User talk:Dan Murphy

October 2008

Don't understand the complaint. The reversion is objectively much worse than my changes which; shifted info in a 500 plus word lede to below the table of contents; added extremely relevant info about DOJ IG findings and appointment of special prosecutor; simplified language; and started removing completely irrelevant reems of information about "Other bush scandals." Could you explain?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, how dramatic improvements of a stale article, with the most relevant information -- the DOJ findings -- at the top instead of back and forth about 2 year old allegations and the relocation of paragraph after paragraph of background info from the lede to below the table of contents is vandalism is beyond me. The article still needs vast improvements -- it has background on case law related to the general practice of hiring and firing of US attorneys higher than it does information on the actual scandal, which is very poor structure, but if efforts to improve and add info are immediately reverted it's not worth my time to improve.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE Attorney Firings

Note: I removed the vandalism warnings as well as they are obviously not valid.
Don't understand the complaint. The reversion is objectively much worse than my changes which; shifted info in a 500 plus word lede to below the table of contents; added extremely relevant info about DOJ IG findings and appointment of special prosecutor; simplified language; and started removing completely irrelevant reems of information about "Other bush scandals." Could you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am rather baffled with this reversion as well. I cannot remember reverting this page, even though it was done a mere 10 minutes ago. There is no indication as to why i could have decided to revert this page; There is no indication of vandalism whatsoever present and since an edit summary was included i cannot have reverted it for "content removal". I am fairly certain that this was either a misclick or a hiccup in huggle causing an incorrect diff to be displayed. Either way, apologies for this mistake; I cannot be certain why this happened, but i can be certain that the revert should not have happened.

I undid my own revision so the article should be in the same state as you were working on before i reverted. As for the revert by Ossman: I assume he actioned based upon my revert. Again, apologies for the inconvenience caused! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... well, i did start stripping out a lot of text in a kitchen sink section at the bottom called "Other bush scandals". Could that have triggered something automatic? At any rate, thanks for taking the time.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Safe for a few anti vandalism bots out there, vandalism patrol is handled in a semi-automatic fashion with the user reverting being the one who "Pushes the button". Triggering something automatic would therefore be impossible. It is possible that i saw "Other bush scandals" to be a WP:NPOV edit, but before reverting on that basis i tend to take a longer to be sure it is indeed a valid revert. At least i should remember such reverts a few minutes after it was reverted. Therefore, i think that this was simply a manual mistake :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

an invitation: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

I invite you to read through the talk pages and talk pages archive of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, where you'll see some of the issues that have brought the article to its recent state, however positive or lamentable you may view it to be. Please also take a look at the several linked articles as well.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I read them already, indeed, before i contacted you. Thousands of words on anything that can be tangentially connected to a topic is very, very bad. ("Article is about Zippy the talking chimp, member of the Barnum and Bailey's circus. I recently came across new research about the effect of habitat destruction on chimps in the congo. Now, let me add a long explanation of said matter and various scientific controversies surrounding its signifigance because, after all, this article is about chimps. Also, here's 300 words about general habitat destruction in the congo because, after all, this article is about the congo."). This way lies madness, i submit.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Berg v Obama

Calling for an article's speedy deletion while at the same time trying to refine it as much as possible is very much, in my opinion, in the Wikipedia spirit. I tip my hat to you. PhGustaf (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just bored, and i figure if it doesn't get deleted, or until it does, it should be as appropriate and good as possible.

Rashid Khalidi

thank you for your objective edits.Historicist (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

thank you. go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Bali

Thanks for your offer of help with the pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles AN/I report. Another editor has reverted those changes, so for now it's all cool. About the intervening edits that were confusing the reverts, in this situation as it happened, none of those were significant. The other editor who did the reverts put the article back to the revision prior to when the disruptive editor started his changes.

I see from the AN/I stuff that you were involved with that you understand the problems of sockpuppets and agenda-based edits. The pedophilia-related topics have those same issues. They get blocked and it's quiet for a while, then they come back and do the same thing again. The talk page archives on that article are full of the same patterns over and over for years- sheesh!

