HI, refs are fixed, should be OK now. Keep up the good work. This isn't Jack Merridew is it? SOmething about the page and name and DYK page makes it feel like Jack. Anyway I was wondering if you would be interested in writing an article on Drug abuse in jazz or something as it was a major issue and not widely known to everybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
God vs. G-dHi. Regarding your of the Mezuzah article, I don't think the replacement of "God" with "G-d" really counts as vandalism. Many — though, please note, not all — Jews consider it inappropriate to write "God", preferring "G-d" instead (see Names of God in Judaism#In English). I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia style guideline on this or not. I brought up the question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Writing "G-d" in Mezuzah article, and so far there has been one response saying it's unnecessary, but hopefully there will be more comments and a general consensus (one way or the other) will develop that can be turned into a guideline. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Your problemWhat is it? I've done nothing to deserve this incivility from you, so how about you stop.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bali. If you don't like the language in the article than fix it. I'm doing the best I can and I'm still working on the article. You don't just delete a substantial part of an article just because the writing style is not good enough. I'll try to improve the language as much as I can, and I'm still writing the article, so you can help or be patient and wail untill I'm done writing. Nik Sage ( talk) 13:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
confusion?hi. i think you're confused with another editor [2] please bear in mind we are dealing with a living person. thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
John Ging take twoHi Bali, please give feedback about the first part I've wrote about the assassination attempts so I can move to the second part. You could do it here or at my talk page if you prefer. Nik Sage ( talk) 23:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Colonel Warden RFCHi Bali Ultimate, re your comment about Colonel Warden considering the deletion of articles to be
Full quote from me (rather than your misquote) which i stand by in its entirety. I get it that you don't agree. Please don't belabor it further. Col. Warden has an extreme ideology that appears to view deleting articles (and poorly sourced content within articles) as something akin to murder. Bye. Bali ultimate ( talk) 14:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Recreating deleted pageI noticed you recreated User:Malcolm Schosha. This page was deleted because the account was renamed; there is no account under that name. Please use the Kwork or Kwork2 accounts if you have any further sockpuppet concerns. Shell babelfish 17:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
user Benjiboi blockedHi Bali, User:Benjiboi Blocked for massive socking, I have a few more I am watching, the whole field IMO is a likely to be just a couple of activists with multiple accounts along with paid promo editors, thanks for your contributions. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
AfDPlease see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour ( talk) 05:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC) User:Malcolm SchoshaSpot on, even if it's sad to say. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Malcolm SchoshaPlease do not recreate the redirect. The facts are obvious enough to those who need to know, and continuing to make the link makes it harder for him to walk away and leave us alone, which is in the end what we want. Guy ( Help!) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've brought it up at ani, here: [5]. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Re: Removing ref tagsI'm sorry. I didn't mean to violate anything. Kitty53 ( talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC) BenjiSo what is going to happen with these Benji socks and that ip range? - Schrandit ( talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you tinkering ...I'm off to bed now, but I think what you're looking for is {{ NOINDEX}}. pablo 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC) helloHi, what are you trying to do? {{NOINDEX}} ? Off2riorob ( talk) 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC) self horn tootnb: I added __NOINDEX__ to your user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
CounterpunchRight so unless you have anything to say or ask any one of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to rebuts the arguments I've made on the Counterpunch talk page, I'm going to put the criticisms back on. I won't have your feigned absence filibuster my attempts to get the (warranted) criticisms against that left-wing rag of a magazine put on its Wikipedia page. Fellytone ( talk) 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Tactical advice for discussionIn any discussion, if you see traction in a section, don't add a new one below it. Reply to something above if you must, but not below. People read discussions from the bottom, not the top.— Kww( talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you happy now?What would have happened, if a merge would have been done after DYK? Wikipedia readers would have gotten an extra information. What a horror! D= -- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
An incident with which you may have been involved ...... I don't know the right boilerplate, but you are mentioned here. betsythedevine ( talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Mentoring questionRecalling your experience at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor ..., please examine a short thread at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Japan. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
