Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/113

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 112 · Archive 113 · Archive 114 →

Further issues with NewPedia24

[edit]

NewPedia24 has been acting weird again, and has requested that I unblock them. They're acting quite strange again. I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to bother you, but this is a really an odd situation. I honestly suspect the account might be an AI bot or something. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore them, and leave it to administrators. If they request unblock using {{unblock}} as explained in the block message, it will go into a category for admistrators to look at. There is no need for you to continue to engage with the blocked editor. Daniel (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your TFAR nomination

[edit]

Hey, I was just in the process of replying when you pulled it :) Do you still want to run it? - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, I was just on your talk page writing you a message! One sec, will finish writing it and copy it across here. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Reruns are fine, though we generally prefer that go through WP:TFAR, the requests page (as opposed to just the pending page, WP:TFAP), and the bar tends to be higher for reruns. In this case, the problem is that Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln was up for a long time on WP:TFAP for its anniversary on April 14, and I've got it on the draft schedule at WT:Today's featured article/April 2024. But April 13 is open if you want it ... people in eastern Australia would actually see the article on their screens for around 10 hours on April 14, so it would seem like the right day for the anniversary for them, if this works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I was writing on your talk page...
Hi Dank, hope you are well. Was reading the TFA nomination guidance around articles that have previously been featured. From what I could see, provided it was more than 5 years ago, there could be up to two per week. But then I read this and it made it sound like an absolute rarity (lets face it, a storm is not the same as the Rosetta stone). Keen for your feedback about whether this is a suitable renomination or not - I profess to have absolutely no idea about the cultural norms around TFA, so very happy to defer to your guidance and advice on this. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
April 13 also works for me too, and agree regarding the time zone comments. Apologies for not going via TFAR. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did put it up at TFAR, it looked fine ... but I'm putting the finishing touches on the first half of the schedule now and you got in on the 13th, so TFAR isn't necessary at this point (but you can still do it if you want). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly how much of the insured damage occurred outside Sydney and its suburbs? - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: - will consult the source material and come back to you, not sure if that was ever specified to be honest but it was 15 years ago so memory isn't all that clear! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's say 5%, then i'm comfortable just talking about "Sydney and its suburbs". If it's 50%, then not. - Dank (push to talk) 05:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much OR but I can't see it being any more than 5% down at Kiama (probably closer to 1%), based on the path of the storm, when it was most severe and the population density of Kiama compared to Bundeena > Palm Beach (aka Sydney & suburbs). By the time it hit us near Gosford it was close to a non-event. But I'll check the sources, especially the Coenraads book if I still have it, to see what they say. Daniel (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 05:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked Coenraads (all 576 pages of it) and there's no breakup included, just the total number. On that basis, I think "Sydney & suburbs" or words to that effect is the best way forward as you have copyedited it to say. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

[edit]

You closed Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_February_17#Chikki_Panday_(closed) with the words: Speedily overturned as an inappropriate NAC and incorrect reading of consensus, in my capacity as an involved administrator per. I assume that you meant as an uninvolved administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up, fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

[edit]

Unblock

[edit]

Thank you for accepting to unblock me. But I just would like to inquire about this statement: Note that as per the comments below, it goes without saying that you are on a pretty tight piece of rope here, and any further disruptive behaviours will result in the block being re-instated. Happy editing and welcome back. Does this mean that if I made any mistake, I will be indefinitely blocked? This is my only time with disturbive editing since almost 8 years of editing and second time of being blocked for engaging in the Palestine-Israel conflict area. If I was indefinitely blocked from the problematic topic area, this would solve the problem. Why should this be my fatal mistake? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reported back to AN/ANI for disruptive editing (ie. something significant or persistent), if the complaint is upheld, it is likely the block will be reinstated. This is how second chances work. Daniel (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "the block will be reinstated" you mean indefinite block? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will be up to those who review any subsequent complaint, but it will likely be longer than someone who wasn't on a second chance. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Salmoonlight

[edit]

