User talk:Horologium/May 2010

Despite my starting The RfC

Hello Horologium. I have seen you before but have not had much contact with you so far. I know it is difficult to assess things at a glance but because you have added a view to the RfC on Lar, which I respect but I disagree with I thought I should highlight some of my concerns.

I do not see another admin on or off wiki being as partisan as Lar has been. I actually don't care that much for cabals etc. it just seems that I support the global warming editors on this issue because this situation has become ridiculous. When certain pro-AGW editors come up for sanctions on the most trumped up battleground of reasons all other admins say "this is nonsense" and then Lar comes in and says "ban them for a year". Vice versa when skeptic editors come up for sanctions Lar is defending them and encouraging them. Lar has called User:William M. Connolley a "wacko" before climate change probation even started. Lar's offwiki contact with several editors, including Cla confirms his intention is to act against AGW editors and for skeptic editors. Read the talkpage (last few sections if you don't believe me)Polargeo (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Just a couple of the many many diffs follow. Would you act as an uninvolved admin after these? After you had obviously lost it? I wouldn't. I think it is worth checking what sort of behaviour you are defending. [1] [2] Collect's one sided statistics, with no diffs and designed to prove a cabal exists are shockingly terrible. I advise you to come away from the battleground or the stats and just simply assess whether Lar can act as uninvolved in cases to do with William M. Connolley and similar editors. Polargeo (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, please use the preview function when posting; you took 10 edits to write that one post, which clogs up the edit history of my page. It's a small thing, but still...

In reference to your point, I will be adding my name to several of the uninvolved views shortly; I believe that Lar can (and has) acted in an appropriately unbiased fashion. What I pointed out was that despite the "not a cabal" claims emanating from some of Lar's detractors, there is a bad case of groupthink and a constant level of low-level hostility towards him, and yet he still manages to maintain a proper perspective. (To my chagrin, I later discovered the talk page contains discussions substantially similar to my comments.) Lar's comment to WMC may have not been particularly helpful, but it seems to me to be an attempt at humor, particularly since it mirrors WMC's own earlier comment, ...But also the lowest % of all the non-wacko candidates. I laughed when I read the whole thread; your link to Lar's comment does not make clear the connection to WMC's earlier comment, which really is essential to understanding the comment in context. In any case, that discussion most certainly does not predate the whole climate change imbroglio; the first RFAR over WMC's climate change editing dates back to 2005. Horologium (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So as I understand it. You believe that it is fine to maintain this level of personal hostility and act as an uninvolved admin. You also believe that it is fine to repeatedly lump dedicated and independent editors together in a dissmissive way whilst acting as an uninvolved admin. You believe it is fine for Lar to act in what appears to be a coordinated group against what he sees as another coordinated group, including a certain amount of offwiki comment. Lar's personal attacks against WMC are fine, indeed extremely witty, because WMC personally attacked Lar first. I didn't realise WMC was acting as an uninvolved admin, because this is what is most concerning about Lar's behaviour. Sorry I messed up your neat edit history I was a bit pissed. Polargeo (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're piling on will teach me a lesson not to mess up your talkpage edit history :). never again will I cross such impressive reasoning. Polargeo (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to User:Hohenloh

Hi,

I'm confused, i thought your response to my userpage comment on user:Hohenloh was incredibly heavy handed, as all I want to do is apologise to him. Will you please make sure that my apology sees its way to him? I feel we may have had a misunderstanding and am desirous of fixing our relationship. 86.40.111.251 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