PackerThanks for the work on LoS. Re Packer, I had looked into this, and later sources seemed to contradict those in 2008 speculating that he had dropped out. All of these are from 2009: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. If you look at the article that said he had dropped out, it does not actually quote him, but unnamed friends of his. Looking at it all, I got the feeling that he took a lot of courses for a while when he was in crisis, then stopped that once he felt better, but hasn't actually broken with the Church. There is no obligation on Scientologists to take courses all the time; it's up to the individual (and the status of their bank account). -- JN 466 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Ok, I think this is getting a little out of handfirst I want to apologize, I did not intend to tag you with the "attack page" template, I wanted to warn you about "personal attacks", obviously that was not what I tagged you with and I know how it feels to get tagged with something you don't deserve. So I am sorry I tagged you with that. Secondly I think it is getting a little heated and we should actually talk about it. We are accomplishing nothing going back and forth the way we are. I understand you have strong feelings about what should be included in the List of deaths associated with Scientology, but I do feel strongly that we need to include a background section that demonstrates that reliable sources have been using this theme across time. Those sources are contained in the section we have, but you are not satisfied that it should be included. What is a good compromise? Since they are reliable sources, would we be able to include those sources but tone down the content somehow which would satisfy your concerns? Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC) An/IA fortnight ago, you reported me to to the Administrator Noticeboard/Incident. In reciprocation of your generosity, I've reported you here [11]. Fellytone ( talk) 21:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC questionYou suggested creating an RFC regarding (I think) several recent POV-pushing DYK articles. I was provoked into researching that theme and writing about it on my talk page. I am not sure how RFCs are created or whether an RFC/U is more appropriate. Your advice would be welcome. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Italian cabinetsHello. I noticed that you tagged a whole lot of articles in Italian (XYZ Cabinet) for speedy deletion. As I was told by Acroterion ( talk · contribs) they have especially been imported for translation on behalf of Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) including an extensive page history etc. I've already userfied some pages to Dr. Blofeld's user namespace but you might also want to reconsider your tagging. I for one don't like the way this has been handled, such mass imports should not sit in the article namespace at all while untranslated, but these pages were not created as a simple copy and paste. De728631 ( talk) 23:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man!I thought about posting the link to her page, and decided against it because her talk page is watched by at least 5 times more people than my archive is, but you did it for me and... to her. May I recommended you next time you are going to do something like that to turn your brain on I do hope you have one :-) and better use email in similar situations. lol.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 07:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
CounterPunch BooksQuestion about this edit. Your edit summary was simply "that is excessive. has nothing to do with this magazine" for removing a smidgen of summary about a book (copied from the book's entry, BTW), and mention of a couple of other books. My view is that either the CounterPunch entry is about the magazine, in which case the Books section has no place there at all (and should be moved to CounterPunch Books or to AK Press), or it's about the publisher, which covers both magazine and books and includes all the content I added. Your edit leaves a middle ground that makes no sense to me. What do you think? Rd232 talk 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Re:VandalismHey, sorry I didn't pay attention to my talk page until recently, when I archived a bunch of it, so I didn't notice this warning]. Well, I'm not sure how much "vandalism" would constitute mentioning gay porn, as he's made a year's salary off of it, but whatever floats your boat. Are you a proponent of Levi Johnston or gay porn? DarthBotto talk• cont 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) RfCI think that you've been involved with User:Misconceptions2 before, so I'd like to ask if you have interest in this RfC. I think I mistakenly reported it too early. Thanks ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fæ
Can you please consider removing your comment re. Fæ here? I am not saying it is wrong (or right); my only objection is that it isn't relevent to that thread, which is about the conduct of Wgfinley. Throwing in comments about other people is not going to help address that specific issue in any way. If you think there's a problem with Fæ - or anyone else - start a new thread. Honestly honestly, I have no opinion about the specific matter. But I'm fed up of ANI threads drifting into all kinds of "meta discussion" about unrelated issues; I can see no connection with your comment and the discussion at hand - if I'm wrong, then sure, let me know. But otherwise, would you mind removing it or striking it, or whatever? Thanks. Chzz ► 07:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
For the recordUser:Fae has had the public claims I made oversighted while seeing fit to discuss me on a project where he has arranged for me to be blocked (so that i can't respond) to his claims. I was never told under what valid criteria my earlier post was vanished.
