User talk:Horologium/October 2011

WPConservatism
Hello Horologium! In the short time since you commented at MfD another 5 6 Keeps have rolled in. Just these recent !votes equal the sum total in opposition. I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision. You see, this is not some stub that an article creator will valiantly try to rescue. This is a wikiproject: a vibrant, living group of about 55 editors, with many departments and initiatives. For many members this is the only project to which they belong; this group is their home. This MfD is like a dagger hanging over these editors, it's like a foreclosure proceeding. It's negatively impacting morale, and it will be challenging to regain the momentum we enjoyed prior to this action. I understand your concerns about the 5 or so in opposition, but the outcome has already been determined. We also have to take into account the 55 members hanging in the balance. Let us get back to what we do best: improving conservatism-related articles. Thanks for your consideration. TTFN – Lionel (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the !votes. (Your message actually came in while I was navigating to the page.) WP:SNOW requires that there be no substantive deletion requests (or keep requests if it is to be closed as "delete"). While I disagree with the deletion rationales, I cannot justify ignoring the inputs from several good-faith editors who disagree with the consensus. It's likely that the project will be kept, and letting the discussion run for a few more days won't hurt anything, and may prevent a resubmission "because the first one was closed early".  Horologium  (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining it to me. I understand your position even though I do not believe this is "potentially winnable." This has not been posted to sister projects, nor the Conservatism WT:Conservatism talk page, nor announced via bot to each member's talkpage. I.e. the people who are sympathetic to the project have not been notified. This isn't a WHEEL thing, right? – Lionel (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there is no wheel warring going on here, since nobody has used admin tools. Wheel warring is specifically about undoing admin actions. I don't think it's winnable either, but whenever an early close occurs, those arguing on the losing side invariably snivel about "out of process actions by out of control admin", and I really don't want to deal with that sort of nonsense, and most admins would probably agree with me on this. As for notification, it's on the talk page for the wikiproject; anyone who is watching the project page (which should include every editor in the project) will be aware of the AFD because it will show up in their watchlist. Personalized notifications to each of the members of the project would be WP:CANVASSING, which is not allowed; notifying those "sympathetic to the project" is WP:VOTESTACKING, which is absolutely verboten. As for Talk:Conservatism, a note there would not be appropriate, because that would imply a sense of ownership over the article, which is also not allowed (WP:OWN).
 * FWIW, I just came across the MFD for the deletion of the portal, by another editor who is not involved in the WikiProject MFD (although he is obviously aware of it). I may go ahead and snow that one, because there is no support for deletion, including a keep !vote from, who nominated the project for deletion.  Horologium  (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I hadn't planned on being here this long, but since I'm waiting for you know what... and I have some free time on my hands... I guess I can chat a little... Thanks for clarifying WHEEL. FYI the MfD notice is on the project page, not the talk page. And yes anyone watching would have seen the project page edited; assuming Bink's MfD edit wasn't lost with the hundred others on a watchlist screen. Believe it or not, one time I did a rough calculation and I suspect only 60-70% of "members" have watchlisted the proj page. Anyway I think bullet 4 covers member notification. By executing the act of adding their name to the roster they have indicated that they are "concerned." Projects announce stuff all the time: coord elections, collab of the month, etc. Notification of their own pending destruction would seem more pressing than most of what lands on their talk pages in a monthly newsletter. Anyway, thanks for the hospitality and thanks for looking at the portal. – Lionel (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: there is a passing mention of the MfD on project talk, IMO easy to miss, but no announcement in it's own section with it's own heading.– Lionel (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello, I undid a couple of your edits to the talk pages of Palin-related articles. It definitely appears that the consensus was to drop the probation. The discussion was archived. You would need to start a new one at WP:AN if you must. Jesanj (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