He has received your apology; the fact that he asked for page protection (of both the talk page and his user page) makes it clear that he is aware of your repeated edits to the page, and he wants you to stop. Let it go. Horologium (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I believe that he has over-reacted entirely. In fact, he has reacted to an apology to a demand for a page protection? And he considers this abuse? I mucked up over the course of a couple of weeks, I accept that, but I want to apologise and move on, and a normalisation of relations is imperative to that. I think you should realise that he highlighted a number of comments in his request that I realise was wrong and wish to apologise for. Is there not some way we can enter a reconciliation thingy? 86.40.111.251 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A normalization of relations is not something you can impose by fiat, and your earlier taunting and harassment make it likely that Hohenloh wants nothing to do with you right now. Perhaps his views of you will change in the future, but for now, stay away from his page and don't resort to trolling (and yes, that is the appropriate word) elsewhere. Discuss editing issues on the article talk pages, without referring to other editors by name. Horologium (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am trying to arrange a reconciliation and in return am accused of trolling, taunting, harassment and all the rest. How is this conducive to a good working relationship? To be fair there is sufficient evidence that this user has a personal problem with me, he has trailed my edits before and reverted edits that were largely considered fair - the reason I talked to him the way I did was because he was so unresponsive in terms of how he interacted with me and voiced his objections to me. I want to apologise to him and move on into the future and forget this entire incident, but before that, he needs to come to terms with what happened and accept my apology. Otherwise I will be unable to participate in this project, as the said user will not abide by it. 86.40.111.251 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read your posts on his page. I would have blocked you (and each of your subsequent IP addresses) if I was aware of your campaign against him. You were so far over the line in edits such as [3], [4] (the edit summary is vile), [5], [6], [7] (all of which are on his user talk page) that it is perfectly understandable why you were blocked and your edits reverted. I have also read your dramabomb on AN/I and was singularly unimpressed. Your attitude there earned you a well-earned block. Your attitude now has not significantly improved, and the fact that you are here complaining about me protecting his userpage from your edits indicates a problem, not with him, but rather with you. You need to back away from him and try editing in a collaborative fashion, rather than the combative one you have been employing. Appeals to authority about your alleged knowledge are pointless, since we have no idea who you are. To us, you are just some guy in Dublin who can't even be bothered to create an account; in any case, unless you are a recognized, published expert in the field, your views are no more valid than any other editor who cites reliable sources. Wikipedia is not grad school; we don't publish original thought, no matter how well-reasoned and meticulously researched it may be. Horologium (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to create an account, in a show of good faith. I believe you are lacking in good faith, as you are accusing me of original research, any edits I have made are in the mainstream of scholarship and fully verifiable. I fear you may have been sucked in by the narrative set against me. Look, I want to make a fresh start, I apologise fully for those original fallouts, there is no justification for them and am 100% in the blame, and would like to have the opportunity to engage with hohlenhoh and apologise properly, as we share similar interests and it is inevitable that we will encounter each other again on the encyclopedia. I hope this can be the dawn of a fresh start for everyone involved and that we can move on from what was a terribly unmannerly couple of weeks of bad behaviour. Freshstart101 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Without citation, almost anything can be construed as original research. All we were asking is that you provide such cites when adding to Wikipedia articles. (I have had similar discussions with one of my professors, who has had his edits reverted because they were not cited, even though he is a published author in the field related to many of his edits.) As for Hohenloh, just let it go right now; he's seen your edits, and I will drop a note on his page later today. Horologium (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The fetish for citations on this site is a little nutty. For one thing entire articles (Such as Catholic Association) have absolutely no citations. When I corrected a couple of paragraphs, I was reverted. Thomas Pakenham is Irish and it is well known that he is a famous Irish historian, but when i revert 'Anglo Irish' that gets reverted. yet 'Anglo Irish' has no citations whatsoever. Furthermore, citations can be a mixed blessing. Another article I took an interest in was Cornwallis in Ireland, and article which cited a 19th century historian whom subsequent research has proven to be limited in many ways. Yet that too was reverted by Hohenloh. I can provide citations for every single edit I've made, the problem is that you must draw a line on what you cite. its basic historical scholarship. Must you provide a citation to say that Denis Diderot was French? Or that the Normans invaded Ireland in 1169? If people really took your half thought citation philosophy to heart, there would be a citation after every word. but then again, thats part of the problem on this site. Many Irish articles in particular are guarded by idealogues of either bent, who take citations to validate their own very narrow biases, without making any attempt to construct a coherent narrative structure. I'm willing to help and provide citations, but basic standards must apply, as they do in any other field of scholarship. Freshstart101 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the abbreviated response earlier; had to wrap it up as my next class was beginning. I understand your frustration with citations; I've had to deal with it myself. Everyone who lives here in Florida knows that the tourist season runs from mid-October through March, and the slowest time of the year is September (school and hurricanes), but good luck finding that in a reliable source, one that isn't run by a travel agency or tourist board. I actually had to remove such a statement from the Fort Lauderdale, Florida article because I couldn't find a decent reference. Unfortunately, what is common knowledge to people familiar with the topic is not common knowledge to everyone else, and we have to assume that people reading the articles don't know anything about the topic, hence the request for cites for what seems to be widely known facts about Irish topics. I'm not from Ireland (although a number of my ancestors were); I don't know much about the country or its people, and citations help make me more confident about what I am reading. That's the big difference between Wikipedia and historical scholarship--Wikipedia only compiles what has been said by others; we don't synthesize, extrapolate, or conjecture, whereas with scholarship those three actions are encouraged or essential.

