User talk:Dan Murphy

`

IP Addy question

Hey, I see that IP address in question; no, it's not me, but I'm pretty sure I know who it is- nobody that's contributed to the conversation yet. Let me email her and see if it really is her. Sound okay? Ks64q2 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Err, sorry, I misspoke- nobody who's contributed to the conversation other than that, if it is her. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP/she !voted "keep" on that AfD (which i believe you're acknowledging with your second comment to me here). Knowing someone is not neccessarily a problem -- but the closer the relationship is, the more likely that is to be a problem. If it's a close relationship, just disclose it in a brief comment (you don't have to be overly specific -- "she's a friend" "she's my wife" "she's a former coworker" whatever). You don't have to do this, but daylight is the best disinfectant, and the, uhm, zeal with which you've been arguing on that AfD will almost always raise suspicion (fair or not).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a matter of tactics: The constant respones to, correcting of, clarifying of, etc... other's comments or opinions will probably not help save the article. At a certain point, all most people see is "wall of text. wall of text. wall of text." Make strong, concise policy-based arguments. Having made an argument once, it's almost always best to desist. For instance, the "it's independent!" "No it isn't!" "But it tis!" is veering into "Argument Clinic" territory [[1]].

Well, the wall of text seemed to be necessary as there is (and still are) people looking at the "mini points" you espouse that people who have come into the thread and made misjudgments based off of blatantly false information (ie, the article's creator was the owner of the site, and not simply a member of Wikiproject Blogging); whether they are doing it out of ignorance or malice, I'll never know. But the real reason I came in here was I did take a look at who created the AfD on Peter Jukes and saw it was you, which I didn't notice immediately; I certainly didn't intend to offend you, because I'm more than reasonably certain you didn't have any specific malice intended. However, I would think it would be more prudent to wait until after contentious items like the other article's AfD would be over; this seems a little thoughtless. But I think your intent was on the level. I wanted to make sure I let you know that. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and no- if that IP is who I think it is, it's a passing aquaintence of mine who I asked to edit the FMC article. Heh, I'm a single dad, and the only other female I'm "close to it my ex- and I'm certain she would love to join your side on the deletion of that article, especially considering the hard work poured into it. grinKs64q2 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Crappy BLPs wait for no man. I don't know anything about your intentions. However, "This AFD appears to be motivated by tktktk" is making it about me. Don't do that. Don't justify it. Don't "clarify" it. You don't have to apoligize now. What's done is done. But don't make it about me or anyone else. If you do, formal civility warnings will come and ultimately blocks. If you attack me or my motives (or what you couch as my "apparent" motives -- that dog won't hunt for long) I'll take formal steps. Just so we're crystal clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Woah, woah, man! Wikilove, wikipeace! Certainly you can see what I mean about the way it's perceived- although the only other editor who showed up in the AfD article there to vote delete is one that systematically, last night, went through all pages I have created and submitted them for deletion. Anyway, there's no problem, the Peter Jukes article is more than well sourced and notable, it'll survive no problem- remember, though, with the reason you submitted it for deletion, to beware systematic bias! Just because you hadn't heard of something doesn't make it non-notable. And not even attempting to throw a "cleanup" tag on there, well, that's not against any policy, but perhaps simply courtesy. That's what builds the perception you're acting out of a motive other than to strictly improve Wikipedia. Anyway, just my $.02 Canadian, take it for what it's worth, my friend! Ks64q2 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of to an ettiquette alert. "That's what builds the perception you're acting out of motives tktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Motley Moose warring

Yes, you did go over 3RR, and I don't think there was sufficient justification under BLP. However, since you've already disengaged, if you stay away from the article until KS64's 12-hour block expires, I won't block you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate it. No matter my arguments about the content, I don't have a leg to stand on vis-a-vis the reverts (particularly since other editors would have been along shortly anyways).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue sky