warning instead of hardblock?
I'm just curious, why did you give this user a lvl 1 warning instead of an indef-block? The username is clearly inappropriate. I indeffed it for both vandalism and the username.  Horologium  (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mostly because i entirely missed the username. I just noticed the page blanking and reverted that - good catch there though, that username is clearly one fit for an indef at once. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Following Up on Your Warning
I'm following up on your warning of Jan 3, 2011 and seeking clarification. I've read the linking policy and COI policies regarding linking. I'm am a producer of multimedia educational interactives and productions. I also have an extensive background in environmental conservation work both professionally and personally. In addition, I have deep knowledge of Florida water protection and environmental protection issues. I am not employed by the Florida DEP but have produced educational projects in Florida that have won both journalism and education-related awards and are considered high quality content resources that are cited and widely linked to by other sites world-wide. I have never linked to a site or project that I in any way considered inappropriate for the particular Wikipedia page and have only done so if the site content was consistent with the page's focus. I understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of links and that spammy links are probably one of the most challenging issues facing Wikipedia editors and contributors. Quality links to other relevant resources are, however, an important and essential part of Wikipedia pages. The presumption that someone adding links is a spammer and only selling something is onerous. In fact, I've been shocked by certain editors who have removed links without clearly exploring the linked content. (I think in your case, you did actually look at the linked content). Perhaps I don't fully grasp what's required if there is a perceived conflict of interest. There isn't a single link that I've added that has been in any way driven by my need to earn income or sell anything. Let me provide you with another example. I am also an authority on organ donation in the United States, having worked in the field for 10 years. I produced an interactive web documentary at http://www.organtransplants.org in 2005. This is a web resource that has served for several years as one of the definitive online educational resources about organ donation and transplants. However, as the producer of this project if I add this as a link to the organ donation page, I will be labeled a spammer. I've reviewed the organ donation page including the links section, which in my expert opinion is completely inadequate. Key missing links in the External links section include the United Network for Organ Sharing at http://www.unos.org. It absolutely should be in that section. Again, if I were to add this I would be labeled a spammer. Unlike most editors and contributors, I have used my real name. I've never sought to hide behind a fake user name or mask my identity on any contribution that I've made. In any event, sorry for the long-winded and late response, but I'm frustrated by what I perceive to be an onerous label of spammer for contributions that I've made. Thank you for your time and sorry if I haven't signed this page correctly. ktsparkman(talk)( ~ )


 * I didn't issue you a warning; in fact, I noted that your additions were okay. (The warning was issued by ; I only wrote the indented section after the dot). The concern which was raised was that almost all of your edits up to that point had been systematically adding links (two different sites) to a series of articles about springs and lakes in Florida. I was familiar with the link you had added, and in fact was probably the first person to link to that site on Wikipedia (I had cited it as a reference in February 2008 in Environment of Florida). In your case, an overly zealous new page patroller saw a bunch of links to the same site, almost all added to the "external links" section by a single editor, and assumed the worst. He then systematically removed every occurrence of that link in Wikipedia, including several pages where it was being used as a reference (including Environment of Florida). He should have looked at the link first (which he acknowledged he failed to do), but he didn't, and that's past. If someone does revert you as a spammer (as happened with your multiple links to New Jersey Future), look at how they relate to the subject. In the case of your links to Smart growth, Urban spawl, and Transit-oriented development, all added in a five-minute span, it looked at first blush to be a bit promotional, on articles to which the link had only tangential links (if the articles were about Smart growth in New Jersey, Urban sprawl in New Jersey and Transit-oriented development in New Jersey, the link would have been more relevant). Adding links in rapid succession without any discussion is something for which spammers are known; if you are reverted, bring the link up for discussion on the article talk page, or with the editor who reverted you.
 * Another issue is your editing so far has focused on adding external links. Try editing some articles—adding information and references, fixing typos or grammar snafus, or just correcting incorrect statements. There are plenty of articles which can use any help they can get. Since you seem to have some relationships in organ donation and environmental issues, you probably are aware of quality sources which can be used to expand articles in those fields, which is almost always a good thing.
 * Regarding your organ donor site--this is something that should be addressed on the talk page of the articles to which you wish to use it as a reference. Drop a note on the talk page asking about the appropriateness of the site for the article in question, making clear that you cannot add a link without running afoul of our CoI rules. If your site is a good resource, someone will add it to the external links section. As for the other link, to UNOS, you can add that link yourself, as there isn't a CoI there.
 * A final suggestion: make a rudimentary user page for yourself. You don't have to have a whole lot of information, but a redlinked userpage is another one of those things which raise flags for editors. Putting something on your userpage will fix that issue.  Horologium  (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate the insight, the time you took to respond and will follow your recommendations. I'm really a novice at contributing and need to invest more time at understanding the rules of the road and protocol. Ktsparkman (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)