User talk:Dylan Flaherty

UNDEAD

This user is a dead man walking.

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^\ talk / 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 ^hi! 07:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You got the diff wrong, but I fixed it. I also looked at the reasons why Wikipedia 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about the other user's comment, I suggest WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Kelly ^hi! 08:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• You can't do this. You're very close to being blocked for edit warring on talk pages. You should take this as a last warning: Don't refactor posts to talk pages, don't edit war on talk pages. If you need help with something on a talk page, ask for it (you've already been told the many ways you can do this). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that I have the right to refactor uncivil comments addressed to me anywhere on Wikipedia. Since you asked, I'm going to report this to WP:WQA. Let's see what comes of it. Dylan Flaherty 08:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling something sophistry is on the very mild end of uncivil and truth be told, wontedly says more about the one who posts it than anyone else. "Refactoring" here would mean "redacting," or removing the uncivil bit and leaving behind something like "[redacted]" but until you understand the policy more, you should ask someone else to look at and handle such things for you. Swapping out words in posts is never allowed. Edit warring over it is even worse. You should know this by now. Don't change talk page posts and don't edit war over talk page posts. Leave them be. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not agree that it was mild, particularly in context.

If the issue was the way I redacted it, then Kelly would have been quite free to alter that. For example, I would have been fine with "sophistry arguments", or "[arguments]".

In any case, I was about to revert my last edit to restore the original version, but Kelly beat me to it. Now that I've lodged a complaint at WQA, I'm leaving it alone. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On en.Wikipedia, nobody but the poster can swap out (or add) words in talk page posts. Words are only redacted, or posts removed altogether, when things go way beyond the pale. Meanwhile, snarky posts tend to do the most harm to those who post them. WP:WQA will at least give you more input on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Dylan Flaherty 09:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To "hat" a comment like that[1] is not the way to go about this - we don't attempt to "silence" others. Please refrain from that - everyone is free to comment on that board. Doc talk 11:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe he was being extremely counterproductive, and given his extensive history, it would not shock me if it was intentional. Dylan Flaherty 11:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But for you to do that looks bad on your part. Rising above things is the best approach... Doc talk 11:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my view is that hatting it is a compromise between removing it (which would not be justifiable) and pretending it has any merit whatsoever (which would likewise not be justifiable). Dylan Flaherty 12:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Let other editors have their input on something like that. As I said earlier, most incivility of that kind harms the poster more than anyone else. Hatting is a kind of refactoring, you shouldn't hat comments yourself, which have to do with you, moreover on noticeboard or other project pages. You've already been warned, so let's put it this way for now, please stop looking for ways to refactor other editors' comments. Leave them be. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Dylan Flaherty 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As to what sophistry means, I've commented here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I've responded in more detail [2]. Dylan Flaherty 12:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Don't mind me on the edit summary on the Talk:Glenn Beck. I was just a little out of it from yesterday. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while it was good advice for everyone, the comment was was largely due to the ongoing personal conflict between Deliciousgrapefruit and Cptnono. I'd like both of them to drop their sticks and put on proper boxing gloves. :-) Dylan Flaherty 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear you! That would be nice. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's why I think I'm right

Consider the following hypothetical quote:

Writing for NARAL in 2003, Kate Michelman identified the National Right to Life Committee as one of twenty-three organizations which take bigoted and sexist ideas that originated in misogynist writings of the patriarchal past and try to make them socially acceptable.

Not, I think, a very encyclopedic way to enter this information. Unless he actually reads the source, the reader doesn't know if it's the editor or Michelman who is using buzz words such as bigoted, sexist, and misogynist to describe what the National right to Life Committee is doing. That's why either so-called scare quotes, or something like "according to Michelman" should be used after the word "which." Regards Badmintonhist (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Incident noticeboard

I have raised an issue regarding your recent editing at the administrators' noticeboard. I'm required to notify you, but I think it may be helpful for you to respond there if you wish to do so. jæs (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"It would be very easy to find pro-Palin quotes from you." Please do so and share them here or else strike your comment. (Just before you try to fire those particular blanks again, you should know that I disagree with her on practically every "current" political issue and I don't belong to her party (or movement), but I make a point of not disparaging or praising living people on Wikipedia. I also make a point of doing my best to defend vulnerable biographies, like hers, from editors who come with a clear ax to grind, one way or another. I'm sure you'll also find it fascinating to note that I was the first person to criticize the fluffing of her article that went on leading up to her being announced as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008. Not that any of this will make a difference to you, since you want to show she's "ignorant," our policies and consensus be damned.) jæs (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to inform you that very little of what you've just said is true. In particular, you are wildly incorrect about my motives, and you are clearly violating WP:AGF in order to arrive at that incorrect conclusion. Essentially, I would have to be intentionally lying, since I have stated clearly that those are not my motives.

I would also add that coming here to demand that I strike out my statements from WP:AN/I smacks of intimidation. Therefore, I am going to politely ask you to refrain from posting anything on my talk page. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 07:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'll ask you again to provide proof here, or anywhere, of your assertion that "it would be very easy to find pro-Palin quotes from [me]." jæs (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

banned from Sarah Palin for two weeks

Sarah Palin is a high traffic, political BLP which is under sanctions (Talk:Sarah_Palin/Article_probation). Owing to your ongoing disruption of the talk page, which has now spilled over onto ANI, I am banning you from making edits to any Sarah Palin topic or its talk page, broadly construed. This means you shouldn't make any edits having to do with Sarah Palin anywhere on this website, for two weeks. If you breach this sanction, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but stopping me from defending myself in the middle of an AN/I is not even remotely fair. I will therefore protest this block. Oh, and please do not post on my talk page again. Dylan Flaherty 11:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just drop the stick before you get hit by the boomerang please? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you won't answer my question, I'm also going to politely ask you not to post on my page. Thank you and goodbye. Dylan Flaherty 11:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a Cup of Tea

Is excellent advice as a rule on WP. You have been here for under four months, and seem to be either a lightning rod or generator of lightning, depending on viewpoint. WP has no WP:DEADLINE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not on a deadline. I can be quite persistent. If this unfair topic ban sticks, then in two weeks I will launch an RfC on this matter. If it doesn't, then I'll launch it sooner. Dylan Flaherty 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)