User talk:Dylan Flaherty

UNDEAD

This user is a dead man walking.

Your sig

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

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

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

Can we back down?

Hey, I just wanted to drop a note here. I don't know what happened here in our interactions. Obviously, each of us feel like the other has gotten this very wrong, but I would hope that we can embrace the spirit of wikipedia and good faith and try to work constructively. I would suggest that we both try to get a more civil tone on the discussion pages and make fewer direct edits to the page and try to address more on the discussion pages and get consensus. That would be more appropriate for a set of issues like this that have recency problems, etc., anyways. And given how contentious these issues are and that there are WP:BLP issues involved, it would make sense to be very cautious about how the issues are addressed. MBMadmirer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

It's out of my hands at this point. Dylan Flaherty 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CPC's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tag removal

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

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

"Revert to last good version"

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

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

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

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

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

What does it take?

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

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

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

:)

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

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

Be careful when editing bot settings

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