User talk:Horologium/December 2007

Comments regarding Gainesville, Florida

(reformatted; see my response below)

The reason I made the change was that there was a big gap between the "History" header and the actual paragraph, which I discovered using the latest Internet Explorer, which I use at work. (I use Firefox at home.) On IE, the gap shows, while on other browsers, it does not. I was trying to remedy the problem, but it didn't work. My apologies. (P.S. -- When starting headers, please don't leave any blank spaces at the start of the sentence, as you can see above.) -- azumanga (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the commenter who followed me trashed it (check my edit, which was formatted correctly). When it comes to browser wars, I've given up trying to make sure it looks good in both; I switched to Firefox, and if it looks good there, that's good enough for me. IE does tend to be a bit more forgiving of minor lapses in HTML formatting, but that doesn't always extend to Wikipedia's weird bastardization. Horologium (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[1]] Jmegill (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Miami companies

Most if not all the companies I added to the list are within Miami-Dade County. There are already others in that list that are in Broward County such as Spirit and AutoNation, and those were there before I edited the list. But do as you wish. --Comayagua99 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• No worries, cheers! --Comayagua99 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah

Thanks for saying [2]. Hey, that's what I've been saying, too. Too bad no one is listening. —ScouterSig 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon has just weighed in (generally in support of my statement), and I'm hoping that a lot of the WP:ILIKEIT votes will be discounted when the discussion is closed. I have to admit, it's a bit frustrating to see a bunch of admins who don't participate in UCFD drop in when their ox is being gored. I frankly believe that the original nomination was POINT-motivated (witness the mass canvassing), but also believe that the category should be nuked. We'll see how this discussion progresses. If it is closed early, I will take it to DRV, but only if it is closed early. It's not something that I will strenuously fight. Horologium (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ave Maria University

You actually think that because some makes an edit about AMU who is from AMU that his/her statement is biased. I ask you: who do you think has more information on the state of AMU -- someone from AMU? or someone who gets al his information from who-knows-where. You can't change something for that reason alone. Give a valid reason why your version is better, but don't blame 1st hand witnesses for being biased. --208.76.138.251 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that removing negative information from an article about an institution with which you are affiliated (without even leaving an edit summary) is a bad thing. I'm sure that by now you have heard about the many times that company employees or staff members of political figures have been caught "airbrushing" out negative information about their company or boss. While it's unsourced (and I was the one who added the "citation needed" flags), it's inappropriate for someone affiliated with Ave Maria to edit the article, especially if he or she works for the university. It's not readily apparent whether you are a student, a professor, or a staff member, but the net effect is the same; it presents the appearance that the university is manipulating Wikipedia to its own ends. You should let someone else remove the information. As it stands, I am planning to remove that whole section if citations are not provided in a reasonable time frame, but I have no affiliation with the university. Horologium (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments at mercury's RfC

Yeah sure, I think I'll just remove it altogether. I wasn't trying to provoke anyone, just trying to lighten the mood, which shouldn't be lightened. By the way, judging by the support he's gotten, I don't think he's going to lose the tools. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Centering Template:Florida title

14-Dec-2007: For Internet Explorer browsers, the title is centered over the capital. What web browser/version are you using, and which direction (left/right) is the state title not centered over the capital-city name? -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11, and the state title is shifted to the left. Horologium (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Test pic

I placed a test picture in your "About me" section, and it works fine. Just replace the name of the pic with the one you want.

I hope that helps.

The Transhumanist 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be a browser issue (I am using Firefox 2.0.0.11) or perhaps a resolution issue (my display is 1280X1024), but when I show that section, the picture shows up at the bottom of the screen, partially obscured by the last of the menu bars (in fact, the menu bar runs right across my eyes, so I look like the before shot in an ad). I'll go ahead and swap in the photo I planned to use, but I'm not sure if it is going to work. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If it hangs off the bottom of the box, add some "<br>"s. The Transhumanist 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Found a fix - it works on the left. You could also try enclosing it in a table, and then float the table. The Transhumanist 03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nesting a table worked. The Transhumanist 04:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Horologium (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV on Category:Rouge admins

