User talk:Dan Murphy

Welcome

Hello, Dan Murphy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! guyzero | talk 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2008

Don't understand the complaint. The reversion is objectively much worse than my changes which; shifted info in a 500 plus word lede to below the table of contents; added extremely relevant info about DOJ IG findings and appointment of special prosecutor; simplified language; and started removing completely irrelevant reems of information about "Other bush scandals." Could you explain?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how dramatic improvements of a stale article, with the most relevant information -- the DOJ findings -- at the top instead of back and forth about 2 year old allegations and the relocation of paragraph after paragraph of background info from the lede to below the table of contents is vandalism is beyond me. The article still needs vast improvements -- it has background on case law related to the general practice of hiring and firing of US attorneys higher than it does information on the actual scandal, which is very poor structure, but if efforts to improve and add info are immediately reverted it's not worth my time to improve.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Attorney Firings

Note: I removed the vandalism warnings as well as they are obviously not valid.
Don't understand the complaint. The reversion is objectively much worse than my changes which; shifted info in a 500 plus word lede to below the table of contents; added extremely relevant info about DOJ IG findings and appointment of special prosecutor; simplified language; and started removing completely irrelevant reems of information about "Other bush scandals." Could you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather baffled with this reversion as well. I cannot remember reverting this page, even though it was done a mere 10 minutes ago. There is no indication as to why i could have decided to revert this page; There is no indication of vandalism whatsoever present and since an edit summary was included i cannot have reverted it for "content removal". I am fairly certain that this was either a misclick or a hiccup in huggle causing an incorrect diff to be displayed. Either way, apologies for this mistake; I cannot be certain why this happened, but i can be certain that the revert should not have happened.

I undid my own revision so the article should be in the same state as you were working on before i reverted. As for the revert by Ossman: I assume he actioned based upon my revert. Again, apologies for the inconvenience caused! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... well, i did start stripping out a lot of text in a kitchen sink section at the bottom called "Other bush scandals". Could that have triggered something automatic? At any rate, thanks for taking the time.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safe for a few anti vandalism bots out there, vandalism patrol is handled in a semi-automatic fashion with the user reverting being the one who "Pushes the button". Triggering something automatic would therefore be impossible. It is possible that i saw "Other bush scandals" to be a WP:NPOV edit, but before reverting on that basis i tend to take a longer to be sure it is indeed a valid revert. At least i should remember such reverts a few minutes after it was reverted. Therefore, i think that this was simply a manual mistake :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an invitation: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

I invite you to read through the talk pages and talk pages archive of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, where you'll see some of the issues that have brought the article to its recent state, however positive or lamentable you may view it to be. Please also take a look at the several linked articles as well.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I read them already, indeed, before i contacted you. Thousands of words on anything that can be tangentially connected to a topic is very, very bad. ("Article is about Zippy the talking chimp, member of the Barnum and Bailey's circus. I recently came across new research about the effect of habitat destruction on chimps in the congo. Now, let me add a long explanation of said matter and various scientific controversies surrounding its signifigance because, after all, this article is about chimps. Also, here's 300 words about general habitat destruction in the congo because, after all, this article is about the congo."). This way lies madness, i submit.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were right

I was just going by the article's title and thought your snip was unwarranted. But Obama's statement has nothing to do with this voter fraud incident from the article cited. My humble apologies.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your patience. I agree on headlines. They're usually not written by the writer of the story so they often misrepresent what's in it.(Wallamoose (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

ACORN

Bali, is there a reason that someone keeps deleting the new york post story about the guy who claims ACORN bribed him to register to vote 72 times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.156.127 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a needless redundancy to an above bullet point to the effect that "investiation is going on amid allegatipons that they were paying people to register blah blah blah." Try reading the whole article before making additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 October, 2008 (UTC)

I did read the whole article. I was just trying to add specifics. I responded on the discussion page saying that I only want the whole story about these political lobbyist group out there. I am neither a demo or pubby. So I have no agenda either way other than to get some truth out there. I do not think that my personal political beliefs can be classified in one of the major parties. I most identify with the libertarians, but believe that there is still some room--a lot of room--for improvement within that party. So my point is I am only interested in getting the truth out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.156.127 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bali, I wanted to say thank you for the great revisions this week at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The article is much clearer, more encyclopedic after the flurry of work from the past few days. Thanks again and kind regards, --guyzero | talk 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bali, I wasn't meaning to be "wry". I thought it was your section, so I was understandably a bit confused, and thought you were making a point or whatever. I wasn't meaning to threaten you or anything, but rather just giving you a heads up. Sorry for the confusion. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)) testBali ultimate (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:300wackerdrive is back to add libelous spin to ACORN. FYI. LotLE×talk

Just trying to make the ACORN article a group project rather than LotLE's personal soapbox. Canvassing, Lulu? 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bali: Your latest rollback of 300wackerdrive's destructive (and 3RR) insertion of partisan title and content on ACORN... well, wasn't really. I believe by mistake you only reverted a minor edit or a blank line, rather than 3WD's large edit. In case you want to do more... :-). LotLE×talk 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bali, it would be nice if you'd pay at least half as much attention to my ACORN Talk page edits as you pay to my ACORN mainspace edits, but it appears that you pay the most attention to LotLE's instructions. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be accusing me of something. It's not clear what, but believe me, it's not a productive way for any of us to go about getting things done. To be clear: On multiple occasions i've asked you for citations for claims you've inserted in the article. On each of those occasions you failed to substantiate the claims with citations. That's why i'm keeping an eye on your attempted edits.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? Marx0728 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page marx. Your edit was contentious and, at best, came in the absence of consensus. Your claim that the FBI bit was "removed" on the talk page is also false.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg v Obama

Calling for an article's speedy deletion while at the same time trying to refine it as much as possible is very much, in my opinion, in the Wikipedia spirit. I tip my hat to you. PhGustaf (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just bored, and i figure if it doesn't get deleted, or until it does, it should be as appropriate and good as possible.

Simon Wilcox

I added some references to Simon Wilcox. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Wilcox. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Living Ontario (2nd nomination)

Hi Bali ultimate. I've added more sources, which might address your concerns at this AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Khalidi

thank you for your objective edits.Historicist (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist[reply]