for your i...There is a report at 3RRNB that mentions you - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bali ultimate reported by User:WR Reader (Result: ) - You really can 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC) A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) LiesYou have no possible way of knowing that Andrea James recruited me to Wikipedia to edit her biography. If you had real evidence, you would (or at least should) have provided it already. Please take back your false accusation, admit that it was a lie, and apologize, both to me and to Andrea. Luwat ( talk) 00:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Andrea JamesI have read The New York Times article. Some of your edits with respect to Andrea James go well beyond the information contained in that source. Such assertions must be clearly supported by citations to reliable sources. I have suppressed several edits you have made which are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violations. Please consider this a final warning by an uninvolved administrator. We are prepared to deal with negative information, even outrage, but you must cite a reliable source with respect to every detail every time you post scandalous information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC) ec
Ok, I've read the journal article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/?tool=pmcentrez A dramatic formulation of that material is unsuitable for publication here due to its degrading nature. As you are a professional writer I believe you can craft a formulation that is informative without falling within WP:RD2, "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value,". I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you will be blocked if you persist. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
FYI - 74.198.*.*Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci ( talk) 04:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC) NotificationPlease note that I have posted a number of items of evidence and findings of fact concerning your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Bali ultimate posted a "nasty personal attack" against Fae and at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Bali ultimate harassed and personally attacked Fae and below. Prioryman ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) RFAR NoteI have removed your current statement. Phrases like "I particularly like the last bit", "having a man with Mr. Bauder's background questioning [me] was very funny indeed", and the overall tone of the post were not appropriate. Please rethink how you are approaching your evidence before re-posting. This serves as your one and only warning. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Talking about you behind your back... here. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your recent edits to Zoophilia and the law. It is sad to see people reading an article on Wikipedia and getting wrong and biased information because no one would remove such unencyclopedic content. This section ( [14]) is an example of extreme POV pushing with original research and no sourced content. Is it alright if I went ahead and remove? Someone963852 ( talk)
I rewrote it, although I don't doubt that it could be further trimmed. Looking in Google scholar, I see usable quotations declaring it a non-accepted theory (1948, 1970 ... ) although they seem to be all from the body of articles I can only see in summary. I suspect if I dig deep in Google Books I can at least hint at how restricted his prescriptions are from a modern point of view. (The article should have at least a few non-Reichian references added, if only to demonstrate notability.) But this is so not my field, I suspect someone who knows something or has a reference book could achieve the necessary balance far faster. Also I may have hacked and slashed in the wrong places or used outmoded terminology myself. And Drmies is chomping at the bit to either close the DYK or review it '-) and we need a new hook. So could I twist your arm to take a look at it and either give me some guidance or further edit it yourself? Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Zoophilia and the law". Thank you! Guerillero | My Talk 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1001 nightsYou understand my name! You're in select company, it seems...— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)Just a friendly reminder that the article is under IP sanctions including 1RR. I'm a bit rusty on the minutiae of what is acceptable and what is not under 1rr, but this [16] might be viewed as a breach - it may be less hassle just to self revert and redo the edit latter than getting dragged into a pointless and long winded AE case. Incidentally I support the edit - the source is clearly an opinion piece, not suitable for verifying facts in the wiki voice without attribution. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
October 2012 You have been
blocked from editing for a period of One week for making personal attacks
[17], as you did at
Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} , but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elen of the Roads (
talk) 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)This page is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I consider your conduct in making posts of this kind to come under the heading of seriously failing to adhere to expected standards of behaviour. Consider yourself lucky that the longer block under that sanction was not imposed on this occasion. Please find a way to conduct your disagreements in a less aggressive and provocative manner. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom appealSee [19]. I suppose you can make a statement here and it could be copied over there. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
InformationI noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 05:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Holiday cheer
Inclusive "or"I'm assuming you don't mean to exclude the possibility that they could be both. You've more stamina than I, certainly. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC) You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh. Morpork 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) WP:AE still openHello Dan. You are aware of WP:AE#Bali ultimate, which has yet to be closed. There is a proposal on the floor to topic ban you. So far as I can tell, there is not much (if any) problem with your substantive edits in the I/P area. The current difficulty is your 'lying or ignorant' assessment of some other editors. As an admin I've so far made no comment on the AE. If you will consider revising the wording you use to refer to other editors, in my opinion a different outcome might be considered. If your real desire is to raise the 'level of intellectual honesty' you've chosen an unusual way of going about it, which could wind up disqualifying you from any further comment on the topic. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
