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)