Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/114

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 113 · Archive 114 · Archive 115 →

Removed Template

[edit]

Thank you for your monitoring of my talk page and removal of a stupid template. I think that this had been a case of responding to a template with a template. I had given User:Ratnahastin a [[WP:CTOPIC}contentious topic]] alert about Sri Lanka. As you said, I was assuming good faith, but I wasn't observing collaborative behavior. As we know, Sri Lanka is a contentious topic, and this AFD was contentious, and this DRV is contentious. What this exchange illustrates is the high level of stubbornness and anger. I will comment in passing that I think that an excessive level of anger is much of what is wrong with American politics, but that is beside the point. Anyway, I think it was a revenge templating, and that it illustrates that collaborative editing has failed. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to relitigate the past - that would be disappointing if so. The CTOP template is a mandated template which cannot be altered, by order of ArbCom. It also has a very different tone (it explicitly says "This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing" etc.). But anyways, glad it is somewhat resolved, and no problems about taking action on your talk. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOTESTACK

[edit]

I couldn't reply to your question since the discussion is closed. But for your clarification, neither was I the one who said 'please help me save the article by voting', nor was it related to Baalveer 4. M S Hassan (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks M S Hassan, will follow up with the person who did post it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming...

[edit]
Hello, Daniel/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Australian railroad IP (220.235.232.212)

[edit]

Hi Daniel, I detected them editing an article on my watchlist at Special:Diff/1232485196. Regards, TarnishedPathtalk 03:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, many thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. TarnishedPathtalk 08:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Daniel, I've found another one at 220.244.102.149. My watchlist found them undoing a redirect I'd set up and voting in a Merge proposal. TarnishedPathtalk 04:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked :) Daniel (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ta TarnishedPathtalk 05:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found them again at 110.175.51.243. TarnishedPathtalk 12:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked again :) Daniel (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again at 121.45.242.35. Spotted them editing Orochi, the Eight-Headed Dragon an article that I've noticed they have an interest in. TarnishedPathtalk 00:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath — yep, checked contribs and reverted & blocked. How appropriate, I'm currently in Tokyo — and staying in the Godzilla head hotel too! Daniel (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, I was there a month ago for a family holiday. Enjoy your stay. TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again at Special:Diff/1245160910 TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help please - Deletion review - Articles_for_deletion/Down-ball

[edit]

Hello Daniel, it looks like you're experienced in Deletion review. I'm a relative Wikipedia newcomer and I'd like to request your assistance in helping me follow the process. No problem if you're already busy. Rockycape (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rockycape, you have filed a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 4. The process will go for 7 days, at which point another administrator will close the review. Best thing for you to do is reply to enquiries there, but be careful not to bludgeon the process with excessive (or excessively long) replies. A nice balance of brief and occasional is best. Hope this helps, Daniel (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel, helps a lot and thanks, Rockcape Rockycape (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Akshay Kharodia

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Akshay Kharodia. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.10.107 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving note: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 8 closed as endorsed. Daniel (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal

[edit]

Hey! I'm notifying you about an appeal in WP:AN regarding the topic-ban from the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area you imposed. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 15:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Super ninja2, thanks for the notification. Have provided a short statement there. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

|}

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi Daniel

[edit]

I noted during a certain recent ANI discussion about me that initially characterized me as a "far-left conspiracy theorist" and from there descended into a pile-on of falsehoods, misrepresentations and irrelevancies calling my integrity into question that you remarked as a total non sequitur that this article I created and almost entirely wrote needs to be reviewed thoroughly for BLP and related reasons.

As I replied to you, I encourage thorough scrutiny of the article. Perhaps JPxG, who also irrelevantly mentioned the article during the pile-on, would also enjoy intensely scrutinizing it.

Please proceed. soibangla (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't appreciate the tone of this message. Please do not contact me about this issue again. Daniel (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

numbers

[edit]

Thanks for closing the ANI thread about numbers, and also... wow, not a year goes by on here without me learning that some topic area, which I would not have thought was contentious, is contentious. An ANI thread about mathematical numbers is up there with the time I found out there'd been an ArbCom case about tree shaping. 😅 -sche (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping was during my editing sabbatical (I made less than 100 edits that year), just catching up on it now — quite a ride! Daniel (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

[edit]

Hello, Daniel,

I see you are closing AFDs and I'd like to make a pitch for you to use Wikipedia:XFDcloser to close them. It makes closing discussions so much easier and takes care of most of the steps for you in seconds.

But I bring this up now because of your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmedabad–Darbhanga Sabarmati Express. Including talk pages, this article had 25 redirects that I just deleted. If you had used XFDcloser, it would have taken care of all of those redirects for you and they wouldn't show up as 25 broken redirects that needed to be taken care of. So, I encourage you to try it out. Once you get used to it, the old way will seem time-consuming and laborious. It also removes all of the red links that can be caused by the deletion of a main space article. So, give it a shot! Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I do use XFDCloser - that debate there wasn't formatted correctly to include the other two pages as part of the bundled nomination, so I had to delete them manually. The primary page deletion (and subsequent unlinking) was completed with XFDCloser as part of the close. Daniel (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Millanguir

[edit]

