User talk:Horologium/August 2010

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church
My apologies. I truly didn't mean to multiple-post the article edit. I'm still learning about editing. zarathustra. zarathustra (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where can I read the secret report?
It was with great interest that I read your statement "You have to read the actual report to understand that what the report suggests is". This seems to imply that you have read the 'secret report' referenced in the 'idiotic' article you refer to. Where can I obtain a copy of the secret report so that I may verify your assertion? It sounds like interesting reading. Dlabtot (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite the breathless tone of the Observer piece, the report is neither secret nor particularly damning. Searching on Bing by title (within quotes), I found 4,630,000 results for "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security", so it's certainly out there. The original report, prepared by GBN Consulting for the Department of Defense, is here, and a discussion of the report (cleared through the DoD) was in Fortune here (a full two weeks before the Observers effort). Note that the report is (and always has been) unclassified, and that it was created as a challenge on the ability of the DoD to deal with the effects of an unlikely scenario, not a report of the likely effects of climate change. That piece is the Observer is one of the most stupid examples of yellow journalism I have encountered, and I'm old enough to remember the Watergate incident. (The release of the Pentagon Papers occurred during my lifetime, but I was too young to remember that.) For the Observer to take a report which begins with "The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security...the scenario depicted is extreme...[w]e have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately." and come up with what they did is just inexcusable, and their characterization of the report as both "secret" and "suppressed" is flat-out wrong.  Horologium ' (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Murcia / Miami sister cities?
Sorry, I approved the last Miami edit without checking a 'true' source. Went to the Murcia page and saw that Miami was listed on that artcile as being a sister city. (The lazy way to do it) Since it's not so, I've removed the Miami link from the Murcia's article  -  Marc Averette (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Milk snatcher
Hi. I wanted to recreate the above page as a redirect to Margaret Thatcher, but as you were the most recent deleting admin I thought I should contact you first. I've started a discussion on the subject here outlining my thoughts. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the redirect because it was a redirect to her article under a derogatory name, which had previously been deleted (twice). I had heard the name, but I thought it came about during her time at 10 Downing Street. When I didn't see a discussion of the name in that portion of her article, I deleted it. Since it *does* appear in the article (and is referenced), I no longer am opposed, but it should be redirected to the specific section of her article where the term is discussed: #REDIRECT Margeret Thatcher#Education Secretary (1970–1974). I am posting this reply on both the article talk page and my user talk page to make sure you see my response.  Horologium  (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

First Ladies
Hi Horologium - sorry I just declined a spate of speedy deletion nominations you placed on State First Ladies. A7 speedy deletion is about whether there is a "credible claim to significance or importance", not whether the subject is "notable". It's a lower bar and in my view governors' spouses cross it. If you think the First Ladies aren't notable - and you may have a point - I suggest nominating them at WP:AFD. Let me know if you have any questions. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is not inherited. Being married to someone famous does not confer notability. Note that I didn't tag people like Marjorie Rendell (a federal judge) or Lori Easley (a former Miss Idaho USA). Those two (and several more) are unquestionably notable, but the rest didn't do anything except marry someone who was a successful politician. I even avoided Carole Crist, specifically because I have edited that article and because her notability is also open to debate (she's a socialite who has appeared on one of Bravo's Real Housewives shows). I *do* understand the requirements for CSD; it's pretty much a given for someone who passes RFA.  Horologium  (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A7 has nothing to do with "notability". It specifically says it is a "lower standard than notability". I agree there is probably a WP:NOTINHERITED argument here but that's an argument for AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Kiev
Thanks for the indefinite semi-protection at Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. That's another article where I don't edit, but I know about the back-and-forth over the name (mostly because of its listing at WP:LAME). Maybe the indef semi will get people to read the talk page. It's not going to go away (like the insanity over Macedonia), but a long dose of SP will substantially improve the signal-to-noise ratio.  Horologium  (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Masterworks Chorale - Ready for approval of updates
Horologium, quite some time ago you removed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bonniefullerton/MC from circulation because it didn't meet citation and notability requirements. Members of Masterworks have since revamped the entire page. Can you please take a look at the page and let me know if it needs any further work? Thanks... Bonniefullerton (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a look at your improvements to the article. The new version is much better, as the copyright violation has been fixed. However, there are still issues with the sourcing. One of the cites is from an unpublished personal interview with the conductor; that falls under the heading of original research and cannot be used; the interview would have to be published in a reliable source for use. Two of the citations are to the chorale's own website; while this is allowed in some situations, in this case it doesn't work. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability notes that self-published sources should not be used as a primary reference for an article. My concern is that one of the citations to the group's website is used to reference a performance in Carnegie Hall, which (if independently verified) substantially aids in establishing notability. (The 1994 European Tour, which is also notable, is not cited, and the performances with the symphonies also lack references). The final two references are very vague; one is to the Midsummer Mozart Festival website (which doesn't mention the Masterworks Chorale, and doesn't seem to have any archives of their 1982 program) and the link to "Distinguished Concerts International", which needs a clearer source (with the URL, if possible). I dug around that site for a while and found a link to the performance, which included a link to a sketch of the group. For what it's worth, Eric Whitacre has an article on Wikipedia, and taking part in a premiere performance of one of his compositions at Carnegie Hall is notable. Please see if you can come up with additional independent citations; if one of the big newspapers in the San Francisco Bay Area (Chronicle, Tribune, Mercury-News) has ever reviewed a concert, that would work. This article is close to making it into a bulletproof (deletion-proof) article; I think the group meets the notability requirements, but the citations need to be beefed up. If you can do that, I'll move it back into the mainspace.  Horologium  (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at this today, and I found many more sources than the first time I attempted this over a year ago. Of course in the meantime I graduated with a Masters from library school, so maybe the study did some good in helping me find sources. Many of the reviews that I know were done are no longer available in the online archives, but I was able to find other sources. Let me know if there's anything more I need to take care of. Bonniefullerton (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of tweaks (I removed almost all of the embedded external links, and converted another to a reference), removed the notability and reference tags, restored the category (actually, I added a category which actually existed on Wikipedia), and moved it back into the mainspace. It is once again at Masterworks Chorale. Very nice work on referencing.  Horologium  (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)