User talk:Horologium/September 2009

David Brooks (actor)
Thanks for catching that. Yikes what a stupid error on my part! I was creating another aritcle at the same time on Robert Smith (actor) and I guess I got my wires crossed.Singingdaisies (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (responded on other editor's page)  Horologium  (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama userbox
Now that that one user has been determined to be a sockpuppet of an indef'd user, I'm assuming his userpage will be cleared, including his in-your-face stuff about Obama. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that, and I agree that it is polemical. However, it's no more polemical than the identical userboxes urging impeachment of George Bush (currently on 42 userpages ) and Dick Cheney (currently on 21 userpages ). The numbers were MUCH higher when they were still in office, and I suspect an attempt to delete them as polemical would have resulted in a rip in the space-time continuum. KoshVorlon, however, should not be accusing other editors of having polemical userboxes; look at this revision of his userpage, which resulted in this AN/I discussion. As a result, two userboxes were removed from his page—one involuntarily, by an administrator. That one was outrageously inappropriate.  Horologium  (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone were to ask me, I would say "Impeach [fill in blank]]" should not be allowed. "I support [fill in blank]" is different, as it's a positive message and would normally be OK, as long it's not supporting Hitler or Stalin or somebody like that. Although urging impeachment of someone who's not even in office anymore is rather silly, as well as obsolete. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I think you will recognize that an attempt to remove the various anti-Bush userboxes ("I think George W. Bush's edits to the Constitution need to be reverted" was another one) would have resulted in outraged screaming from the majority of editors who have some type of politics userbox on their page. It's a simple fact of demographics here that left-of-center political views encounter more support, which is why the anti-Bush userboxes remained. Wikipedia's userbase skews to the left, for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't really matter. In any case, unless you want to reignite the userbox wars, don't push for deleting userboxes that are not really offensive, like that one and the three Bush ones I cited.  Horologium  (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care enough about it to go to war over it. Nor, apparently, did the user who deleted it before you added it back. However, once the offender is indef'd, the box will go. I myself have a userbox that says I fancy myself a liberal American patriot. But it's not in-your-face like that one is. But I've seen worse. Axmann8 had a bunch of white supremacy stuff on his page that had to go. Along with himself, as it turned out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, racial supremacy, holocaust denial, pedophilia advocacy, and terrorism support are four topics which are always inappropriate subjects for userboxes. Generally, people who add such userboxes are not here for anything good, as witnessed by the indefs on their proponents.  Horologium  (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess "impeach [whoever]" kind of pales next to those horrific topics. I guess if it said "shoot [whoever]", that would not be tolerated. Not only that, the FBI would be keenly interested. Meanwhile, as I expected, the user is now blocked and his user page wiped clean except for the sockpuppet banner. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

East Dunbar
I was told that East Dunbar, Florida is extremely crime ridden, and that the crime rates added to the East Dunbar article that you removed were very true for 2008. Fishing4327 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * East Dunbar is crime-ridden (I have some familiarity with the Fort Myers area), but the data you added were ludicrous. The burglary and theft rates were greater than one incident per person, and the murder rate you added was ten times that of New Orleans, which has the highest murder rate in the country. Adding statistics without citations is not appropriate, and adding dubious statistics will earn you a block. FWIW, neither the Lee County Sheriff's Office nor the FBI track crime rates by CDP, so it's not obvious where you got your data. In addition, there is no separate category for "shooting (bullet struck victim)" in any type of crime stats from any governmental agency, and the FBI has not released full crime stats for 2008 (only preliminary data).


 * Further, your edits to Florida and Crime in the United States were inexcusable. "Vandalism" is the only term that accurately describes your actions there. You changed properly cited data into wildly inaccurate numbers, without even an edit summary describing your changes.


 * If you continue to make edits such as those that you have, you will end up blocked. Especially when dealing with statistics, a citation to a reliable source is essential. Uncited statistics are useless, as their accuracy cannot be verified without a source.  Horologium  (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the intrusion
but I have taken the liberty of correcting a typo in a post you made - I hope you do not mind. If you do, please accept my apologies. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * oops. No problem with the assist. (wry grin)  Horologium  (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shortening headers
Might be a good idea to anchor the old titles. –xenotalk 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * eep, hadn't thought of that, and I'll need to read the documentation on that. However, I'm done for now; seeing a header that took up more than an entire line on the screen set me off, and I pruned down a few more after that.  Horologium  (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * you done good. –xenotalk 15:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)