← Jesus. Moar madness. If someone states something which is factually inaccurate they are either ignorant of the truth ("mistaken if you wish), or lying. Logical, captain. Trouble seems to be that some people (alarmingly, it seems this includes at least one administrator) are ignorant of the meaning of the word "ignorant". pablo 12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflictUnder the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, for the personal attacks you made on others as discussed in the arbitration enforcement request of 28 December 2012, you are topic-banned, as outlined in WP:TBAN, for six months from the area of conflict as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, that is, everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict). If you violate this topic ban, you may be made subject to additional or extended sanctions, including blocks, without further warnings. This sanction can be appealed as described in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. Sandstein 11:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Artikel sempurnaGlad to see some people in that thread have sense. "Artikel sempurna" in this case was defined as at least 5 references, all content cited, and more than so many words (I think 250, but that was a couple years back). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Sexology arbitration case openedThe arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology has been opened. You have been mentioned as a potential party by one or more of the current parties to the case. If you would like to become a party to the case, please add yourself to the main case page linked in the same format as the other parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC) You're ignoring somethingCan you explain this? Silver seren C 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Please explain on the talk page when adding a {{ coi}} banner. – Smyth\ talk 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC) An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 13:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Project QwortyHi there. You've been in discussions regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland ( talk) 22:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Alexander Montagu.2C 13th Duke of Manchester and canvassing at Wikipediocracy. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Well, thank you I guess. I would be less entertained and more simply inclined to give the management of the website credit for doing something positive and useful that effects the contents of articles here for a change. Go on, I know you want to. Dan Murphy ( talk) 01:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Recent readingI just wanted to mention that I enjoyed reading your piece here, and I thought it was well-done and informative. I think you'd be a real asset to this website if you started contributing here again, but I completely understand (or at least I think I understand) your reasons for not doing so. Cheers. MastCell Talk 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Paid editingThanks for your post re paid editing. I see from your user page that you are a professional journalist. It would be helpful if you could weigh in on standard practices in publications concerning article subjects influencing articles, and the extent to which that is acceptable or not. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Notifying you about an ArbCom case concerning youYou are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dan Murphy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Thanks, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Arbitration requestThe arbitration request involving you has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Christina Rossetti on Jimbo's pageBrilliant! The analogy never occurred to me. It's just too perfect. Nice to see you back, if only for a moment; I hope all's well.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Clarification motionA case ( Sexology) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) InvitationCSM pieceI just wanted to say that I thought your piece in the CSM about the Shapps case was quite well-done. I'm sure that the average reader's eyes glaze over when s/he gets to the part about checkusers and admins, but it's an admirable effort and I think you hit the nail on the head. MastCell Talk 23:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Hello! I hope my comments on the AfD don't sound too harsh. Non-admins are permitted to close discussions following the conclusion of a 7-day waiting period, so long as they aren't making a deletion decision. Unless reverted by an administrator, this decision should be respected as the closing of the discussion. It is perfectly acceptable for you to reopen this issue at the deletion review forum or by seeking an administrator's review. The WP:Administrators' noticeboard might be helpful if you wish to do this. Thanks, North of Eden ( talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note that WP:NACD says: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." The correct proceeding would be posting a notice at WP:AN to ask an admin to undo the NAC closure. Kraxler ( talk) 00:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case openedYou may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Duke of ManchesterI've restored the article. You need to do a new AfD as there is more coverage since the last AfD, particularly the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald etc. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ThanksDan for pitching in with such extensive assistance. I'm off to the fartsack with the thought that, collaboratively, working a page with your help from o to 30,000kb in a half-day, gives me, for one, the right to sleep with a good conscience. Best Nishidani ( talk) 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You are right...Hi, Dan. You are right. Feel free to revert my edit. If you do, I would update the date to say "As of March 2008..." Cheers! - Location ( talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision postedHi Dan Murphy. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk)) 1RDan, I think you have tipped over the 1R tripwire at Jewish Israeli stone throwing, since your first edit today was a revert, and restoring what Debresser removed is another. This will get ironed out, but I'd suggest you just restore it to the earlier disemboweled version, which, in any case, if I understand the rules, it is Debresser's job to restore. Nishidani ( talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dan--I saw a note you placed on a website that will not be mentioned, way back in January 2015, where a certain editor was discussed who is currently the subject of some conversation. You called it a "wonderful 'encyclopedic' creation", and that made me have a look at it. A search in Google Books suggests that it most likely is notable by our standards, which are admittedly low. A JSTOR search proves it a slang term for cigarette (or thin cigar), but that's another matter. Anyway, I pruned the article some since it suffered from excessive detail, and that detail undoubtedly originates in the advocacy you mentioned in that post. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 19:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, LipogramHa! I had forgotten about that shenanigans until I say your recent post. Good times. pablo 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel and others arbitration case openedYou recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Our Jerusalem article, five and a half years laterHi Dan, I saw some good comments from you at ANI today so obviously I came along to check out your user page. It was interesting see your comment from Oct 2010 regarding the Jerusalem article. This [22] is what that article looked like when you made that comment. I'd be interested in whether your view as to the success of the "anonymous crowsourcing mode" has changed since then, given the five and a half years of progress on the Jerusalem article. I ask as a passionate advocate for the WP:IPCOLL project. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Malia ObamaWow, thank you. That was a travesty. - Darouet ( talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Hello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Your comment at WP:AEI deleted your contribution because you misused WP:AE as a forum to express your views on actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not the purpose of AE. Rather, its purpose is to help admins decide whether certain user conduct violates Wikipedia community norms. I have deleted your contribution again. If you continue to make such contributions, you may be made subject to sanctions. Sandstein 08:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Please convey messageDan, would you please post the following in reply to [23]?
