User talk:Paulmoloney

Hello Paulmoloney, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 02:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Phoenix (magazine)
Thanks for seeing my mistake. Cheers.ant_ie 18:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

George Galloway
You criticised the deletions and you dismissed my argument, please read my post. -- Tompsci 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

no
I'd be in favour of gay rights activist, Its david who is opposed - That was an attempted compromise.--Irishpunktom\talk 22:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Trouble is, it's an over-wordy compromise that doesn't really work. "Human rights activist" is best. David | Talk 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And now you see the problem. wanna get involved? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Greetings. I've taken the mediation case about Derek Acorah, filed at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-04 Derek Acorah. Please add any additional comments or replies on the case page, to bring the summary of information and opinions in one place. If you have compromise ideas, it would also be nice to post them on the page. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mills McCartney
Hi there, thanks for your message. Apologies for reverting your edit. This was caused, I assume, by an edit conflict. What I meant to do was remove the dubious looking link listing the so-called divorce petition - the authenticity of which is being challenged. If you look at the story history, I reveretd at 1223 - your edit had been made one minute before - unbeknown to me - hence the conflict. I've now reverted to your version - but I think the external link to the divorce petition should still go - although I know you didn't add that. Hope that's ok. Escaper7 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for letting me know. --Paul Moloney 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

HELP!
Please visit the NAMBLA article talk page Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#categories_again and voice your disgust at NAMBLA being included as an LGBT organisation. Alternatively, if you believe that this is indeed an LGBT organisation, then you're welcome to voice that opinion. Either way, discussion is needed!Enzedbrit 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

quote
If you want to include the quote, we need a reliable source for it - this is standard BLP policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re homophobic agenda expressed at Cathal Ó Searcaigh article
You would be well advised to desist from leaving spurious material on my talk page, and from pursuing a slanderous agenda against a living person, or anyone at all. This is not what the Wikipedia is for. Your activity HAS been reported, and I will continue to draw attention to your abuse of this project.

I also note here that you have failed to address my critique of your contributions and your postings, on that article's talk page. I will not resort to some jejune tit-for-tat, posting some canned warning here, but be advised that you have to desist from ad-hominem attacks and relate strictly to the subject matter of the article. Period. Haiduc (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An out-of-context quote by a third party that does not reflect directly on the subject of the article, even if it is "properly sourced" is still irrelevant and in this case seems to be intended only to discredit the speaker. This is not encyclopedic material, this is merely ammunition in a battle that does not belong in the Wikipedia. Your consistent and abusive deletion of edits made in good faith to remove biased and aggressive language from the article exposes you as a polemicist in that battle. Good luck with it, but not here. And you have STILL not refuted my accusation of posting homophobic material. Properly sourced hate speech is still hate speech and does not belong here. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What "postings" are you talking about? I posted a single quote! Can you tell me which material that _I_ posted that was homophobic? If a quote from Maire Mhac an tSaoi doesn't have an relevance to the article, you should delete the whole section; you cannot cherrypick parts of her defence and ignore the unsavoury parts.

P. --Paul Moloney (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

River Poddle
Thanks for adding the photo of the confluence of the Poddle and Liffey - it's much appreciated! Autarch (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheila Hodgers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Louth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

===Thanks, it was indeed unintended. Paul Moloney (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Sheila Hodgers
Hi, I'm Mabalu. Paulmoloney, thanks for creating Sheila Hodgers!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Although truly sad, notability seems to be WP:SINGLEEVENT. This article needs more context and refs to show that Sheila Hodgers's case is still extensively discussed and cited today, and notable enough for a standalone article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.


 * Hi Mabalu, a Google search will hopefully show that in the context of abortion in Ireland, Hodgers' case is often referred to in both the media and books: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sheila+hodgers%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-ie:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGRP_en-GBIE507 Let me know what kind of additions you think should be made to the page. Paul Moloney (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings and... reply
Greetings Paulmoloney. Thank you for your note. First of all, there is no edit war involved here. And I can assure you that I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in any edit war (nor in that particular article, for that matter), so I'd go for a third-party opinion, where others with some knowledge of the subject could engage in solving the issue. In any case, any eventual edit war would be started by you making a second revert and reverting my edit, whether or not you had read this reply first.

Back to the case in point. I simply restored two references that you had removed and, in my edit summary, suggested you a) rephrase the existing text to incorporate your statement and/or, b) seek consensus on the article talk page before removing referenced items. If there is an urban legend out there, then the article is clearly the place to refute it, provided you have the corresponding references from reliable sources, so as not to incur in original research. Wikipedia is not interested in any one Truth, but in what can be reliably sourced, even when that means providing contradictory views within the same article, which is clearly the case here. BTW, Twitter is quite clearly not a reliable source. If Oliver Kamm has a blog in which he makes the case, you might be able to get consensus on that it is a reliable source, but I'm not too sure. Blogs may in some cases, depending on the recognised prestige of the blogger in question, be considered reliable sources, but you'd def. have to raise that one at the talk page. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "If Oliver Kamm has a blog in which he makes the case"


 * Oliver Kamm is not the one making the case (he's not a blogger incidentally, but a lead writer for the Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Kamm)


 * It is Simon Mayers, a Jewish researcher and historian:


 * http://simonmayers.wordpress.com/


 * As I mentioned in my original edit, he debunked the urban myth in the Weiner Library's _own official publication_. Exasperated by this, he has actually just written a blogpost on the subject:


 * http://simonmayers.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/the-resilient-myth-that-the-wiener-library-defends-g-k-chesterton-from-the-charge-of-antisemitism/


 * He mentions Wikipedia as a source which continues to promote this myth.


 * P. Paul Moloney (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, when I referred to Kamm as a blogger, I was referring to what he may have written on a blog, which would be marginally acceptable as a reference, as it comes from what one could argue is a reputable source, although as I pointed out, it should be brought to the talk page for consensus. The point I was making is that whatever anyone says on Twitter is not acceptable as a reference on Wikipedia. As for the other chap, if you can make the case that he is a reliable source, you're welcome to try. However, as I have already mentioned, the place to do so is on the article talk page. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So you're arguing that it's a debatable point whether or not the Weiner Library is a reliable source for the Weiner Library? I have absolutely no desire or time, with a newborn, to get into a debate with multiple people on this issue. I merely came to the page to correct a well-documented urban legend. If you want to revert the edit, fine.


 * P. Paul Moloney (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings again. First of all, although it ain't encyclopedic, congratulations on the newborn! And just to stay on topic (?), I've been through that one twice, so have some idea of what it's all about :) (Basically, you start to get to sleep well once the little nipper hits eight – years, not days, weeks or months :) – night feeds lead to bed-wetting lead to nightmares lead to drinks of water...) As for the matter at hand, at no moment have I mentioned the merits or otherwise of the Weiner Library as a reliable source. As far as I'm concerned, we were debating a) whether or not references could be removed without consensus and, b) whether or not Twitter or blogs were acceptable as references. If all that boils down to getting "into a debate with multiple people", I'm afraid that's the way it goes. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A Thank You
Thank you for your comment in the Chris Kyle talk page. There are about three editors who, over the past two-three weeks have been POV pushing that page, looking at the page as it was three weeks ago to now will show how much editing has been done and even when something negative is now allowed on the page it has been grossly watered down. 2601:2:4E00:C662:9507:72E1:406A:AC67 (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)