Anyway, thanks again and have a good one --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, go well. Those issues I would imagine hold orders of magnitude greater potential for anger than the ones i've dealt with (and would certainly unite all of the annoying folks i've dealt with in opposition, a reminder of the bigger picture).Bali ultimate (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio v. Wells

Sorry for the edit conflict! Bearian (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not insane

There is no WP:SYNTH in taking a figure stating the X number of Coptic Christians in Kuwait to support stating that there are, um, X Copts in Kuwait. It is a perfectly legitimate, non-novel conclusion to draw from the source. I'm not sure why Elonka does not recognize that (she created the same quaint situation at Talk:Khwārizmī#G J Toomer and his naive confidence over whether or not "of Persian stock," "from a Persian family," "of Persian heritage" mean that he was an ethnic Persian), but if we were to treat all cases like these as WP:SYNTH, Wikipedia would end up a huge chain of direct quotes placed next to each other on a page. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My read of Elonka is that she's bending over backwards to show as much good faith, to assume as much good intent of others as possible. I or you might find it frustrating (and it's certainly not my style) but in the long run, that can't be a bad attitude. As for the fellow that led to my involvement in this, he'll either shape up or ship out eventually.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Accounts

There's little doubt that the two accounts are the same person. It looks like the recent edits barely avoid 3RR. COI is the broader issue. The named account has been giving out that he has no connection to the organization, but that doesn't appear to be the case. He's been adding links to the organization, which would be a COI violation. The whole thing smells fishy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure the best way to proceed either. Though the 3RR will quickly grow stale, that's not the biggest problem. Let me think about it and perhaps ask some other admins. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Theda Bara...

...my sister-in-law's favorite actress.  :)

In all seriousness, though, the articles on the website Ungss recommends are worth reading. Once you strip away the impressive-sounding terminology, there's really very little left. Baraminologists argue that membership in a baramin should be determined through the use of "holistic data," rather than relying on one source.

That sounds good, but it has a few problems: they never define precisely WHICH sources of data should be used, how much weight they should be given, or the reasoning behind why (for example) two organisms looking alike should be considered equally with genetic similarity.

In short: the standards for deciding are entirely arbitrary. In fact, in the paper from which the definitions were derived, the authors actually acknowledge that it's entirely arbitrary, but hand-wave it by saying "Future research will fix this."

Needless to say, I'm very skeptical that that will ever happen. One of the major (albeit unspoken) precepts of Baraminology is that no classification system which allows apes and humans to be in the same baramin may ever be considered or allowed. Thus, they need wiggle room in order to be able to claim that, say, a housecat and a liger fall in the same baramin, but a chimp and a human do not. --BRPierce (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be older than you look. At any rate, I wouldn't worry about future research -- it doesn't appear to be a proper hypothesis yet. But for the moment, shouldn't the talk page discussion focus on getting in the fact that the definers say it's arbitrary, hoping to find data to fit the theory rather than working to falsify it? Has anyone answered the question over there about "On what basis is their theory falsifiable?" I was really hoping for a concrete, specific explanation on swallows and swiftlets. You probably know, but in case you don't, they have similar characteristics because of similair lifestyles, but are as far apart genetically as two birds could be (well, excepting megapods etc...). One's passerine and one's non-passerine. Or for that matter, insect eating bats. Are all three of these creatures expressing the same genes? Were genes for "batness" "swiftness" and "swallowness" lurking in all our ancestors? Given the discussion of "traits" this doesn't seem to be the claim. But... I'm just rambling now. I'll read those links and make some notes in hte next day or two.

p.s. extra credit for telling me what Theda's name was an anagram for (without looking it up).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Arab Death." And, no, she's just a silent film buff; we're not in our nineties. :) I'll touch on the other points when I have a bit more time, and try to find you some good sources detailing Baraminology and the reasons for it. --BRPierce (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Labeling pseudoscience

To move along a discussion on how pseudoscience should be labeled, I'm trying to gather other editors' input over at Talk:Baraminology#Distinguishing_facts_and_views. Essentially, do you think the phrasing "baraminology is pseudoscience" or "baraminology is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" is more appropriate? Thanks, Emw2012 (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Baramin

You wrote: "Not basing baraminology on common ancestry does not mean that common ancestry cannot be assumed from a baraminic assignment. For example, I usually assume that the species of a holo­baramin of terrestrial animals descended from an ancestral pair that was on the ark. Because this is an assumption, it can be challenged or rejected. On the other hand, because plants survived the Flood both on and off the ark, species of a plant holobaramin need not be related to a common ancestor." This assumption pretty much requires him to ignore all of genetic science (and particularly if he believes the ark sailed during the past 100,000 years). The quote sort of defines -anti or pseudo-science. While i know that neither my, nor anyone elses, original research is meant to count for much in the article main space, i'm now firmly convinced that there is no reason to tack against the overwhelming consensus of professional scientists that this stuff is pseudo.

