       = [[Image:blank.svg|20px]] Alachua

Option B:
 * subdivision_name2       = Alachua

Other states, like Colorado and Iowa use option B (no blank image spacer), but I figured I'd ask you what you think before I make 800 edits. --CapitalR 21:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Use the spacer; I am going to continue to hunt down more seals and add them as I find them, and the spacer (in addition to being a nice placeholder) allows all of the text to line up nicely. Horologium t-c 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah good choice, I think it looks better that way too. I'm going to start up replacements now.  They're being made in the bot account, but I'm manually checking them all to ensure nothing goes wrong again.  --CapitalR 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ocean Breeze Park, Florida
Many thanks for alerting me to the Indian River River typo. I've changed it to Indian River Drive. Thanks also for moving the image in Stuart, Florida into the infobox. When I saw how you did it, I was able to do the two others I was having trouble with. I really appreciate your help. clariosophic 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. No problem. It's rather counter-intuitive to have to remove the Image: prefix and brackets from the image file in order for it to display in the infobox. It took me over half an hour of furiously swearing at the screen before I figured out what I needed to do to make it work the first time I added images to an infobox for a city...(grin) Horologium t-c 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
It is protected so that only administrators can edit it. I am administrator. My edit was a non-controversial one -- I was just adjusting the headings to conform to the Manual of Style, so I don't think that it would offend anyone. Ground Zero | t 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on UCFD:Bright Wikipedians
I was hoping you would respond to my most recent comment (near the bottom of the thread, in response to your last comment there). My proposal (if acceptable to you) might end some of the more heated rhetoric that has appeared there. I can see a limited utility to the cat, but it's foolish to leave it in multiple parent cats, and there appears to be something approaching consensus about leaving it in Category:Wikipedians by religion and removing it from the (soon to be deleted?) Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. Horologium t-c 03:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment, and have been debating with myself whether to respond, and if so, what the response should be.


 * As an aside, I should say I'm rather disappointed in several of my fellow Wikipedians.
 * I think the thing that's the most concerning is that with maybe a couple exceptions, even after explaining the sort of criteria necessary to provide for a "strength of arguments" keep, there seems to be a lack of interest to even try, preferring attacks of logical fallacy, or reasons which have little chance of being accepted as "valid reasons", as you also know as a regular on this page. So here I am, continually attempting to help others foster discussion, and I'm repeatedly accused of whatever, and attacked again, and again.
 * I have to say that it's more than disconcerting how polemically divisive a discussion - about user categories which are used for identification purposes - may become. I wrote a note on the Village Pump about it (so much for accusations of "hiding" the UCFD page), but have had no responders as yet, and it may be archived soon, if it isn't already.


 * Anyway, allow me some time to think about an answer, and I'll respond to your question. - jc37 04:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)