Regardless (and I agree with you it almost definitely will be kept), the DRV will be most interesting. As you are aware, by all recent precedent, it should be deleted. By consensus, it almost certainly should be kept. That suggests (and I'm trying to approach this from a calculated, NPOV) that the consensus is that the precedent should change. However, I'm not at all convinced that this is true. (I hope you're able to follow what might at first seem self-contradicting.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not just numbers, as you are aware (remember the Brights category?), but this is a case of a bunch of admins who never participate in UCFD finding out that we have nominated a category for deletion, go into "ZOMGWTF" mode without understanding that it's only about the category, not the (funny) essay or the (cute) userbox. As I said, only two users even acknowledged we're discussing only the category, and neither had a particularly strong rationale (the better of the two was Alison's, and that is essentially WP:USEFUL). Horologium (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not just numbers, but while I'll admit it's not clear there's a consensus to keep humorous categories, it seems clear (to me) there's suddenly a lack of consensus to delete them. (I doubt you'll be surprised to hear that I still think the Brights category was a travesty of consensus. Whether there was a consensus to keep is debatable, but there was most definitely not a consensus to delete—not that I see any value in saying anything other than we'll have to agree to disagree. I do respect you, After Midnight, jc37, Black Falcon, and others who I regularly disagree with.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I often disagree with you, I respect you because you at least try to cite policy or explain how a category can be useful, without resorting to hyperbole or a chain of dubious probabilities. As I said in my rant (and here I fully agree with Jay Henry) it is inexcusable that this category is being treated as sacrosanct simply because it's tied to an immensely popular and well-known essay. It shouldn't have been tied to it in the first place, and I am going to go tilting at windmills in a quixotic attempt to remind everyone about the way things are supposed to be. Horologium (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

One area we seem to agree on is consistency. This category is definitely not being treated consistently, so I will support your DRV, even if I have conflicting feelings on it. (Of course, with my feelings, it might end up sounding like "damning with faint praise", although it will not be my intent.) I still think it might be deleted, if After Midnight is the closing admin. Although I disagree with him often as well, he seems quite consistent, and the logic he applied to Brights would seem to dictate that this be closed as delete as well, if he closes it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another way to look at it

As shocking as it may be to someone else who commented above, I would also have closed it as "keep". (Though, I might add, I intentionally didn't close it.)

I know that many see the category as humour and others as oppressive (among many, many other descriptions), but I think that it's best described as an "editor's philosophy", though in this case, referring to a group of editors we call admins.

Now I would like to "hope" that we don't get carried away with numerous variant editor's philosophies, but I think "Rouge admin" ranks up the with inclusionist, and exopedianist, and all the rest.

This wasn't always my opinion on this (I'll note that I nominated it last time : )

Anyway, just thought I'd share that thought with you : ) - jc37 10:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Much as I hate to back down on a (very public) announcement, I have decided that I am not going to run this through DRV. At this point, it appears that doing so would be perceived as a violation of WP:POINT. While I abhor the blatant double standard that was revealed by the UCFD for this category (and the rather pathetic showing by the admin corps, who can't be bothered to participate in UCFD unless one of their sacred cows is under attack), I realize that running a DRV at this time would be counterproductive. I remain seriously disillusioned by the reaction exhibited by many of the current admins, though, and wonder if I even want to be associated with them (re: Jc37's suggestion in November). I never imagined that so many admins would disregard precedent and policy over a category that is, at its core, a joke category. I have decided to retreat from UCFD discussions, because admin preference overrides policy, which means that my participation (as a mere peon) is irrelevant. Horologium (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I understand and empathetic (especially in light of my own recent experiences), I am disappointed that you will be "retreating" from WP:UCFD. Please know that (obviously) you're welcome to re-join in the discussions there at any time. I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The outright disregard for the closure on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to trout slapping only reinforced my resolve. Administrator will clearly trumps any other result, and consensus be damned. I'm certainly not among the whackjobs that have run amok on the wikien.l mailing list, but admin abuses such as this don't reassure the non-admins and the outsiders.

