User talk:Horologium

Welcome to my talk page.

• Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. Responses left here may be moved to your page.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Unsigned comments may be deleted without response.
• This page is archived on the first of each month; previous discussions are sorted by month in the archives. Please do not edit archives; begin a new discussion.
• This is not a chat room, and you are not sending me text messages; please use full words and punctuation. Comments which contain excessive amounts of Nu English may be deleted.

I. R-L

Hi, you wrote in an edit summary that an edit of mine would have been an "egregious violation of AGF". What my edit consisted of was restoring a section of the article that had been section blanked, by an IP. Section blanking, with no edit summary, especially by an IP, in my opinion clearly constitutes "possible vandalism", which is what I called it in my edit summary. Now whereas this isn't a major issue, I think that a lower tension level and more courteous behaviour toward other editors could only benefit the project. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

removing talkpage post

Hi , please do not remove my talkpage posts, like you did here Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I misinterpreted the post; I thought that someone else (who failed to sign their post) had written the irrelevant information, and that you were highlighting it as such. I see that you pulled something from the article to discuss. My apologies. Horologium (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was what happened, no worries, regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

college pages

Hi, I am currently trying to create entries for Virginia Tech's eight colleges. However, I have had trouble with tags (e.g. promotional tone, blatant advertising, etc). I was wondering if you could help me explain to me how I can improve my entries so that they will not receive these tags. I am not trying to sound promotional; I just want to include some information about these colleges since they are major components of the university. Thank you.VTMintern (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just a brief answer, after a cursory look at some of your contributions; I'm between classes right now and don't have time to provide you with a full answer until this evening at the earliest.

The article for the Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment, which is currently tagged with COI, Advertisement, and "wikification" tags, may be the one that has you most concerned. The problem is that it reads like a PR piece from VT's media relations office, and while there are a fair number of citations, quite a few of them are from the university itself (not an independent source), and most of the independent sources are used for the "notable alumni" section, which is filled with people who may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which is an indication that they probably should not appear in a section of that nature. The use of indefinite quantifiers such as "many" and "much" doesn't really convey information, especially when there are no examples to illustrate them (such as the "many corporate partnerships and cooperatives" or "some of the nation's leading programs..."), and sound like puffery without explanation and context.

A couple of examples of well-written and fairly comprehensive articles about colleges within a university include University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Forestry and Natural Resources and Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (the latter is a college within the University of Miami). Both of them are Good Articles, which undergo a review process to ensure that they meet some standards expected of fully fleshed-out articles. The article on the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth is an example of a featured article, which is an example of our best articles; featured articles undergo a rigorous review and verification process to ensure that they meet professional standards of writing, fact-checking, and organization.

The CoI problem is a concern, as is your username, which implies that you have some sort of professional association with Virginia Tech. If you are a VT employee, you might want to find someone else (not connected with the university) to create the articles; while it is not strictly forbidden, such conflicts of interest can lead to less-accurate or overly flattering articles (nobody likes to deprecate an organization with which they are affiliated, especially if that organization is paying them a salary). You might want to consider working on existing articles in Wikipedia (which don't have a connection with VT) or create articles on unrelated subjects (or VT alumni who clearly meet our notability guidelines).

Horologium (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I will keep those suggestions in mind and try to improve the articles with better sources and more succinct language. I am not a Virginia Tech employee, so do you recommend changing my username? Thanks again for the help!VTMintern (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to consider changing your username, because of the perceived CoI. Sometimes, the appearance of impropriety is enough to create problems down the road, even if there is nothing inappropriate afoot.

As you only have 69 edits (in total), I'm not sure if it's not easier simply to abandon the old account, but if you are planning on editing the same types of articles, you probably should consider a namechange, so that you aren't accused of operating multiple accounts. WP:NAMECHANGE is a link which will explain the procedure to you; it's not too difficult if you want a name that hasn't been already used. Horologium (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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 Binksternet (talk · contribs), 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 [1] 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 ([2]) 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)(~~~~)