Thank you too Dan. Love your work! EllenCT ( talk) 03:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Preciousjournalism Thank you for quality articles such as Australia–East Timor relations, Henry Hübchen, If You're a Viper, for fighting the paper with "a well-deserved reputation for falsehood", for protest faithful to "I look in from time to time... I try to ignore everything. Sometimes, the ugly gets to me." - Dan, professional journalist, you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2309 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC) A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processHello! The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of. Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes. The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic. Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter messageNotice of noticeboard discussionThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Precious anniversary
"Taking" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Taking and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Taking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC) ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
HI, refs are fixed, should be OK now. Keep up the good work. This isn't Jack Merridew is it? SOmething about the page and name and DYK page makes it feel like Jack. Anyway I was wondering if you would be interested in writing an article on Drug abuse in jazz or something as it was a major issue and not widely known to everybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
God vs. G-dHi. Regarding your of the Mezuzah article, I don't think the replacement of "God" with "G-d" really counts as vandalism. Many — though, please note, not all — Jews consider it inappropriate to write "God", preferring "G-d" instead (see Names of God in Judaism#In English). I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia style guideline on this or not. I brought up the question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Writing "G-d" in Mezuzah article, and so far there has been one response saying it's unnecessary, but hopefully there will be more comments and a general consensus (one way or the other) will develop that can be turned into a guideline. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Your problemWhat is it? I've done nothing to deserve this incivility from you, so how about you stop.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bali. If you don't like the language in the article than fix it. I'm doing the best I can and I'm still working on the article. You don't just delete a substantial part of an article just because the writing style is not good enough. I'll try to improve the language as much as I can, and I'm still writing the article, so you can help or be patient and wail untill I'm done writing. Nik Sage ( talk) 13:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
confusion?hi. i think you're confused with another editor [2] please bear in mind we are dealing with a living person. thanks, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
John Ging take twoHi Bali, please give feedback about the first part I've wrote about the assassination attempts so I can move to the second part. You could do it here or at my talk page if you prefer. Nik Sage ( talk) 23:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Colonel Warden RFCHi Bali Ultimate, re your comment about Colonel Warden considering the deletion of articles to be
Full quote from me (rather than your misquote) which i stand by in its entirety. I get it that you don't agree. Please don't belabor it further. Col. Warden has an extreme ideology that appears to view deleting articles (and poorly sourced content within articles) as something akin to murder. Bye. Bali ultimate ( talk) 14:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Recreating deleted pageI noticed you recreated User:Malcolm Schosha. This page was deleted because the account was renamed; there is no account under that name. Please use the Kwork or Kwork2 accounts if you have any further sockpuppet concerns. Shell babelfish 17:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
user Benjiboi blockedHi Bali, User:Benjiboi Blocked for massive socking, I have a few more I am watching, the whole field IMO is a likely to be just a couple of activists with multiple accounts along with paid promo editors, thanks for your contributions. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
AfDPlease see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour ( talk) 05:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC) User:Malcolm SchoshaSpot on, even if it's sad to say. Gwen Gale ( talk) 16:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Malcolm SchoshaPlease do not recreate the redirect. The facts are obvious enough to those who need to know, and continuing to make the link makes it harder for him to walk away and leave us alone, which is in the end what we want. Guy ( Help!) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've brought it up at ani, here: [5]. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Re: Removing ref tagsI'm sorry. I didn't mean to violate anything. Kitty53 ( talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC) BenjiSo what is going to happen with these Benji socks and that ip range? - Schrandit ( talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you tinkering ...I'm off to bed now, but I think what you're looking for is {{ NOINDEX}}. pablo 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC) helloHi, what are you trying to do? {{NOINDEX}} ? Off2riorob ( talk) 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC) self horn tootnb: I added __NOINDEX__ to your user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
CounterpunchRight so unless you have anything to say or ask any one of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to rebuts the arguments I've made on the Counterpunch talk page, I'm going to put the criticisms back on. I won't have your feigned absence filibuster my attempts to get the (warranted) criticisms against that left-wing rag of a magazine put on its Wikipedia page. Fellytone ( talk) 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Tactical advice for discussionIn any discussion, if you see traction in a section, don't add a new one below it. Reply to something above if you must, but not below. People read discussions from the bottom, not the top.— Kww( talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you happy now?What would have happened, if a merge would have been done after DYK? Wikipedia readers would have gotten an extra information. What a horror! D= -- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