Why does this define pseudo or anti-science to you? Are you of the opinion that scientists may make no assumptions when interpretting data? Ungtss (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Real scientists have actual working falsifiable hypothesis, to which they apply the scientific method. What assumptions they have lie in theories that have been strongly supported by similiar scientific inquiry. As far as that "state of baraminology" essay goes, i see assumptions leading back to scripture and some very incoherent assertions (with no empirical data to back them up) about two ancestral cat strains that began to diverge after the flood (which happened precisely when?) and, apparently were both geolocated where noah was supposed to have launched his boat.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Ungtss (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cloward-Piven Strategy

I note you have not stated your reasons for wanting to delete the Cloward-Piven Strategy article on that article's user page. I exhort you to do so, failing which I will assume you have abandoned your dispute and do not object to removal of the delete tag. Fair enough? Syntacticus (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Syntacticus, have you actually read the tag? It has all the information you need. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: Your sarcasm if that's what it is is not helpful. I have read the tag. It contains no substantive information whatsoever. It’s mere procedural, technical boilerplate. From what I have learned recently, placing a tag without explaining why you are doing so is contrary to the rules (I was upbraided for doing so myself on another article/s). There should be a discussion about deletion regardless of any potential animus any of the discussants might have toward the creator of the article. If you think the article merits deletion, you must explain why. I believe the article describes an important though obscure political strategy. Apparently, some question the existence of the strategy. They are free to do so and may add appropriate critical information to the article to that effect but the mere fact that the strategy is the subject of scholarship, as referenced in the article, is proof that it is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

Let’s look at another example of a disputed political strategy/theory. Conservatives would say there is no such thing as a vast right wing conspiracy and ridicule the idea yet it has been talked about and written about extensively by reliable sources since Hillary Clinton began using the phrase during her husband’s presidency. Wikipedia has an article on the topic: [[1]]. Whether there actually is such a “conspiracy” is irrelevant in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards for inclusion. The VRWC article should stand. Using the same reasoning, the Cloward-Piven Strategy has been discussed by reliable sources and therefore the article concerning it should also stand. Syntacticus (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Given Bali's attempts to out Syntaticus in violation of policy and following him to this article and nominating it for deletion, a case could be made that he is only trying to harass this user because of content disputes on the ACORN page. It is difficult for me to assume good faith in the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A good faithed attempted outing for which the user is not even contrite? The only hold out for mediation so we can get some closure on the issue of Capital Research? Good faith my assDie4Dixie (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to check other contributions from an editor who's exhibited problems. The AfD can succeed or fail regardless of Bali. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bali ultimate, you misrepresented WP deletion policy (presumably by mistake). It says I am entitled to remove the tag if I disagree with it. See the note at the article's deletion discussion page. Syntacticus (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The tag says: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. I've now restored the tag. The AfD will soon be over. The closing admin will remove the tag (or delete the article) when it's over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Bayrak

اسابيع..؟ عندنا العمر كله--Bayrak (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Thanks for your work with restoring the SV infobox where appropriate. Please be careful with 3RR though, on those articles things can get heated. There's no hurry and it's not worth causing trouble for your account by trying to fix the problems too fast on your own. Ultimately, consensus of multiple editors will bring the solution. Your help is certainly appreciated.

Happy Holidays! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCSP

Your recent meaningful participation in an ANI on sports-figure article disambiguation suggests that you may be interested in participating one way or another in the development and/or discussion of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), a draft proposal to clarify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) as applied to sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible etiquette problem/personal attack on talk:pedophilia

On talk:Pedophilia your description of the block of User:ForesticPig, attributing pro-pedophile sentiment to the user appears to be a dubious personal comment and possibly a personal attack.

In following the discussion on WP:ANI I saw several personal attacks on the user, but no posts by the user saying that they advocate pedophilia. (And some indicating that they oppose child sexual abuse). In such a serious matter it seems better to stick to clear evidence, rather than making inferences or summaries of what you think somebody else believes.

Please consider retracting what appears to be an attack, unless you can cite a clear unambiguous statement by the user themselves that they are "pro-pedophilia," or cite evidence that the arbcom committee considers them so. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What nonesense. Read the block log edit summary, made by an admin after Arbcom considered this. Calls him an "apparent pro-pedophila" account. Here. [[2]]. My describtion was not dubious, not personal, and not an attack.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)