Hi, I now understand the report I made was insufficient for reporting on the ANI, however I do notice your verdict seemed to only apply to the disruptive editing on the current events page. I would like to ask why exactly was his decision to remove the report considered just a careless mistake where it actually exemplifies traits equivalent to being disobedient to rules/laws? An innocent person committing contempt of court should still be charged with contempt of court. Weisz21 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from your analogy, if this editor was 'guilty' of 'contempt of court', you would be similarly 'guilty' of improper use of process and likely vexatious litigation. For the same reason I didn't suggest any disciplinary action for your incorrect filing (instead of using any other dispute resolution tool available), I would suggest that you would do well to drop any issues you have over their process foibles. Equity in response for equivalent actions is something I believe strongly in, and if you are wishing to push the envelope on this issue, it opens your actions up to review also. On that basis, I would recommend focusing on the content issue with the current events page. Daniel (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand Weisz21 (later renamed to 'Shakdust487') is now blocked as a sock of User:Alpoin117 after this report I made. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop going after me in bad faith. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Salmoonlight: no need to get involved here, and please do not bite back. I agree this editor needs to stop and focus on the content issues (per my above comment). Daniel (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You understand the situation completely, I trust you can read the characters behind the situation and I’m clarifying just in case that the matter was that it wasn’t enough for an ANI, I do not have knowledge of vexation litigation cases but I trust it can include cases where the accused is not completely innocent, such as this one, cheers to intelligent editing. Weisz21 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for all of the work you do in AFDLand. It's appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babysharkboss2 again

[edit]

Hi Daniel, they are at the peanut gallery comments again. I know they want to help but they have been warned multiple times to stop it. Do they just need a final warning? Thanks, v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 18:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. That one, while pointless, isn't bad enough to escalate just yet. Thanks for the heads-up though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Does this push it over the edge. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#NmWTfs85lXusaybq

[edit]

Hi Daniel, thank you for closing this discussion. I was just wondering if you judged whether or not there was consensus for the mass-rollback proposal contained within the same section.

All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A smart kitten: no consensus achieved for that action from that discussion, unfortunately. There hadn't been a comment in that section for nearly a week, so short of restarting the discussion (feel free to do so as a new subsection if you so wish), unlikely consensus would form. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Goumas

[edit]

Hi, i want to create the page which deleted. I will use further information with more reliable sources. I want an answer if i have the right to ceate again. Thank you for your time Thanbla (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Draft:Konstantinos Goumas to improve the article, then request approval via WP:AfC. Given it was deleted at AfD only two weeks ago, it will have to be a significant improvement to not be re-deleted immediately. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox storm

[edit]

Template:Infobox storm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AATalk 16:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI, HELLO

[edit]

In an article recently merged with the afd where is consensus made to know? The dogcat (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment makes no sense. Please explain what you mean, and provide links to the relevant pages and/or discussions you are talking about. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, I refer to Yuuki (Sword Art Online) where the discussion was made. The dogcat (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online). It's pretty clear from that discussion that a consensus of editors believes that the article shouldn't exist. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, Yes, but I can improve it, so can I recreate it or not? The dogcat (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to create a fully-complete draft and then file at deletion review to ask for approval to move it back to mainspace. Daniel (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, One question I already have a draft but how is it presented? The dogcat (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:LiveJasmin

[edit]

Hi Daniel! Hope you're doing good. I got pulled into a discussion on this page thanks to the feedback request service and there's an editor who seems to have similar issues to RedundancyAdvocate with not being able to accept other editors' feedback (2 requests for comments and a dispute resolution case). I really couldn't care less about this particular topic but wondering if you might take a look? Avgeekamfot (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avgeekamfot, apologies I've been away for a couple of weeks. Looks like it's all been resolved in my absence! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I definitely don't check Wikipedia religiously until something catches my eye to update. I appreciate your reply. Avgeekamfot (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]

Thank you today for 1999 Sydney hailstorm, from 2007! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible New Notability

[edit]

Hey! A new source was found that possibly establishes notability for this article. Check it out! == Deletion review for Long Beach Township Beach Patrol == An editor has asked for a deletion review of Long Beach Township Beach Patrol. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 73.150.197.202 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For record-keeping: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 13. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

[edit]

Hello @Daniel, can you please undelete and redirect the page Rapyd to Valitor where subject is being mentioned here. You were the sysop who deleted it. Thanks. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it needs to be undeleted - if you want to redirect it, it can be redirected without the deleted history being restored? Daniel (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

[edit]
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban Offenses?

[edit]

Hello - I hope you are well.

On 6 January 2024, you enacted a topic ban [1] on a user by the name of Keremmarda. The description of said topic ban is Keremmaarda (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from Ottoman history, broadly construed.

However, since that topic ban was enacted, Keremmarda has edited Ottoman-related history articles 14 times - [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].

I have not seen the topic ban be lifted, so I don't get what's really going on - are they still topic banned? If so, would it be possible for you to take action? Some of the edits they made are the same edits that earned them the topic ban in the first place.

Thanks. Botushali (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Daniel, I can't see if you're logged in for work but I had a look, and it's pretty blatant. I blocked for a week, but if you think something different is appropriate (a longer block or perhaps no block), please go for it. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies, 5:30am here so was fast asleep. Appreciate the quick action to remedy. One week feels about right, this is totally blatant as you say. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Miles Cheong

[edit]

I was interested in seeing what was in this repeatedly deleted and salted entry. Could you move it to draftspace so I cam see what was there? He's been in the news lately. No objection to move protecting it or some other protection if that's helpful. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloridaArmy, I don't feel comfortable undeleting and drafting given the article's history, sorry. I am happy to email the contents to you for you to view 'off-wiki', but unfortunately you don't have an email address specified. Would it be possible for you to activate an email (even temporarily) so I can send you both versions (the November deleted one, and then the December deleted one)? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. He's not hugely notable but seems an interesting subject. I will just let it go. Thanks for looking into it for me. Take care. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fathima Thahiliya

[edit]

hi,Daniel, Old deletion discussion did not have the quality pass to retain this article (Fathima Thahiliya), so this page has been removed, and as of today, this page is eligible for a new political position (WP:NPOL-(officeholder), she is currently serves as the Kerala State Secretary of IUML's Muslim Youth League - she is former national vice president of Muslim Students Federation (I. U. M. L.) and former State President of Haritha, Any chance to take back this article?? ~ User:Spworld2 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 30 which endorsed my close. I have no plans of facilitating any undeletion or similar. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To take it back, I don't know much. It will take some more time to write a new one, can you suggest any other way??
Spworld2 (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Shane and Friends

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shane and Friends. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nokia621 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link for record-keeping: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 20. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!vote at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Danial_Afzal_Khan

[edit]

Hello Daniel, In the Afd you stated, "the sources presented by the individual editor refuting deletion do not qualify for the GNG threshold. " May I draw your attention on the fact that there are at least two contributors who voted Keep (the second being myself). Also, I concur that bludgeoning in the page was not making it easy to read, but can you confirm that you're not referring to bludgeoning by (the same) one editor only? Regarding this issue, there are times at Afds when sources and K !votes are challenged, so that !voters are forced to insist (and the page is deleted because they haven't....) I understand there's a difference between replying and bludgeoning but when your !votes are challenged constantly and relentlessly, you can either only give up or insist, which may eventually looks like bludgeoning, I'm afraid. @Owenx, who closed as Delete. Anyway, just mentioning this issue for the record. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing your bolded !vote, it speaks to the sprawling nature of the AfD that I missed it. I disagree regarding your comments about bludgeoning - I am absolutely talking about the other editor here. Of course engagement in discussion is appreciated, but there is a skill in replying as concisely as possible while being as persuasive as possible, and unfortunately the other editor refuting here missed that brief. They were doing exactly as the first sentence of WP:BLUDGEON says - "attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own". If their viewpoint was so correct and proper, they should have engaged concisely and effectively a couple of times, then let consensus of other editors join in to support their viewpoint. The same editor repeatedly, over numerous comments back at just about every single participant, probably did more to harm their cause then help it here. Obviously if you have issues with the close, please speak to Owen and/or use DRV. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/113&oldid=1245953196"