An incident with which you may have been involved ...... I don't know the right boilerplate, but you are mentioned here. betsythedevine ( talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Mentoring questionRecalling your experience at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor ..., please examine a short thread at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Japan. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
PackerThanks for the work on LoS. Re Packer, I had looked into this, and later sources seemed to contradict those in 2008 speculating that he had dropped out. All of these are from 2009: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. If you look at the article that said he had dropped out, it does not actually quote him, but unnamed friends of his. Looking at it all, I got the feeling that he took a lot of courses for a while when he was in crisis, then stopped that once he felt better, but hasn't actually broken with the Church. There is no obligation on Scientologists to take courses all the time; it's up to the individual (and the status of their bank account). -- JN 466 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Ok, I think this is getting a little out of handfirst I want to apologize, I did not intend to tag you with the "attack page" template, I wanted to warn you about "personal attacks", obviously that was not what I tagged you with and I know how it feels to get tagged with something you don't deserve. So I am sorry I tagged you with that. Secondly I think it is getting a little heated and we should actually talk about it. We are accomplishing nothing going back and forth the way we are. I understand you have strong feelings about what should be included in the List of deaths associated with Scientology, but I do feel strongly that we need to include a background section that demonstrates that reliable sources have been using this theme across time. Those sources are contained in the section we have, but you are not satisfied that it should be included. What is a good compromise? Since they are reliable sources, would we be able to include those sources but tone down the content somehow which would satisfy your concerns? Coffeepusher ( talk) 17:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC) An/IA fortnight ago, you reported me to to the Administrator Noticeboard/Incident. In reciprocation of your generosity, I've reported you here [11]. Fellytone ( talk) 21:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC questionYou suggested creating an RFC regarding (I think) several recent POV-pushing DYK articles. I was provoked into researching that theme and writing about it on my talk page. I am not sure how RFCs are created or whether an RFC/U is more appropriate. Your advice would be welcome. betsythedevine ( talk) 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Italian cabinetsHello. I noticed that you tagged a whole lot of articles in Italian (XYZ Cabinet) for speedy deletion. As I was told by Acroterion ( talk · contribs) they have especially been imported for translation on behalf of Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) including an extensive page history etc. I've already userfied some pages to Dr. Blofeld's user namespace but you might also want to reconsider your tagging. I for one don't like the way this has been handled, such mass imports should not sit in the article namespace at all while untranslated, but these pages were not created as a simple copy and paste. De728631 ( talk) 23:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man!I thought about posting the link to her page, and decided against it because her talk page is watched by at least 5 times more people than my archive is, but you did it for me and... to her. May I recommended you next time you are going to do something like that to turn your brain on I do hope you have one :-) and better use email in similar situations. lol.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 07:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
CounterPunch BooksQuestion about this edit. Your edit summary was simply "that is excessive. has nothing to do with this magazine" for removing a smidgen of summary about a book (copied from the book's entry, BTW), and mention of a couple of other books. My view is that either the CounterPunch entry is about the magazine, in which case the Books section has no place there at all (and should be moved to CounterPunch Books or to AK Press), or it's about the publisher, which covers both magazine and books and includes all the content I added. Your edit leaves a middle ground that makes no sense to me. What do you think? Rd232 talk 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Re:VandalismHey, sorry I didn't pay attention to my talk page until recently, when I archived a bunch of it, so I didn't notice this warning]. Well, I'm not sure how much "vandalism" would constitute mentioning gay porn, as he's made a year's salary off of it, but whatever floats your boat. Are you a proponent of Levi Johnston or gay porn? DarthBotto talk• cont 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) RfCI think that you've been involved with User:Misconceptions2 before, so I'd like to ask if you have interest in this RfC. I think I mistakenly reported it too early. Thanks ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fæ
Can you please consider removing your comment re. Fæ here? I am not saying it is wrong (or right); my only objection is that it isn't relevent to that thread, which is about the conduct of Wgfinley. Throwing in comments about other people is not going to help address that specific issue in any way. If you think there's a problem with Fæ - or anyone else - start a new thread. Honestly honestly, I have no opinion about the specific matter. But I'm fed up of ANI threads drifting into all kinds of "meta discussion" about unrelated issues; I can see no connection with your comment and the discussion at hand - if I'm wrong, then sure, let me know. But otherwise, would you mind removing it or striking it, or whatever? Thanks. Chzz ► 07:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
For the recordUser:Fae has had the public claims I made oversighted while seeing fit to discuss me on a project where he has arranged for me to be blocked (so that i can't respond) to his claims. I was never told under what valid criteria my earlier post was vanished.
