User talk:Horologium/September 2010

Hi there
I was wondering if you have a chance to take a look at this. I've been disappointed with the lack of outside opinion on this. Truthsort (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it tomorrow, when I have a chance to sit down and read through all of the reverts and the backbiting on the talk page. I'm not terribly familiar with Pamela Geller, so I need to do a little bit of digging before I can form an opinion on the issue, which appears to revolve around some of her activities. Is this a coatrack? (Whenever I see an MMFA cite on a blogger article, it's not a good sign.)  Horologium  (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I think it is heading into the direction of a coatrack. Other users think otherwise. What has bothered me about this is that I've seen at least one edit summary say that not everything had to be sourced in a BLP and base arguments on WP:Truth and not WP:Verifiability. Another user suggested looking up divorce records. Truthsort (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Lead Content?
Inre your...


 * Polargeo's claim of removing unsourced statements doesn't wash, since the lede does not need to be sourced, if the rest of the article provides sources.

I had the recent occasion to refresh my understanding of WP P&G in regard to lead sourcing, and your observation didn't sound quite right to me. FWIW, perhaps a consideration?

Per WP:LEAD, whether or not to source lead content is predicated upon the degree to which the associated content might be challengeable, not whether or not it is sourced in the main article body. That initial determination will obviously be made by the author but is also, ultimately, subject to a consensus-established decision whether or not to require sourcing for lead content where dispute ensues. Assuming, as you implied, that the content in question is/was indeed sourced in the article itself, Polargeo's error, in my view, was his unilateral deletion of allegedly unsourced content rather than attempting to reach a consensus-based understanding as to whether the lead sourcing is warranted. A tag would have been much more appropriate and rather quickly resolved any question. Polargeo's action was, in my view, needlessly inflammatory, quite provocative and contrary to recommended Wikipedia P&G. As admins, you both should know that...and your observation may be correct, but for the wrong reason. Rgds. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had forgotten that the MoS has formally changed since I began editing (at the time I began actively editing, the MoS was still very much a work in progress, and there was a big to-and-fro over citations in the lede; the "cite everything" faction apparently won that battle). I'm not going to bother changing what I wrote on the RFAR PD talk page, though, because it's not really germane to the situation. JWB was focusing on the disruptive edit, and I was focusing on the stalking. I don't think that most people are buying the excuse that Polargeo is trying to sell, and reworking my comment only serves to validate Polatgeo's nonsense. If it had not been such a transparent attempt to retaliate at JWB, I would consider changing it, but not in this instance.  Horologium  (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to bother changing what I wrote on the RFAR PD talk page, though, because it's not really germane to the situation.
 * I concur that a correction is not contextually warranted in the PD which is why I elected your talk page as the venue...and, yes, P&G can be difficult to stay on top of as to the most current letter of the law. Simply consider this to be an update on that P&G. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, a request and question...
I've seen you around (seems like we edit "in the same area") and you were the user who first welcomed me to Wikipedia so I thought I'd ask you...


 * I've done a lot of work on Bartow, Florida and was wondering if you could take a look at it and give me some feedback on where it could be improved. I've added basically did a rewrite on much of the article, added pictures, and took care of much of the sourcing issues(although still working on adding more sources). You gave an assessment of the article in 2007 so you might be familiar with its problems before.
 * In trying to find a good "model" to follow for my work on Bartow, I've been looking at other cities and county articles (both inside and outside FL). After stumbling over the Brevard County, Florida article for the 12th time, I've decided I have to do something about it- words can't describe how painful it is just looking at that article. I'm still new to wikipedia (as a registered user at least- I contributed anonymously and sporadically for a long time and briefly had an account way back 2003?) and am mostly unfamiliar with wikipedia culture. Would it be seen as acceptable to rewrite the article in my user space, get it up to an acceptable quality and then submit my version to the community to chose between the old and new version? I don't want to step on any toes and I know the main writer of the article put a lot of work into te article, but it's- in need of extreme unction. If I had to edit the article itself (in the mainspace), I'm afraid I'd probably be reverted as vandalism (for blanking large sections of the page). There are things in the article which are useable, but they are, honestly, few and far between.

Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look and made a tweak to the references section. The article looks good, but a number of the references are somewhat problematic. Number 11, in particular, is totally inappropriate (there is an appropriate link to the 1900 census at this link). References numbers 12, 33, 43, 56, 61, 63, 64, 66, and 67 are to sources which are either primarily commercial in nature, or sources of unknown accuracy. (Link number 33, to examiner.com, has a typo, and the Examiner.com website has a lot of paid bloggers—articles from people with no expertise—and will almost certainly be challenged should you submit this for any type of peer review. That one, in particular, should either be sourced better or removed, along with the information for which it is being used as a citation.)
 * There are two Florida cities which are currently at Good Article status, Coral Springs, Florida and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which you can use as examples for formatting and structure. (I was the driving force for getting both of those articles promoted, so I have a little bit of proprietary pride in them). Unfortunately, all of the county articles are in very poor condition; most of them have very little content. The Brevard County article has the opposite problem, of too much content. The primary editor of that article (whom I have encountered elsewhere on Wikipedia, including several articles I have on my watchlist) has an unfortunate tendency to drop in a lot of disconnected factoids, with no context and no relation to anything else in the article. You might want to try rewriting that article a section at a time in your sandbox, and when you have something coherent and referenced, transfer the entire section into the article in a single edit. People will sometimes squawk about big edits, but if you present something as a demonstrable improvement, the complaints will be muted or non-existent. In some of the more extreme cases (like that article), removal of sourced content will still have the effect of improving the article, by clearing out-of-context and trivial statements. If you can form coherent narratives in a couple of sections of that article (especially the history section), that would be a tremendous improvement.
 * I've taken a look at your contributions over the past two weeks or so, and you've done a lot of good work. It doesn't look like there is another active editor working on the articles in Polk County, so you've found your niche. (grin) If you are looking for another project, take a look at Lakeland, Florida, which is rather tragic. I took a stab at the article in 2007, but the unreferenced tag that I added for the notable residents section is still there, and there are still no refs, after over 400 edits.  Horologium  (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I will definitely fix the sourcing issues with Bartow, but I might take a few days off from the article (I'm a little burned out on Bartow right now- didn't plan on doing as much as I did; just got carried away!). I plan on starting work on Brevard County today. Lakeland was already on my "agenda" as well. I don't know how (or perhaps why) WikiProject Cities gave the article a "B" assessment. Once again, thanks for the help. VictorianMutant (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Brevard County, Florida
I have made a major change to an article that you may or may not like and you may be an interested party, I thought I'd give you a "heads up" so hat you may comment and/or make or suggest improvements. VictorianMutant (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Crist
Here's a specialized google search specifically for "Charlie Crist" and "Independent" but without the words "No Party Affiliation" that receives 337,000 results. Here's a specialized google search specifically for "Charlie Crist" and "No Party Affiliation" but without the word "Independent" that receives 151,000 results. And from our own article on No Party Affiliation, Another term which is often used in place of "NPA" is "Independent". NPA is generally used for states that have a similarly named party to independent which may cause ballot confusion, but it is entirely the same as a formally independent candidate. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a reliable source cited in the article (The Miami Herald) which states that he re-registered as "No Party Affiliation", not "Independent". You are right about confusion; there are two separate parties registered with the Florida Division of Elections which use the word "independent" in them (Independent Democrats of Florida and Independent Party of Florida), plus the Independence Party of Florida. (List of registered parties with the Florida Division of Elections) There is no such thing as just plain "Independent" in Florida, and Charlie Crist will appear on the ballot with "NPA" beside his name. Here is a sample ballot from Alachua County, Florida. The US Senate election is the first race to appear on the ballot; Charlie Crist is the ninth of the ten listed candidates. He is not listed an an "Independent". And for what it's worth, the No party affiliation article is a train wreck: no inline references, three "citation needed" tags in the single paragraph of information, and a bunch of links to articles which apparently use the phrase in passing, several of which are dead links. I wouldn't rely on anything in that article. In any case, when discussing his party affiliation (in the info box), we should use the specific terminology used by the state, which is "No Party Affiliation".  Horologium  (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