I agree that it's a strange idea that the sky could be blue because of the ocean. However, it's been discussed. See here: [2] Rracecarr (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i see no reliable sources that this is a "common misconception." Absent sources, really everything should go. For now i'm just getting out the unsourced stuff that is patent nonesense and tagging the rest that is uncited/sourced.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. The list definitely needs refs. I'm not too familiar with the non-science parts of it, but I don't think there is much patent nonsense in the scientific categories. Rracecarr (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Fortunately our opinions don't matter -- absent sources spelling these things out as common misperceptions (who the hell thinks koalas are really bears, for instance?) -- they'll have to go, sooner rather than later.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Misconceived article

I see you are busy at List of common misconceptions so I will leave you to it to avoid edit conflicts. I think the work you have put in there is inspiring, considering that it will never end! I will give a hand when I can. pablo_hablo. 22:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Actually i'm done for now. Will see how that goes down -- there's a ton more that can be removed, but it would end up swamping the talk page. Going to try to get a work out and then do something productive. BestBali ultimate (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Bali, I would like to say thank you very much for your time and effort in helping to thwart the vandals who were doing their best to discredit me and blacken my name. Thankfully due to yourself and other sharp-minded individuals, they seem to have been stopped in their tracks. I really appreciate your help and perseverance with this matter. It can't describe how frustrating it has been to be forced to watch the whole thing from the sidelines and only being able to communicate infrequently via an IP address. My account seems to be working fine now (let's hope) and I hope to leave the whole escapade in the past. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you as a way of saying thanks. All the Best! Marek.69 ^talk 00:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. When it comes to that kind of nonesense, it's the way most of us roll. (I suspect he'll be around here and there, but will be dealt with as part of normal editing.)Bali ultimate (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded to Bali ultimate for his efforts in catching and reporting the vandals who were harassing and impersonating editors on Wikipedia. Thank you -- Marek.69 talk 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A small token of my appreciation -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Notifying of featured article review of William Monahan

I have nominated William Monahan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously edited articles related to residential colleges at Rice University. There is an RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if the comments I made there offended you in any way, I didn't mean harm. Spring12 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your comments as foolish and timewasting, not offensive. Don't intend to comment over there since there's nothing of substance to be addressed.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV of Dan S.

Hello, could you head back to [3] and see if the sources provided on the talk page are sufficient to address the issues with WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I apologize, I didn't know it was you and didn't mean to sound insulting. I hope you can forgive me because It seems like you and I are of like minds on many things.

As for Cole, I don't understand how a tenured professor isn't a reliable source just because he posts his views on a blog. If Jonah Golberg and Daniel Pipes can be referenced as reliable sources than certainly Juan Cole can be. annoynmous 23:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg and Pipe's are even less reliable than Juan -- that's the point. Juan is a scholar, is fluent in arabic, is deeply steeped in the literature -- both arabic and english (and, i think, Farsi, though i'm not certain) -- etc... But his opinions should still be flagged as such. We'll see if you get more outside voices on RS noticeboard -- but in general, it isn't helpful to talk about the use of other unrelaible sources elsewhere. Anyone that makes a strong case for Pipes or Goldberg as a reliable source for anything but their personal opinion, clearly flagged as such (and used only sparingly) doesn't understand what we're supposed to be doing here.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my point there are several articles were Juans opinions are being deleted by certain editors simply because he publishes them on a blog. Wikipedia guidelines allow a self published blog if the person who created it is a scholar.

Take a look at my contribs page to see. I been trying to protect Juan as a legitimate source on these pages.

annoynmous 02:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem interested in fighting the kind of battle i'm not interested in. Juan Cole is good for some stuff, not good for others. Be specific. If there is poorly sourced stuff on wikipedia (filled with it, so what?) that says nothing about this particular issue. You still haven't said on that noticeboard what in particular you want to source.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Plumoyr wasn't indefinitely blocked, so unless his use of an alt account is disruptive, there's no reason for a CU. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, misread that. I was actually seeking a CU on a new user entirely, and thought you would know if it fit/made sense.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#aceshowbiz.com

Could you take another look? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock report

Thanks for your sock report. It has been handled in a different manner due to some aspects I cannot discuss, but there are very good reasons why it must not be discussed further. — Coren ^(talk) 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not like anyone rushed to oversight. Glad it's handled now.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Knowliege

