User talk:Horologium/January 2009

Re: History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Actually, I removed the category because WikiProject categories are supposed to be on the talk page of articles, not on the main page. That category was showing up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories as a category with a mainspace page in it, so I removed it. I've undone your edit because of this, hope you don't mind. The talk page already had the category, so nothing needed to be done in that regard. VegaDark (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I should have caught that; I know that. </me feels about two inches tall> Horologium (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done

[1] KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Larry Elder

WHile I maintain that I am right and he cannot be called a libertarian, I think that while it is in dispute, no party affiliation should be mentioned in the first paragraph. Rockyobody (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

see The Wrong Version. Or, to cite actual policy, see WP:PREFER. This is policy, not an arbitrary decision on my part. I stepped in and protected the article in its current form, once verifying that there were no WP:BLP violations and no copyright issues. Use the article talk page to hammer out your differences. Horologium (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for Larry Elder is to not have a party affiliation in the first paragraph, and elaborate his polticial views in the article. Rockyobody (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus at all, much less what you are arguing on the talk page. I see you strenuously arguing to call him a Republican, based on his party registration, I see two editors who wish to identify him as a libertarian (small l) based on his self-identification and his positions on a host of issues, which seem to be broadly consistent with libertarian principles, and two (previously uninvolved) editors who ask if a label needs to be applied in the lede. Since I was the admin who protected the page, I am not going to take a position on the article (I do have a viewpoint, but I'm not going to get involved in the RFC), but until there is a consensus one way or the other, the page will remain as-is. If there is no consensus prior to the current expiration of protection, I will extend it until one is formed. Horologium (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to get across is that if you look at someone like Ron Paul, he himself says he is a libertarian, yet he is called a Republican on his page. I see you agree with the other user, but can I point out that he has only made edits favoring the libertarian party. I on the other hand am a registered independent, and if you look at my contributions, they have a neutral point of view. My argument is not 100% trying to get his page to say Republican. It is that I see no way we can say he is a libertarian. I think we could either not have a party affiliation, put conservative or even Republitarian. The other user is not willing to listen to those suggestions because all he cares about is supporting his party. I see no reason to keep him as a libertarian, especially since the link was created in 2003 before he switched to Republican. Rockyobody (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul holds office as a Republican, despite self-identifying as a Libertarian. Noting that he was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president and would have easily captured the LP presidential nomination again had he sought it last year doesn't obviate the fact that he ran for president as a Republican in 2008 and declined to run as a Libertarian. Unlike him, Larry Elder does not hold office with any party, and his views on many social issues are decidedly unconservative. (Even Ron Paul is pro-life, for example.) Again, you are confusing Libertarian (capital L) with libertarian (lower case l); the links point to different articles for a reason. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well all that proves is that he can't be refered to as conservative. But I do not understand what is wrong with leaving it blank or putting Republitarian, which is what he calls himself. Rockyobody (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Without committing to a position (I wish to remain uninvolved in editorial decisions on this article), I will agree that Libertarian Republican (the article to which Republitarian redirects) is a suitable target. However, the first time you argued to link to that article was in the RFC; all through the pre-RFC dispute you argued to link him to either Conservative or Republican. The first is factually inaccurate, and the second is accurate though misleading. The lede should provide an accurate overview of his views, which are described in more detail later in the article. Describing him as a Republican is as misleading as describing Fred Phelps as a Democratic Party member; while technically true, he is no exemplar of the party's views. Horologium (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Deadstar Assembly

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Deadstar Assembly. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DeadstarAssembly (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a preliminary response at DRV. I have not had an opportunity to look at the three e-mails you sent me last night after I went to bed, so I have no idea if they will provide proper sourcing. Horologium (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PP

I am not sure what cascading create-protection is either I must have ticked a box on Twinkle when I requested Page Protection. BigDunc^Talk 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is cascading page protection, which protects all templates associated with a page (and I think articles which link to it), but I don't think that there is any such thing as cascading create-protection. I've never seen a button for that on my mop... (grin) Horologium (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockyobody's recent edits

I don't know if it's a violation of wikipedia policy or not, but Rockyobody has attempted to make edits in other articles to bolster his position concerning the dispute over Larry Elder's libertarianism. He has made two edits to Neal Boortz in response to my citing him as an example for the Elder article to follow by labeling Boortz a "neo-conservative" and then a "conservative" which resulted in another editor removing a label all together after finding it misleading. He has also tried to edit the libertarianism article by removing Ron Paul's name, citing that he is a Republican and therefore cannot be libertarian. That was also reverted by another editor. I thought I'd turn to you as I don't know how one would normally remedy this. Thorburn (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you see Neal Boortz, his political affiliation was removed by User:Morphh, because I was talking to him and we both said that the intro was too long. His political affiliation was not even a valid link. In no way was I trying to make some sort of point, because I was told a long time ago that other people's articles should not be of any influence. And in regards to the Ron Paul edit, I did not think he could be called a libertarian if he was a Republican, without sourcing that, but I don't know exactly how that would even affect the article. Anyway neither of those edits were to bolster any type of point, although I do find it a little odd that Thorburn was watching my every move but I thought I'd clear that up. Rockyobody (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC