Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 102 · Archive 103 · Archive 104 →

Relists

[edit]

Hi Daniel, It's really good to see you active! I've seen a couple of your relists where you imply that an article needs to be improved before the discussion can be closed as 'keep' (" Relisting to allow the improvements promised in the above discussion to materialise." and "Improvements in line with "keep" comments need to be made if this is to be closed as keep. Extending for 7 days."). Now I may be misreading them, and if that's the case feel free to tell me, but afd is not cleanup and there's (generally) no requirement that improvements need to be made for an article to be kept. So I'm just curious where relists such as these are coming from. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891, thanks for the message. Fair cop on the first one, agree with your comments. The second one is closer to no consensus, but realistically if the material asserting notability was actually added to the article, it would be easier to view this as keep than no consensus. Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, pretty much what I thought-- a misread on my part. What you're saying here makes sense, and I would probably have relisted too. I just read your comment as saying this nomination would have been closed as keep but the only way it can be kept is if improvements are made but I think you were really trying to say something like "it would be helpful in determining notability if improvements in line with the comments are made", which is a sentiment that I agree with. Thanks for explaining! Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity (read: laziness on my part in not writing better relist comments) is sometimes the cause of misunderstanding :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Khan (Author)

[edit]

Dear Daniel, This is related to deletion of page Abdullah Khan (Author). It is really strange to see the comments that he is a self published author which factually incorrect. Abdullah debut novel PATNA BLUES was published by Chiki Sarkar's Juggernaut Books and has been translated into 8 languages. A chapter from PATNA BLUES is being taught at university of Kerala. It was also quoted in a couple anthologies. It has been reviewed by all major publications in South Asia. Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannu80 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the page as the said author is traditionally published. Tannu80 (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your closing rationale on Toggl Track

[edit]

Daniel, can you explain how the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toggl Track was "no consensus verging on Keep"? There was one single !vote to Delete with an explanation that it was a "personal opinion"? It just seems to me that the it was a clear consensus to Keep. Thank you! HighKing++ 22:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, don't forget about the nominator too! It wasn't a straight down the line no consensus close, hence the comment, but I don't think it was bright line keep either. Realistically it makes little difference. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Mesa, California mayoral election

[edit]

Hi Daniel, you closed two AfDs [1] and [2] after only one week with only one !vote. I'd request you consider relisting these for more participation.  // Timothy :: talk  01:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the same principle as soft-deletion? Daniel (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so, I don't object to a soft delete, others similar articles [3], [4] have been deletes. After deletes at AFD I was able to PROD the remaining El Cajon, California mayoral elections and was planning on doing this for the remaining La Mesa articles. Thanks for considering.  // Timothy :: talk  14:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I know your busy, but was hoping you had time to consider the above. Thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  04:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timothy, apologies I was travelling for my sporting commitments over the weekend.
Should be all done, let me know if I've missed anything.
Cheers,
Daniel (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Deletion: The Graduate Network

[edit]

Hi Daniel,

I hope you're well. I just wanted to reach out regarding The Graduate Network article I wrote. It was soft-deleted with no real conviction for deletion. The original reason for writing the article was that there are several other companies with the same name and this one is the one that ranks #1 on google with 10 thousand page views per month
.

Furthermore, there are several other Wikipedia articles written about similar job search engines in a similar format: see [1] , [2]. It would be great if you could reverse the decision. If there this is absolutely no way you can undo the soft deletion, I would appreciate some pointers on how to go about getting the article published.

Cambridgehistory (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cambridgehistory, I note that Hut 8.5 got to this before me. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the Maveryx article in user sandbox

[edit]

Hi Daniel. I had some issues to handle and I didn't log in my wikipedia account since a couple of weeks. Last time I logged in you moved the Maveryx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article in my sandbox. In that chat on this talk page there were also HouseOfChange and Rosguill. I hope you remember what I'm talking about. Anyway, today I logged in to start modifing the article and I didn't find it...neither the chat we had here in your talk page. Can you help me please?--Megaride (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Megaride:, from the page history you posted above, I found it: User:Megaride/sandbox/Maveryx. Good luck! HouseOfChange (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange:, thank you, you are always very kind...I don't know how I didn't see that link.--Megaride (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/TalentEgg
  2. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bright_Network
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/103&oldid=1004716867"