for your i...There is a report at 3RRNB that mentions you - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bali ultimate reported by User:WR Reader (Result: ) - You really can 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC) A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) LiesYou have no possible way of knowing that Andrea James recruited me to Wikipedia to edit her biography. If you had real evidence, you would (or at least should) have provided it already. Please take back your false accusation, admit that it was a lie, and apologize, both to me and to Andrea. Luwat ( talk) 00:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Andrea JamesI have read The New York Times article. Some of your edits with respect to Andrea James go well beyond the information contained in that source. Such assertions must be clearly supported by citations to reliable sources. I have suppressed several edits you have made which are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violations. Please consider this a final warning by an uninvolved administrator. We are prepared to deal with negative information, even outrage, but you must cite a reliable source with respect to every detail every time you post scandalous information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC) ec
Ok, I've read the journal article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/?tool=pmcentrez A dramatic formulation of that material is unsuitable for publication here due to its degrading nature. As you are a professional writer I believe you can craft a formulation that is informative without falling within WP:RD2, "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value,". I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you will be blocked if you persist. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
FYI - 74.198.*.*Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci ( talk) 04:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC) NotificationPlease note that I have posted a number of items of evidence and findings of fact concerning your conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Bali ultimate posted a "nasty personal attack" against Fae and at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Bali ultimate harassed and personally attacked Fae and below. Prioryman ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) RFAR NoteI have removed your current statement. Phrases like "I particularly like the last bit", "having a man with Mr. Bauder's background questioning [me] was very funny indeed", and the overall tone of the post were not appropriate. Please rethink how you are approaching your evidence before re-posting. This serves as your one and only warning. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Talking about you behind your back... here. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your recent edits to Zoophilia and the law. It is sad to see people reading an article on Wikipedia and getting wrong and biased information because no one would remove such unencyclopedic content. This section ( [14]) is an example of extreme POV pushing with original research and no sourced content. Is it alright if I went ahead and remove? Someone963852 ( talk)
I rewrote it, although I don't doubt that it could be further trimmed. Looking in Google scholar, I see usable quotations declaring it a non-accepted theory (1948, 1970 ... ) although they seem to be all from the body of articles I can only see in summary. I suspect if I dig deep in Google Books I can at least hint at how restricted his prescriptions are from a modern point of view. (The article should have at least a few non-Reichian references added, if only to demonstrate notability.) But this is so not my field, I suspect someone who knows something or has a reference book could achieve the necessary balance far faster. Also I may have hacked and slashed in the wrong places or used outmoded terminology myself. And Drmies is chomping at the bit to either close the DYK or review it '-) and we need a new hook. So could I twist your arm to take a look at it and either give me some guidance or further edit it yourself? Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Zoophilia and the law". Thank you! Guerillero | My Talk 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC) 1001 nightsYou understand my name! You're in select company, it seems...— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)Just a friendly reminder that the article is under IP sanctions including 1RR. I'm a bit rusty on the minutiae of what is acceptable and what is not under 1rr, but this [16] might be viewed as a breach - it may be less hassle just to self revert and redo the edit latter than getting dragged into a pointless and long winded AE case. Incidentally I support the edit - the source is clearly an opinion piece, not suitable for verifying facts in the wiki voice without attribution. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
October 2012 You have been
blocked from editing for a period of One week for making personal attacks
[17], as you did at
Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} , but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elen of the Roads (
talk) 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)This page is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I consider your conduct in making posts of this kind to come under the heading of seriously failing to adhere to expected standards of behaviour. Consider yourself lucky that the longer block under that sanction was not imposed on this occasion. Please find a way to conduct your disagreements in a less aggressive and provocative manner. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom appealSee [19]. I suppose you can make a statement here and it could be copied over there. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
InformationI noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 05:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Holiday cheer
Inclusive "or"I'm assuming you don't mean to exclude the possibility that they could be both. You've more stamina than I, certainly. — alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC) You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh. Morpork 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) WP:AE still openHello Dan. You are aware of WP:AE#Bali ultimate, which has yet to be closed. There is a proposal on the floor to topic ban you. So far as I can tell, there is not much (if any) problem with your substantive edits in the I/P area. The current difficulty is your 'lying or ignorant' assessment of some other editors. As an admin I've so far made no comment on the AE. If you will consider revising the wording you use to refer to other editors, in my opinion a different outcome might be considered. If your real desire is to raise the 'level of intellectual honesty' you've chosen an unusual way of going about it, which could wind up disqualifying you from any further comment on the topic. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
← Jesus. Moar madness. If someone states something which is factually inaccurate they are either ignorant of the truth ("mistaken if you wish), or lying. Logical, captain. Trouble seems to be that some people (alarmingly, it seems this includes at least one administrator) are ignorant of the meaning of the word "ignorant". pablo 12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflictUnder the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, for the personal attacks you made on others as discussed in the arbitration enforcement request of 28 December 2012, you are topic-banned, as outlined in WP:TBAN, for six months from the area of conflict as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, that is, everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict). If you violate this topic ban, you may be made subject to additional or extended sanctions, including blocks, without further warnings. This sanction can be appealed as described in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. Sandstein 11:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Artikel sempurnaGlad to see some people in that thread have sense. "Artikel sempurna" in this case was defined as at least 5 references, all content cited, and more than so many words (I think 250, but that was a couple years back). — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 10:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Sexology arbitration case openedThe arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology has been opened. You have been mentioned as a potential party by one or more of the current parties to the case. If you would like to become a party to the case, please add yourself to the main case page linked in the same format as the other parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC) You're ignoring somethingCan you explain this? Silver seren C 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Please explain on the talk page when adding a {{ coi}} banner. – Smyth\ talk 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC) An arbitration case regarding sexology has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 13:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Project QwortyHi there. You've been in discussions regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland ( talk) 22:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Alexander Montagu.2C 13th Duke of Manchester and canvassing at Wikipediocracy. Thank you. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Well, thank you I guess. I would be less entertained and more simply inclined to give the management of the website credit for doing something positive and useful that effects the contents of articles here for a change. Go on, I know you want to. Dan Murphy ( talk) 01:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Recent readingI just wanted to mention that I enjoyed reading your piece here, and I thought it was well-done and informative. I think you'd be a real asset to this website if you started contributing here again, but I completely understand (or at least I think I understand) your reasons for not doing so. Cheers. MastCell Talk 17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Paid editingThanks for your post re paid editing. I see from your user page that you are a professional journalist. It would be helpful if you could weigh in on standard practices in publications concerning article subjects influencing articles, and the extent to which that is acceptable or not. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Notifying you about an ArbCom case concerning youYou are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dan Murphy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Thanks, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Arbitration requestThe arbitration request involving you has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Christina Rossetti on Jimbo's pageBrilliant! The analogy never occurred to me. It's just too perfect. Nice to see you back, if only for a moment; I hope all's well.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Clarification motionA case ( Sexology) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) InvitationCSM pieceI just wanted to say that I thought your piece in the CSM about the Shapps case was quite well-done. I'm sure that the average reader's eyes glaze over when s/he gets to the part about checkusers and admins, but it's an admirable effort and I think you hit the nail on the head. MastCell Talk 23:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Hello! I hope my comments on the AfD don't sound too harsh. Non-admins are permitted to close discussions following the conclusion of a 7-day waiting period, so long as they aren't making a deletion decision. Unless reverted by an administrator, this decision should be respected as the closing of the discussion. It is perfectly acceptable for you to reopen this issue at the deletion review forum or by seeking an administrator's review. The WP:Administrators' noticeboard might be helpful if you wish to do this. Thanks, North of Eden ( talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note that WP:NACD says: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." The correct proceeding would be posting a notice at WP:AN to ask an admin to undo the NAC closure. Kraxler ( talk) 00:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case openedYou may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Duke of ManchesterI've restored the article. You need to do a new AfD as there is more coverage since the last AfD, particularly the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald etc. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ThanksDan for pitching in with such extensive assistance. I'm off to the fartsack with the thought that, collaboratively, working a page with your help from o to 30,000kb in a half-day, gives me, for one, the right to sleep with a good conscience. Best Nishidani ( talk) 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You are right...Hi, Dan. You are right. Feel free to revert my edit. If you do, I would update the date to say "As of March 2008..." Cheers! - Location ( talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision postedHi Dan Murphy. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk)) 1RDan, I think you have tipped over the 1R tripwire at Jewish Israeli stone throwing, since your first edit today was a revert, and restoring what Debresser removed is another. This will get ironed out, but I'd suggest you just restore it to the earlier disemboweled version, which, in any case, if I understand the rules, it is Debresser's job to restore. Nishidani ( talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dan--I saw a note you placed on a website that will not be mentioned, way back in January 2015, where a certain editor was discussed who is currently the subject of some conversation. You called it a "wonderful 'encyclopedic' creation", and that made me have a look at it. A search in Google Books suggests that it most likely is notable by our standards, which are admittedly low. A JSTOR search proves it a slang term for cigarette (or thin cigar), but that's another matter. Anyway, I pruned the article some since it suffered from excessive detail, and that detail undoubtedly originates in the advocacy you mentioned in that post. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 19:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, LipogramHa! I had forgotten about that shenanigans until I say your recent post. Good times. pablo 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel and others arbitration case openedYou recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Our Jerusalem article, five and a half years laterHi Dan, I saw some good comments from you at ANI today so obviously I came along to check out your user page. It was interesting see your comment from Oct 2010 regarding the Jerusalem article. This [22] is what that article looked like when you made that comment. I'd be interested in whether your view as to the success of the "anonymous crowsourcing mode" has changed since then, given the five and a half years of progress on the Jerusalem article. I ask as a passionate advocate for the WP:IPCOLL project. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Malia ObamaWow, thank you. That was a travesty. - Darouet ( talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Hello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Your comment at WP:AEI deleted your contribution because you misused WP:AE as a forum to express your views on actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not the purpose of AE. Rather, its purpose is to help admins decide whether certain user conduct violates Wikipedia community norms. I have deleted your contribution again. If you continue to make such contributions, you may be made subject to sanctions. Sandstein 08:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Please convey messageDan, would you please post the following in reply to [23]?
Thank you too Dan. Love your work! EllenCT ( talk) 03:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Preciousjournalism Thank you for quality articles such as Australia–East Timor relations, Henry Hübchen, If You're a Viper, for fighting the paper with "a well-deserved reputation for falsehood", for protest faithful to "I look in from time to time... I try to ignore everything. Sometimes, the ugly gets to me." - Dan, professional journalist, you are an awesome Wikipedian! You are recipient no. 2309 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC) A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processHello! The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of. Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes. The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic. Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter messageNotice of noticeboard discussionThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Precious anniversary
"Taking" listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Taking and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Taking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC) ArbCom 2022 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |