Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:27, 14 December 2010

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Your sig

I didn't like that Sugar brought up what I read, apparently falsely, as out-of-place personal stuff. Anyway, FYI, I've noticed that your signature font has appeared differently for me on different networks, like my office, some publics, and as well between browsers. Sometimes it's the cursive, just yesterday it was the standard. No kidding. Color remains stable. Go figure. But it is a little weird. Maybe something strange with the Wiki works? -Digiphi (Talk) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is that some of the machines you use don't have Script MT Bold. Dylan Flaherty 04:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, I asked around for advice and was informed that the right answer is to list "cursive" as a back-up font. Please let me know if you see the following signature as cursive while seeing the above one as regular. Dylan Flaherty 19:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CPC's

Thanks for the friendly comment on my talk page. I'd appreciate it next time if you'd refrain from issuing vague threats of "ugliness." It tends not to inspire cooperative efforts and warm fellow-feeling. Anyhow, what's indisputably ugly is the Crisis pregnancy center article. The edit of which you complain removed a POV sentence that was unsupported by your cites (all of which remain elsewhere in the article, I believe) and inappropriate for the lead. Your insertion of that sentence circumvented ongoing discussion on the article's Talk page, in which you were a participant. Cloonmore (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been part of two Dispute Resolutions, I can tell you with great certainty that the process is ugly and unlikely to leave anyone happy.

As it turns out, you are mistaken about the details. The sentence that you object to was in the article all along; I just moved it up, as John Carter suggested. In the process, I cleaned it up, and then Roscelese tweaked it.

Let's be very frank: there is absolutely no question that Care Net makes false medical claims about abortion: I verified it myself, and anyone else can, too. That alone is sufficient basis to restore the sentence. But we also have 11 other citations, none of which you've addressed with anything more substantial as a hand wave.

Bottom line: the deletion will not stand. It violates our rules and contradicts our sources. I am giving you a chance to revert it so that nobody has to revert it for you. Dylan Flaherty 03:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, but if you think that the sentence you removed from the text is the same as the sentence that you added to the lead, then you're delusional. Cloonmore (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, just to be clear, I have no objection if you wish to restore the original sentence to its original placement in the body of the article, pending discussion on the Talk page. Cloonmore (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody who calls me delusional is my friend, so you're going to have to tone down your language unless you want to be reported to WP:WQA. If you had a single reliable source stating that CPC's are generally accurate with regard to medical claims, you might have a point, but that appears not to be the case. Dylan Flaherty 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Again with the threats. Report whatever you think reportable. The sentences that you think are the same are not the same. You materially changed the sentence when you moved it to the lead. If you still maintain that they're the same, then you're self-deluded. I don't know what else to tell you. It wasn't an insult, more an observation. Cloonmore (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility

I know you took my joke earlier amiss, and I apologize- I looked at the cartoons linked from your talk page and thought it would be appropriate. But please let's keep the tone collegial. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I was doing so. If there's anything I said that you feel is insulting, please let me know and I'll redact it. Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant "Click the text with the underline. It's called a hyperlink." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That was intended to be humorous, not uncivil, but I'll go fix it now. Dylan Flaherty 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! Sorry about that. Maybe I should have used a smiley. Dylan Flaherty 05:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, we both had the same kind of problem with each other in the same day :P BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess so. Glad we resolved it without spilling more than a few pints of blood. Dylan Flaherty 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal

Your removals two times of the neutrality tag from Crisis pregnancy center article was improper. As you know, since you were and are a participant, a lengthy discussion was and is ongoing about the article's POV. Per WP:NPOVD and Template:POV, your preemptive removal was improper. Please don't remove the tag until discussion is concluded and consensus reached. Cloonmore (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, you don't get to drop a tag without also starting a discussion. You know this, so the above notice is pretty much meaningless. Dylan Flaherty 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Revert to last good version"

Er, that revert restored some of the language we've decided against, specifically with regard to religiosity. As well as the old phrasing of the bit about false medical information, which you'd wanted to change. Roscelese (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I made the change in haste. I'll go correct it now. Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out for my errors. Dylan Flaherty 02:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I made the changes. Please let me know if there's more to do, or feel free to fix things yourself. Dylan Flaherty 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the order of the information in the religion section is not optimal, and I'll probably alter that at some point, but I'm working on a couple of other articles at the moment, so it's not urgent. Roscelese (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Same. Thanks again for catching my errors. Dylan Flaherty 02:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What does it take?

Your mistake was in expecting any actual result. Noticeboards are not places to go to get an action performed. They exist more to solicit input. Even then, you're lucky to get one or two replies from outside editors. Further, note that WP:COI is a weak guideline that addresses status. If there are problems with an editors it's better to look at their behavior. COI can lead editors to break core policies, like NPOV, NOR, civility, etc., which are more easily enforceable than the COI guideline.   Will Beback  talk  10:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not out for blood. If I had reported this at WP:ANI with the sort of breathless prose that passes for normal there, the editor may well have been tarred and feathered community blocked or whatever, and that would be overkill.

So, yes, I think you're right, in that I had unrealistic expectations of being able to generate a measured and reasonable response. As always, thanks for your help. Dylan Flaherty 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

:)

Also, didn't want to mention this at talk:cpc, since talkpages are not forums, but I think you're pretty cool. :) Roscelese (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to say except that I'm flattered. Dylan Flaherty 23:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Be careful when editing bot settings

When you edited the COI noticeboard you accidentally changed a setting toward the top that broke automatic archiving by the bots (i.e., in adding the 's' to "|minthreadstoarchive = 1". I've taken the liberty to fix it, though, so no worries. :) --slakr 05:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I had no intention whatsoever of changing the bot settings. Thank you for fixing it. Dylan Flaherty 05:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SP

The guards have spoken. Concensus is impossible. Continued debate will stifle your good humor. Buster Seven Talk 06:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I know what you speak of, but I absolutely reject the notion that a few loud people can ignore all of the rules and WP:OWN Sarah Palin. Despite their words, they cannot have a consensus, and I'm just bored enough to take them all to dispute resolution. You'll note that not a single one is willing to go to WP:BLPN, and there's a reason for that: the truth is not on their side. Dylan Flaherty 06:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd presume no one is "willing to go to WP:BLPN" because it would be the wrong venue. That noticeboard is chiefly for "editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period." If any given editor were to repeatedly (re)add the troublesome material over an extended period, I'm sure one or more editors would be more inclined to bring the matter up at WP:BLPN. The more appropriate venue for you, if you believe it to be critical that the content be included, would be Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies. jæs (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. If you read carefully, you might notice that it says:

"This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period."

I added the emphasis to make it clear that the second sentence just mentioned two representative examples of the sort of issue that the page is for, not an exhaustive list. I also highlighted that even the incomplete list includes "editing disputes".

While, WP:RFC/BIO is certainly a reasonable alternative, it's lower priority. If you genuinely believe that what I propose would be a BLP violation, the right place to report me and have me slapped down would be WP:BLPN. Good luck with that. Dylan Flaherty 07:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The general structure of Misplaced Pages provides noticeboards as a place to address acute editing disputes. We've had a content discussion, but I don't see an acute edit war — or a protracted edit dispute — that would justify wasting additional time at WP:BLP/N. I have no desire to "report" you, as I don't think you've done anything "wrong." But you can feel free to continue to poke the dead horse using whatever channel, venue, or process you feel most advantageous to your cause. jæs (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind advice. You can be certain that it will be valued appropriately. Dylan Flaherty 07:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kelly 07:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You got the diff wrong, but I fixed it. I also looked at the reasons why Misplaced Pages won't report Willow's rant, and none of them apply to her mom's African ignorance. Dylan Flaherty 07:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the brackets, you edit-conflicted me. Yeah, the Willow stuff is unrelated to this. Kelly 07:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad, because that means we can stop talking about her. Every time I see her name, I think of Willow, when my kids tell me I should be thinking of Willow. It makes me feel old and out of touch. Dylan Flaherty 08:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we must be of a similar age, because I always think of the film first, too. Yeah, that ruling on the probation page was a recent one related to a couple of problematic editors at Bristol Palin. The probation goes back a couple of years and sprang from generally problematic editing at the Palin articles and a high admin burnout rate there. It's modeled on the probation at Barack Obama. I hope you weren't bothered by the template. Cheers - Kelly 16:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I stopped celebrating my birthday some time ago, so I have no idea what my age is. :-)

Jokes aside, I do see that Sarah Palin is one of those articles. That's exactly why I think it's important to loosen the stranglehold. Of all the things we could add, the report of the Africa gaff is not the most important, but the resistance against it is very important. Dylan Flaherty 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll stop celebrating my birthdays too! Speaking of those articles, I imagine you would get a similar reaction if you tried to insert "57 states", "country of Europe", or other Obama gaffes into the Barack Obama article. Kelly 20:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but if they're well-cited and relevant, I would not oppose their inclusion.

The Africa line is both. The key here is not the nature of the error but the way we found out about it and what it says about those involved. Dylan Flaherty 01:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting

Dylan, after reading your reprimand on my talk page in regard to supposedly unhelpful editing (which I responded to on my page), I was a bit surprised to see that you reverted a total of ten (10) edits I made on LGBT Parenting and described them all as "Bold." Some of them were simple proofreading edits. I am guessing that there is once sentence that you took issue with, so I have removed that one sentence and taken it to the talk page (though I doubt that will result in anything resembling a rational dialogue). Why zap every single other edit I made? Do you really have an issue with my correcting punctuation and capitalization? Talk about unproductive editing! Physician, heal thyself.184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The boldness refers to WP:BRD, as I already explained on your talk page. As for the changes, some of them were indeed proofreading, though some of those were not productive. Others, however, removed cited content, added unreliable sources, or generally violated WP:NPOV. I have made some effort to find the good changes mixed in with the bad so that they can be preserved, but my general philosophy is that the bad outweighs the good, because anyone can proofread. Dylan Flaherty 06:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. I must say that I'd be much more open to your suggestions if you actually pinpointed what you believed the problem was. Your previous comment at least provides a few hints, which is a start. As I just said on the LGBT Parenting page, I will make every effort to resolve legitimate issues that you point out that we can work toward a consensus and a better article.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Start by reverting to the last acceptable version, then we'll talk. Dylan Flaherty 07:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

how to most easily handle stuff like that

Hi. If someone asks you not to post to their talk page, by far the most helpful and peaceful thing to do is, don't. See also WP:Don't template the regulars. That said, you could post the same kind of thing (not with a template) on the article talk page. You could also ask for more editor input through WP:Third opinion or a content WP:RFC. Moreover, you can always ask an experienced editor or an admin for help. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't disagree. I've asked certain people not to post on my page, and I've generally been willing to honor these requests from others. In his case, I am much less willing to do so than normal because of his behavior.

There will be cases where I need to post on their user page. However, you're right: there are other things I can try first. Thanks for your help. Dylan Flaherty 12:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't post there anymore, it's not worth it and can be taken as a kind of WP:Hounding, please ask for help instead. Likewise if you find yourself wanting to ask an editor not to post on your talk page, or someone's asking that of you, it means something somewhere's amiss and that asking someone else for help is the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Where would the right place be to ask for help? Dylan Flaherty 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Any experienced editor whom you trust, any admin, me, as you please. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was half-expecting you to suggest I consult clergy, which in my case would be a terrible idea. :-)

Ok, do you have any specific advice here, other than not touching his user talk page? Dylan Flaherty 13:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, maybe clergy can help now and then, as to dealing with the teeth gnashing that goes on at an openly edited website like this one. That aside, I thought I answered that in the first post to this thread? If it's a content dispute, use the article talk page, follow WP:DR. If there are behaviour worries, tell an admin? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a sweet old man, but he thinks the internet is found on the center line of a tennis court.

Ok, I'll follow that menu and see how it goes. Thanks again. Dylan Flaherty 13:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new about worries like that here. See also Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, lots of editors have been through this kind of thing. Keep your cool, cite sources, don't get drawn into back and forth editing in the article space. Find other articles to edit (if you like) whilst dispute resolution plays out. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try. Dylan Flaherty 13:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Gwen Gale is a quality source for editor mediation. She has been a fair and impartial go-between in past dealings with certain petulant editors. Collecting adversaries is troublesome and stressfull. Dis-engage. Buster Seven Talk 16:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. My goal is not to fill my rogues gallery, but to improve some articles that have stalled. Dylan Flaherty 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Haflinger Horses

A group of Haflinger horses from a new featured article. Mentioned as "best of the week" in the new Signpost. Note the similarities in color and profile. Amazingly, no inbreeding is evidenced. Haflingers were first transported to Belgium in 1966. I think the last one is deaf. I don't see any ears.Buster Seven Talk 04:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the link for you. Somehow, I suspect that article has fewer controversies than some of the others we've dealt with as of late. Dylan Flaherty 04:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange

Edits like this are freaking me out. This sourcing isn't remotely good enough for an article on a living person, so what is the point of raising them in talk? --John (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to freak you out; trying to understand what's going on. I think the sourcing on that item is actually quite strong, but I'm not particularly clear on how it would fit into the article. Dylan Flaherty 07:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Sarah Palin. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Apologies for the template, but please do not continue down this road. Kelly 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)