I see you have added a suspected sock puppet tag to their user page - has this been confirmed? (Emperor (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm convinved it's a sock of a banned user, but as far as know that is not confirmed. If you have a reason to, request a CU. Behaviorally, he's a complete duck for Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) but he's not being disruptive in areas i pay attention to (yet) so haven't pestered an admin about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings From Bali

typical tourist girl
local view

Hi, I've seen you around and, obviously, noticed your user name. Thought I'd open the lines, so to speak. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sudah lima tahun saya ngak ke indonesia. Adalah piala Ultimate Frisbee in 1999, and saya jadi direktor competisi (and yes, my indonesian is now awful. Go well Bali ultimate (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's better than mine; I've not been here quite that long and have not really picked more than the basics. A friend of mine plays tennis in this climate, which is just too much for me to consider. I like the quotes on your user page and we seem to agree on the broader issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a wonderful place. Yes the tourists/drunken ockers/commercialization blah blah blah... but i'll never forget how the balianese delt with the kuta attack ([4] scroll down to "Letter from Kuta" and here [5] scroll to "empty rooms and idle cabs." That second one may have some resonance for you.) Used to spend a minimum of 1 weekend a month there back in the day at a friends place in Seminyak. Still miss it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Balinese, other Indonesians too, are a wonderful people that the rest of the world could learn a lot from. My favorite day here is Nyepi. Compare their reactions and views that you link, with the New York headline from the year before; "Kill Someone!" Many of the tourists who come here, and I mostly mean Ubud, not Kuta, are rather mild folk, too; While not my thing, the yoga crowd here is nice; fit, too. Life is calm here and stress free; even yon drama the other day was calm for me. Mostly the frenzied wiki-drama goes on while I'm asleep. I check in after a relaxing lunch with a nice chai and read the night's events as a piece. Let me know when you next come back, folks usually do; chai and a pint on me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC) aka David

Rice University residential colleges

An active Rice-affiliated editor (AniRaptor2001) came around and saw the light and he and I finished merging all the Rice University residential colleges into Residential colleges of Rice University. However, the natives are getting restless again on talk and I would welcome any input you had so that its not a situation of everyone vs. me. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from Brooklyn

Hi Bali! I wanted to invite you, and to just let you know about our New York City Meetups at Columbia University. Our next meeting is Sunday afternoon May 17, and I really hope you can join us.--Pharos (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, and here's your formal invite :)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.--Pharos (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably won't make it. But how did you know i'm in new york (i am in fact in brooklyn)? Thanks for asking though. Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you said somewhere that you were a patron of our lovely borough-wide library system (as I am also). Actually, awhile back we had one of our meetings at the Pacific Library Branch. Anyway, I hope if not this time maybe we can get to see you in future (hopefully we can get one going in Brooklyn again!).--Pharos (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Charlsie Cantey

Did you even watch the Triple Crown races over the past thirty years? And she's done much more than that, obviously.

It's funny it took me three years to realize she was missing from those broadcasts, but I wanted to find out what was going on.

Wikipedia was no help. Once I found details, I figured the woman deserved an article. I know it could stand improving, but I believe it's beyond the point of deletion.

I want to know more about Mike Battaglia and Donna Brothers too, so you can probably expect to see those next. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, good luck!Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chile–Finland relations

I have expanded Chile–Finland relations to WP:DYK status with reliable sources. Would you reconsider your vote at the AfD. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since none of those sources are about the bilateral relationship, but about private forestry and copper interests, no.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

The IP user has opened a thread about your actions at WP:AN/I. If it hasn't closed yet, it likely will soon. AniMate^talk 03:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Ireland relations

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting material that has nothing to do with this bilateral relationship. Has no impact on my view. Maybe you should write an Irish participants in the colombian wars of independence article.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

This [[6]] was wrong, but quite amusing don't you think? Smarred Wolet (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think so then, don't think so now. But it was many months ago. Why are you bringing it up with me now?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

what the...?

