User talk:Horologium/October 2010

Contract on America deletion
Why was this redirect deleted? Similar redirects which would could be considered "attack" articles exists. Examples include Obamacare, Bushville, Cheneyville, and Obamaville. Each of these redirects "attack" a certain individual, and "Contact on America" doesn't even single out a single politician as the others do. The term is sourced and still used today. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - or in other words, just because you may find other examples on Wikipedia which you may feel are "just as bad" or "worse", that doesn't mean that this particular example then has the sudden "right" to remain. And besides: redirects exist to aid navigation, not to list every bad (or good) thing someone has said about something. I hope this helps. - jc37 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists isn't my other argument. When someone types "Contract on America" into the searchbox, shouldn't they be redirected to Contract from America? Wouldn't that help navigation? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would they, would be my question.
 * Because they liked that term better?
 * Or are you suggesting that there are those out there who only know the term by this perjorative name? - jc37 03:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the Google results for "contract on america". Now look at the first search result (at time of posting). CTRL+F and search for "contract with america". Although "Contract on America" is mentioned, "Contract with America" isn't mentioned. How would they know what "Contract on America" was without a redirect? Contract with America was from the Clinton era, and the newcomers to the Internet (teenagers) don't remember what much about Clinton era and its politic terms. These people may only know the political pack by its pejorative name, especially if they only encountered it through that "first search result" I linked to. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS, with an accent on reliable. And besides, I don't think that the existance of a slew of opinion pages is supporting your point here. I would venture to guess that those looking for the page know indeed that the use of "on" is the perjorative.
 * Anyway, to help, I added a hatnote to the "from" page, similar to the one on the "with" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc37 (talk • contribs) 03:41 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources: Fox News for example. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Opinion pages, blogs and the like? Not really. The closest I see to WP:RS there are statements which reiterate President Clinton's use of the term, and those suggesting a new comparison of the "with" with the "from". (The latter being covered just fine by the hatnotes on both articles.)
 * The best argument for this redirect's retention "might be" to the "with" article, due to President Clinton's usage. Though again, should we honestly presume that our readers would know it by this term and not by the actual term? Highly unlikely. - jc37 05:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. it's always fascinating to come to one's talk page and discover an entire thread that one didn't know about... (grin)

jc37 has fairly thoroughly covered all of the reasons why that redirect got nuked. I will be nuking Obamaville and Bushville momentarily, because they are pejoratives which are not discussed in the article, and are bogus equivalencies in any case; what exists now does not in any way compare to the depression-era shantytowns. While "Obamacare" is possibly a pejorative, it is pretty likely the most common name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; even I didn't know the full name of the act, and I'm a political junkie. That is one of 14 separate redirects to that bill, only one of which comes close to the actual title of the bill (one of the redirects is PPACA). As for Cheneyville, that is not a redirect, it's a disambiguation page for the two unincorporated communities named Cheneyville, one of which is in Illinois, the other of which is in Louisiana.  Horologium  (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I never actually clicked on Cheneyville; I assumed it was a redirect like the other two. Thanks to both you for the explanation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Item comment
Hello there. Just wanted to share this with you. this a reply which I posted to a comment of yours at the Arbcom proceeding. thanks very much for your comments there.


