User talk:Horologium/October 2012

S. Rob Sobhani page
Hi Horologium you made the following changes to the S. Rob Sobhani page: Redirected to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. Does not meet notability under WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. S. Rob Sobhani fits the notability rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primalwiki (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I am not willing to fight over it; I was bold, you reverted, and we had a discussion--that is the way that the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works. I may submit that page to Articles for Deletion, because I believe Mr. Sobhani does not meet our notability guidelines; he manifestly fails the notability guidelines for political figures, and I am not sure if he qualifies under the general notability guideline. You'll see a notice pop up on his page if I do submit him for deletion, although the article would end up redirected (just as I have done) if the consensus is that he doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion.  Horologium  (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (Added later) Actually, after taking a closer look, I think that he does meet the notability guidelines, as I found over 100 Google News archive hits, dozens of which help establish his notability outside of his candidacy. The article in its current form, however, is rather tragic, and articles written explicitly for candidates running for office are usually redirected to the main election articles (as has been done with the other candidate challenging the incumbent). FWIW, I take strong exception to you characterizing my edit as "vandalism", which is groundless and offensive. Redirection is not vandalism.  Horologium  (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Amtrak Joe
...isn't an attack page. Please undelete it. p b  p  15:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have listed it at redirects for discussion. Perhaps there you can explain why you felt the need to twice delete it  p  b  p  16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ It can be seen as a pejorative term, but after carefully reading through his article (I had just skimmed it before), I found a cited discussion of the use of the term, so I will restore the redirect. I don't like the propensity for editors to use redirects for partisan attacks on political figures, and I was a bit heavy-handed in removing what I read as an attack on a living person.  Horologium  (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Since you went and listed it at RFD after giving me six minutes to respond to your post, I won't restore it. I'll let the discussion run, and the closing admin can make a decision. I don't respond well to nonsense like this, and since you're so damn impatient, you'll have to deal with running through a process you initiated. I was perfectly willing to restore it before you went charging off on your crusade.  Horologium  (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Crusade"? "Nonsense"?  You'd better watch your language... Just because you have a mop doesn't mean you get to ignore NPA.  And there's nothing wrong with RfD...that means that there's a consensus for the action taken  p  b  p  16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, "crusade" and "nonsense" because you couldn't bother to wait (less than 10 minutes) for my response before running to RfD and listing it. I discovered the RfD when I went to restore the redirect. I'm far from unreasonable, and after an analysis, I had decided my action was wrong (the first part of my response was composed before you initiated the RfD), and had you been able to control yourself for just a few minutes more, your request would have been fulfilled. And neither of those words are personal attacks; they characterize your actions, not you. They may be a bit incivil, but your second post here is hardly a model of civility.  Horologium  (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * RfD is not the correct forum for challenging prior deletions, so I have moved the discussion to DRV. See Deletion review/Log/2012 October 13. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

An editor has reverted your redirect of Wendy Long
I've created a discussion in talkspace if you care to weigh in. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and the admonishment of the other editor. I've left a fairly verbose reply on the talk page of the article. Don't take my criticism of the article personally (as I've had a couple of other editors whose articles were redirected for the same reason). I eventually changed my mind on one of them (see the discussion at the top of this month's page), but the other candidate in that same race whose article was redirected was even less notable than Ms. Long. And FWIW, I'd likely support Bongino and Long over the incumbents, were I able to vote in their races, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of discussing notability guidelines.  Horologium  (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a comment which may help resolve this and similar situations. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Hey, I got your email. I'll be replying to it in a bit... trying to balance handling this with college homework so my apologies if it's not within a few hours. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 19:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate that. :-) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)