Something is surely wrong here. Are you still not an admin? Why, precisely? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind of you (although given some of what i've seen writen about admins, maybe not). I have been quite intemperate and abrupt with people and have gotten myself embroiled in the "deletion wars" here and there (I have very narrow personal standards for the notability of fictional places, people and things for instance), so any run for adminship would almost certainly fail. I have very little interest in the FA/GA process, or nursing articles to a facsimile of "greatness" (given the transient nature of all content here), another black spot against me (as in the sorts of things people look for on RfAs) and i don't start a lot of articles (I rarely find something that's interesting to me that isn't already here). So, while any RfA wouldn't be a childofmidnight ball of flames, it would probably be a waste of time. And that's probably for the best (do any of us need more excuses to spend time here)?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bother. I've disagreed with you, quite often, but you seem intelligent and thoughtful to me. I think you'd make a good admin. I don't see that you don't start many new articles as any kind of black mark, but perhaps I'm out of touch. *sigh* Let me know if you change your mind. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Have we disagreed that often? At any rate, appreciate it, but A. Pretty sure it would fail and, B. I'm not sure how i feel about the process of justifying what i would or wouldn't do with the "tools" not to mention other questions like "If you were an admin, would you rather be a whale or a koala?"Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't keep track, but I do remember disagreeing with you. :-P I usually forget, so I'm surprised when people say they've had disagreements with me (I tend to go Huh? Where? Can you remind senile me?) You could watchlist AIV and CSD. You could learn to do complex Merges! You could use your powers for Good! KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for you, I think. ThuranX (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nolan Batman Series villians AfD vote

Please review your vote. It's not that there does not exist sources nor citations, it's that this particular article doesn't use any, and more relevant articles, like Batman Begins] and The Dark Knight (film) do make useof the sources, as well as real-world content, and provide far more sense and context to that information, whereas this article is all 'in-universe', doesn't wikilink or provide citation, is hidden behind an improbably (at best) title, and thus becomes a poor, second-rate version, a WP:FORK. ThuranX (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding {{primarysources}} to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Today you re-added {{primarysources}} to the above article, despite the fact that it includes several inline references, I compiled from various contributors. Can you be a bit more specific which elements you feel aren't sufficiently sourced, possible adding to each of them. Thank you. -- User:Docu

Inline, yes. But to primary sources. You've been an editor here long enough to, somehow, become an admin, and if you don't know what a primary source is, I don't see how i can help you. I didn't say anything about "insufficiently" sourced, though i don't think that a primary source discussing a double taxation treaty actually says anything noteworthy about a bilateral relationship. But that's an entirely different discussion. The fact that the article hangs entirely on primary sources is why the tag is there, and rightfully so. I direct you to WP:RS and WP:V and WP:N if you have more questions about sourcing, verification and notability. I'll simply remove further posts of yours here without comment if you don't sign them properly.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced tags

FYI, stubs generally don't need {{unreferenced}} added to them. You can, of course, but it's usually not necessary as references don't generally get added until the stub starts turning into an actual article. This one, by the way, does have a reference, so I'm not sure why you added it there. These two have external links to what seems, with my very poor German, relevant and verifiable information about the article--the better bet would have been to convert the external links to refs in those two cases. Cheers. //roux   06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No sources in an article should be flagged or sorted. How can i judge an external link when it isn't in-line? The whole culture here of unsourced stubs is corrosive to quality and effort. Every reader should see a nice big warning on the top of every such page: "Best to assume everything here is bullshit -- there's no sources that would allow you to easily double check any of these claims." Don't you find it shocking that an administrator since 2003 creates unsourced articles that can't be verified, have no sources, etc... even on BLPs like this one from march, Massimo Cenci? Wikipedia really needs more such tags. And no, it's not up to me to source other people's garbage with external links that might, or might not, have sources in them. I might in some cases. But in most cases, since there are no sources, how can i even asses if the garbage is worth my time? In closing the creation of unsource, unreliable garbage should be actively discouraged, and actively flagged as such.

Bali ultimate (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you asked why i put a unreferenced tag on Juan Ángel Arias Boquín? I didn't. I put "refimprove" since it's a blp and it's only source is "worldstatesmen.org" a source of unclear reliability to me but that, at any rate, did not include much of the information currently in the article. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)