His insertions of links to Exxon secrets and his removal of ISI highly cited notations on skeptics
Got any *recent* diffs for that? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but since the FoF discusses long-term trends, the old cites are still relevant. Besides, since Rd232 has taken over cutting and pasting inserting stuff from sourcewatch (note the edit summary), you're in the clear now.  Horologium  (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but since you've taken my name in vain there, what is the *most* recent diff you have? I'm concerned that you are apparently blessing raking up of old muck William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate an answer to this, please William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climate change denial

 * "Denier" is an absolutely obscene term. As the son-in-law of one of the few Jewish survivors of Bialystok and as an extremely close friend of someone who has been HIV+ for 29 years, I find the comparison of people who don't agree with the current consensus on climate change with Holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers to be repugnant in the extreme, and I offer a sincere, heartfelt fuck you to anyone who finds the comparison to be apt. Horologium (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

On your user page, you write, "I have little patience for people who perceive everything from a purely emotional point-of-view. I can be extremely abrupt and abrasive with such people, as I find it very hard to relate to them. I have emotions, but they don't control me." Please try to listen to yourself. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is something which goes way beyond emotion. This is something that offends me on a level which you probably cannot begin to fathom.  Horologium  (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, in that I do not understand how anyone could be offended at a real movement based on climate change denial. I'm not sure if I should take you seriously or not. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that we've clearly gotten to the point of an emotional argument, wouldn't it be better to quit with this discussion, Viriditas? Going to someone's talk to pursue an argument that angers them won't solve anything. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Best practice is to take off-topic comments from a project discussion, and place them on the user's talk page. Wouldn't you agree? Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you have no obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and I offer a sincere, heartfelt fuck you to you for using that offensive term on my page. You are totally missing my problem with the phrase; I have no problem with identifying an astroturf movement as such, but using the term "denialism" is repulsive. Words mean things, and using "denialism" elevates disagreeing with the global warming scientific consensus to the same intellectual plane as David Irving and Thabo Mbeki. That is what has me so upset; it's like the overuse of "nazi", "Hitler", "Stalin", and "McCarthy". Overuse of the words for non-congruent transgressions lessens their meaning, and it's inappropriate. You obviously don't get it, so I'm a bit less angry with you, but I still stronglh object to the use of the phrase. Do not use it again on this talk page, ever.  Horologium  (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In this particular situation, I have every idea what I'm talking about, and your comments demonstrate that your emotions are overriding your rationale approach to calm and civil discussion. Please stop telling your fellow editors to "fuck off", both here and on the project page. I've studied the phenomenon of the climate change denial movement by reading what people like the Royal Society say about it.  What kind of research have you done on the subject besides "feeling" strongly that you are right and everyone else is wrong? Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sanctimonious attitude sickens me, and you have still failed to understand my anger. You can't seem to grasp from where my anger stems, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the whole skeptic/scientific consensus thing. My views are, on the whole, more aligned with the science group than with the skeptic group, but I have a huge problem with using a thermonuclear term to deal with an issue where a flyswatter would work just as well. Your hyperbolic statement about me thinking everyone else is wrong is also wide of the mark, since it doesn't closely track with what I said.  Horologium  (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe when you calm down and can compose a sentence that does not include an attack or an explicative, we can discuss it like rational human beings. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Your assumption of my stupidity and ignorance makes it quite unlikely. Please don't respond here; I will delete any response without reading it. I'm done with you.  Horologium  (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, Horologium -- I thought this was the appropriate response to Viriditas' ongoing incivility and personal attacks, here and elsewhere [] -- and frankly I think Viriditas should be given the choice of stopping right now or being blocked. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take the night off. You don't want to lose your temper now, and you'll find that thread just as productive to contribute to tomorrow. Please don't put yourself at a disadvantage over this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. I'll continue looking for sources for my next project, and add them tomorrow. I'm ready to spit tacks right now.  Horologium  (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)