There is a bit of a stasis effect here, as older articles are often significantly under-referenced. There is no push to add references to these articles, but any attempts to add new information without a reference tend to get reverted with a request for sources. It may not be terribly reasonable, but it does help prevent weak articles from getting even worse. (Articles which have undergone some sort of formal review, such as Good Articles or Featured Articles tend to be a lot more comprehensive, well-referenced, and well-written.) Articles about living people are particularly sensitive; that is why we have a policy specifically for such articles. Thomas Pakenham is a disambiguation page, but I assume that you are concerned with the one born in 1933, the only historian in the bunch, which is a BLP. It reads that he is Irish, not Anglo-Irish, and has been that way since April 29th, when you reverted Hohenloh's revert.

As to the whole Irish gatekeeper effect, see the section above here on my talk page, which involves another POV-pushing hotspot (although it's not an ethnic battle, thank God; we have so many of them-- Ireland/Britain; Armenia/Azerbaijan; Macedonia/Greece; Israel/Palestine; Japan/Korea, ad nauseum). Groupthink on ethnic or politically-charged articles is widespread, not just on Irish pages. Wikipedia has problems with that sort of factionalism, it is true, but there is no clear way to fix the problem without breaking the model entirely. (See Citizendium for what happens with a smaller, more tightly controlled group, and what they cannot accomplish.) Horologium (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Most populous"

Hi, Horologium. Thanks for your minor edit to Haines City, Florida, though your edit summary suggested you took more than minor emotion to it. Do you specialize in word usage corrections? Simple_butpowerful 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Most of my edits are more substantial, alhough lately I've been too busy to do much more than wikignome. (I don't really have a specialization, per se.) However, that particular combination drives me absolutely crazy, and I revert it on sight. Sometimes, I go on a spree; take a look at my mainspace contributions from 21 November 2009 or 30 September 2009 for examples. "Populated" is a transitive verb; "populous" is an adjective; the two are not interchangeable. A number of editors have specific misuses and abuses of the language that they fix; this one is mine. Horologium (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

persistent IP hopper

Face up to it - this guy has been a vandal for a long time, under many different IPs, and lies and pleads in order to get attention. It's up to you, whether you want to bow to the claims of an obvious vandal, who has only caused trouble, or established editors who have thousand of edits to their credit. Hohenloh ⁺ 00:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry its come down to this, but once again I have to say I'm sorry. I even abstained from editing because I wanted to resolve this problem first. Now since I see that it cannot be resolved, perhaps we'll go our seperate ways. But in the future it is inevitable that we will bump into each other again, all I ask is that you do not drag in your personal issues into content issues. Thank you. Freshstart101 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is Thinhin of you, I don't know if you say the Dream Chronicles page's tone is not appropriate. Can you fix it? Don't just talk! :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.125.176 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)