I wasn't joking when I stated that I was going to remove UCFD from my watchlist; it's gone for now, and I don't anticipate it returning in the near future. While I don't plan on making a dramatic exit from Wikipedia (the drama queen gene is a recessive trait), I can't see expending a lot of effort on something that is exempt from the normal protocols on consensus. I'll stick to wiki-gnoming stuff for WP Florida and occasionally reverting vandalism, but I will be cutting back my involvement in the project. Horologium (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, supposedly adminship is "no big deal". And as an admin, I can vouch for that, for the most part. That said, I've also been disappointed of late in some of the choices that have been made. But we have processes to (hopefully) resolve them. I have to tell you it's hard atm to try to find uplifting, and project-supportive comments when considering my own experiences of late. But even in spite of those, I still feel that the project can be worthwhile. And I have to admit, that just as there may be those who we may feel are not doing what we may feel is appropriate, there are many others who are. A wiki-break may be appropriate (I've allowed for one myself), but, and I'm actually entreating here: please don't quit. - jc37 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quitting, but I am withdrawing from UCfD for now. Part of it is my nature; I tend to be upset by betrayal, and I felt betrayed by what happened in the three Admin cats, with one closed as keep only because of numbers, one correctly closed and swiftly overturned due to numbers, and one that was correctly closed, and promptly ignored because it didn't square with the mindset of a specific group of admins. Since you were the closing admin, I would enjoy seeing you delete the trout-slapping cat (as per the closing argument at UCfD), and have them try to defend it at DRV; I *would* participate in that discussion, and back you up with the strongest support I could possibly muster. I feel that this needs to be stopped NOW. Horologium (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I should probably note is that I didn't close the first one. I believe After Midnight did. And I'll shy far away from saying anything untoward his closure. I felt it was made in good faith, and can't really fault it. Though I do understand your concerns. As for the other two, it would appear that "something" is in the works concerning each separately atm. We'll see. - jc37 09:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken to After Midnight, and while I disagree with his rationale in this case, I don't think it was made in bad faith (and never did). My primary anger is towards the stream of admins who dropped in only to vote on the three admin categories, who haven't bothered to participate in any other way at UCfD. Frankly, any admin who had closed it with a keepdelete result would have had to deal with a bunch of pissed-off admins, and it's easier to deal with one angry editor than a dozen. AM takes enough grief for his closures (since he is one of the few admins who bother to venture into UCFD without actually initiating the discussions); I don't want to be a party to another pile-on. Horologium (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't mandate how a Wikipedian contributes their volunteer efforts. And that includes commenting in a discussion.

Incidentally, if you'd like a smile, check out Category:Janitorial admins : ) - jc37 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

<groan> Another essay that should not have a category appended to it. Again, my problem isn't the sentiment, it's the addition of the category. There are now a bunch of these little jokey categories inside the admins cat, and it's going to be impossible to delete them (look at the extreme bad-faith reversion of the trout-slapping category, which totally disregarded policy, not to mention common courtesy, and contained what could be construed as a personal attack in the edit summary). This is why I am pulling back. Horologium (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, understood. That said, don't become a stranger : ) - jc37 10:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Horologium, Jc37 just pointed me over here to take a look at this discussion. I just want to say that if you look at my talk page, you will see some similar conversation of how I feel about this set of category closes. In summary, I am equally dismayed at the potential "privileged status" that these admin categories have received. That being said however, I do still think that, in spite of the occasional setback, good work is being done at UCFD and I encourage you to remain a part of it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ransom Everglades

Thank you for removing Jean-Baptist Colbert and Erwin Rommel from the Ransom Everglades Alumni list. However, I must inform you that Anthony Cannoli, a well known international mobster, did attend Ransom (class of '93). Also, I forgot his name, but the founder of Jews Against Cheapness Stereotypes also attended Ransom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.223.72 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jews Against Cheapness Stereotypes" returns zero Google hits. "Shlomo Weinberg Goldstein" (the alleged founder of the group) also returned zero hits, as did "Shlomo Weingberg Goldstein", which was the spelling in the article. (You'll have to take his removal up with IP editor 136.167.196.194, who deleted him several hours before I cleaned up.) "Anthony Cannoli" returns eight Google hits, all relating to "Anthony's Cannoli Kit", sold by a Philadelphia coffee retailer; no mention of a mobster. No Google hits for "Anna Brekenpeps" or "Joseph C. Klintinheight" either. As for "Stevie Ramen", the inventor of Ramen noodles, I'm at a loss. (All of those were redlinks, BTW). Regarding Erwin Rommel and Brian Griese as alumni, I don't think so; Rommel would have graduated prior to the school's founding, and Griese is an alumnus of Christopher Columbus High School. For a school that is allegedly filled with the best and the brightest, its students and alumni have wasted an awful lot of free time to stuff this article full of nonsense. Horologium (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks, I look forward to getting through the training process, and getting to work!  :) --Elonka 10:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lakeshore Mall

I have nominated Lakeshore Mall, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakeshore Mall. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

I apologize

I was just trying to do you a favor by adding the UF Wikipedia box to your profile. But thank you for notifying me that it wasn't a smart move. I will be sure not to add boxes to the other new members. jccort —Preceding comment was added at 14:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

{{WPUF}}

:D Thanks for that!
Check out {{User:Kimon/WPUF}} and let me know --Kimon^talk 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I wanted! Thanks. :) I'll make sure to let the project know that you spiffed up the template. Do you need to move it over, or should I do it? Horologium (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I wanted to move it just in case something got screwed up in the copy & paste. Enjoy! --Kimon^talk 01:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once again. Horologium (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Anytime --Kimon^talk 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! - It's fixed now --Kimon^talk 02:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Snooze, you lose ;)

Also, I force the correct capitalization on the importance parameter --Kimon^talk 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)