 * I don't think Risker means what you seem to think she means here. This is not an excuse to create coatracks, but it means that we don't get to exclude quotes from newspapers because they are not scientific journals. Horologium (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to add my two cents, to say that the above comment is probably the most important comment in this entire proceeding. 100% right. you don't get to exclude newspaper articles just because they're not scientific journal articles. in fact, you don't get to exclude anything, just because it is not a particular thing. the people who keep deleting others' contributions with zero discussion, have consistently done just that, claiming that they alone have the right to decide what is acceptable. quite simply, they do not, and they are totally wrong. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarasota, Florida discussion
I have started a discussion about changes to Sarasota, Florida, an article you have contributed to substantially here. Any comments, suggestions and/or criticism you may have are welcome. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike Francesa
hey Horologium, take another look at the editors involved in the BLP-violative edits. They appear to be all new editors, and i think if the protection is downgraded to semi it will be cool.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, missed this first time through my talk page. For some reason, the semi-protection that was in place on the article wasn't working. (Take a look at the protection logs; the article was under semi-protection until next year when I kicked it up a notch.) Right before I went to bed last night, I noticed that the last edit had been from an IP address, but I wasn't about to deal with that when all I wanted to do was sleep. I'll deal with this in the afternoon when I come home; I'd like to look at this in greater detail before I change the protection. I may actually need to file a bugzilla report, because protection wasn't working on that article, and I don't know why.  Horologium  (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * the logs indicate that the semi expired last February.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (posting from UF) That's February 2011, not February 2010. Enigmaman protected it in February 2010 for a year.  Horologium  (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * my bad, you're right. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I reduced it to indefinite semi-protection. For some reason, Enigmaman move-protected it for a year, and edit-protected it for only six months, so since August it's been getting battered around. Bizarre.  Horologium  (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * am i mistaken again, or did you semi-indef the talk page instead of the article?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * D'oh! This is what happens when I try to edit with a really bad head cold (it's pollen season again in North Florida, and life is not so good right now). Fixed that.  Horologium  (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You can switch places with me in the northeast any day.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, no. My sister lives out in your neck of the woods (she's on Lawn Guyland), and neither me nor my partner do well in cold weather, either. He has Parkinson's Disease, and I grew up in Fort Lauderdale and spent my first 15 years in the Navy in San Diego. The allergies suck here (for two weeks in spring and two weeks in fall), but the snow and cold (for four months) would be much worse.  Horologium  (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * sure? bad weather = WP time. sorry to hear about partner. hope you two manage it well. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service
The page logs says you previously deleted this artice under G5: "Creation by a banned user in violation of ban". The page has been recreated by a new account. I'm not an admin so I have no idea it's the same page possibly being recreated by a sock but a swear I saw a similar page yesterday while patrolling new pages so I thought I'd let you know. -- D•g Talk to me/What I've done 03:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Yes, that was recreated by a new sock of banned user . I've tagged and blocked the new sock, and this time I've salted the title.  Horologium  (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Red and Anarchist Action Network deletion
The deletion of the Red and Anarchist Action Network (RAAN) entry was unfounded on its speedy deletion. The original article deleted from 2006 is far different from the one in 2010. There was no call for additional sourcing and notability was made. Instead of a "sources needed" tag or a call for deletion, you decided to delete without any discussion on the matter. The recent vandalism of the Modesto Democratic Headquarters by RAAN only increases its notability. I must question the reason for this quick deletion because: sourcing is stronger in the entry that was deleted than the one originally deleted. There is on going activity from the group that has grabbed media attention.

Instead of call attention to issues with notability, you decided a full deletion was in order. I fully disagree with this action. The entry needs to be put back in place and a discussion on what needs to be fixed/changed needs to occur instead.Brokendoor (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the article was not significantly different. The lede was a word-for-word copy of the original article. The article I deleted was longer, but not any better; the new section extensively quotes from a variety of sources which all fail Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing. Indymedia, Free Mind Media, Infoshop.org, and a couple of broken links to the organization's own site do not confer notability or reliability. Because the article was substantively the same as the article which was deleted after a discussion, it qualified for speedy deletion under CSD:G4. Without sources (reliable sources, not anarchist fanboy sites or open publishing collectives like Indymedia), there should not be an article. You can create an article in your sandbox, and once it is appropriately sourced, it can be pushed into mainspace. Simply recreating the same article and adding more unsourced original research, couched in florid prose, does not work.  Horologium  (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Article was significantly different from the 2006 article, with additional sourcing and information. It *does not* qualify under CSD:G4 since it is not a recreation of the same article.  Good faith and discussion are required in these cases and you over extended your privilege on deletion.  However, another entry will be created, to show good faith, in the manner you requested.  I will not place this under review and allow your decision to stand, but I am noting extreme difference of opinion.Brokendoor (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)