User talk:Horologium/July 2010

Duranta repens

I have a botanical "encyclopedia of plants" or whatever in my possession, and it calls it repens, with NO MENTION OF ERECTA. Also, google duranta repens to get the full scope of how wrong you are. Also, decisions are done with consensus, not with your "AND DONT EVER MOVE IT AGAIN".

Sorry for the lack of substance (and proper punctuation) in this as I am in a hurry.

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 05:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, "Please don't move it again" and "DONT EVER MOVE IT AGAIN" differ in both tone and substance. I wrote the former, not the latter. I understand how consensus works, thank you.

It's nice that you have a botanical "encyclopedia of plants"; which one, and how old is it? Since there is an issue of a former name, the data in your book may be out of date.

The first of the external links on the plant's article is to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). The link is to Duranta erecta, and in the synonym section, D. repens is listed, with a link. Click on the link, and it will take you to a page for D. repens. Note the "taxonomy and nomenclature" section, more specifically the Taxonomic status: current standing" section, which states that D. repens is not accepted, as it is a synonym.

When you are done there, go to the next one, the USDA's PLANTS database, and type in "Duranta repens". Then take a look at where it sends you (I'll give you a hint; it's not "Duranta repens".)

The third external link is to an article from the San Diego Horticultural Society (which now has a working link via the Internet Archive). That article, which dates back to 2002, states "The botanical name of the most common (smaller-leaved) species is also somewhat noteworthy, having been changed from Duranta repens to Duranta erecta", which again supports my position.

And another example, from the Linnaean Typification Project at the Natural History Museum of London is here. You can see that they also note that D. repens has been superseded by D. erecta.

If you wish to request a move, feel free to ask at Requested moves, but I suspect that consensus will line up against you when the facts are presented. Horologium (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the New York Time

You contributed to Criticism of the New York Times if you have an opinion, come to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor

I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong ^speak 05:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your upgraded protection of Westboro?

I was curious what you meant by PC working well what seems to be the issue? Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What I said is that pending changes is *not* working well for the article. Pending changes protection does not slow down the BLP violations, it only reduces their likelihood of being seen. The rapidity with which that article was being bombarded was over an acceptable level, and (as was the case with Sarah Palin), sometimes showing unregistered vandals the door is the best way of dealing with the issue. I didn't remove the PC protection; I simply dropped semi-protection on top. The signal-to-noise ratio from IP editors was zero, so we haven't lost anything. Horologium (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Hyper-partisan"

I think that is definitely a good term for MMFA and WND. Were you planning on doing the RFC? I would help get it started if necessary as I've had this discussion MANY times with other editors. Soxwon (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have two term papers due in the next week, and then finals the week after that. I can contribute to the RFC, but I don't think I have the time to put together an exhaustive list of diffs for this, and as I am usually only a peripheral player in these sorts of disputes, I don't think I have standing to file anyway. Horologium (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, Horologium. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Masterworks Chorale: Update to meet reference standards.

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) 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)