Actually, Sandstein's argument is circular: Despite everyone who regularly watches DELSORT religion treating BISHOPS and CLERGYOUTCOMES as normative, Sandstein argues that without the imprimatur of guideline, essays aren't sufficient basis for AfD rationales. However, as WP:POL says The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. such that if we're routinely keeping bishops per BISHOPS (and we do; I can't remember a single one that's been deleted) then it's actually an SNG even without an RFC to bless it as such. TNT is another essay that's routinely cited as authoritative even if it's not; it just happens to be used in favor of deletion. While I appreciate the thought of looking out for the minority view that is more policy compliant... this ain't one of those times. Jclemens (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with that. Those pointing at BISHOPS, in my opinion, do not advance an argument that is as strong as 'does not meet GNG' (which is, in effect, Sandstein's argument). If BISHOPS is an exception to GNG that enjoys such widespread support that it should be applied here, then it should be codified as such at RfC. I surely can't be expected to take the temperature of the project in assessing an essay as being stronger than a guideline, based on it being routinely applied at other debates; isnt that why we have policies, guidelines and essays marked as such? Daniel (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the meta-topic of if we're routinely keeping bishops per BISHOPS...is actually an SNG even without an RFC to bless it as such when assessing consensus at AfD's, do you have any objection if I start a topic at WT:DELPRO to test this theory as it would apply to other oft-cited essays? Daniel (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N is a guideline, which means articles don't have to demonstrate notability, but most should. That statement itself will trigger rigid thinkers. So it's perfectly fine to say "A bishop of a major denomination where this is an area-level leadership position should always have an article, even if notability is not met" is not a policy-noncompliant statement. Presumptive inclusion doesn't run afoul of NRVE, because N is itself not necessary for a topic to merit an article.
Essays become guidelines because no one seriously denies their general applicability. BISHOPS should probably be a guideline, if only to keep new folks who don't understand the descriptive nature of guidelines and essays. I've written a couple of essays that are linked from policy pages; they got that way not because I had any positional authority, but because each accurately described how Wikipedians can think sensibly about those topics.
If you bring it up, the editors who like to dabble in policy will probably reject it, because we have a lot of Procrustean editors who cannot imagine anything having an article without meeting GNG. They've gradually been rewriting SNGs like NCORP and NSPORT to make criteria more stringent, rather than just different, because really writing a consensus-driven project is messy and uncomfortable. I don't think all of them are stupid and/or evil, but a lot of them don't think clearly about the purpose of writing down some of our policies. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays become guidelines because no one seriously denies their general applicability. - this is the statement that I agree with, but also struggle with a lot. Practically speaking, how am I as a closer of an AfD meant to know if an essay is one which is significant disputed, or one which has general acceptance outside of that singular debate? (Somewhat of a rhetorical question.) Daniel (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's a fuzzy situation, but when it's a 1AM--or nearly so, when only one editor agrees with the nom--in a well-attended discussion, that's a pretty good indication that such is the case. Absent obvious red flags like socking, canvassing, and the like, of course, which don't seem to apply in this case. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

Hello, Daniel,

Thank you for closing the ANI discussion that refused to die. It's appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree about the close. Homeostasis was doxxed, and our solution is to prevent her from discussing about it? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Homeostasis refused to provide any proof whatsoever of this alleged attempt at being doxxed, despite claiming to actually have that proof... They just pointed to an obvious joke left in response to their doxing accusation as "evidence" of a particular user "knowing they live on an island", even though that comment was clearly referring to a celebrity who is notably from an island, and even though they explicitly claimed this vague "dancing man" WPO user didn't know their real location in the first place. Their complaint was that someone tried but failed to dox them -- being "off by a continent" -- so how exactly does it follow that anyone on WPO would know they live on an island? It's all just utter fabrication. JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

|}

LilianaUwU, my job is to assess consensus. There was consensus to implement the topic ban. I can absolutely understand your argument but it was firmly in the minority. While assessing consensus isn't a vote count per se, strength of support for the respective positions is absolutely considered. Daniel (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that once you put aside votes from WPO, the vote was tied. Did you give every vote equal weight?
There was also new evidence posted and a new oppose vote came in, along with a request not to close the thread for 24hrs, just before you closed it. Why close it right after new evidence was posted? Levivich (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting I'm currently drafting an RFAR and will post it within the next few hours. Sincerely, Dilettante 14:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I did not disregard contributions from those who are either confirmed or alleged to have WPO accounts, no. They are editors in good standing and offered a reasonable argument that had consensus support. The statement "once you put aside votes from WPO" is divisive and the view to disregard their contributions to the debate, again, did not have support to do so.
Sincerely, Dilettante, no problems. Daniel (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty normal to set aside canvassed votes even if the canvassed editors are in good standing, and you didn't answer my second question about the new evidence, new votes, and timing of the close -- but it's all moot anyway if it's going to RFAR. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where's your evidence of canvassing? TarnishedPathtalk 09:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, thanks for your kind words as always. Hope you are doing well. Daniel (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also thank you for closing it, it didn't get the result I had intended, but that's the way it goes sometimes and it had clearly outlived any usefulness. Your read of the consensus throughout is fair. This is seemingly on its way to arbitration so the complaints here will probably stop when that happens. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A dispute this involved and involving off-Wikipedia sites belongs at Arbitration. ANI was not the correct place for it. But once the snowball began rolling down the hill, it would have been controversial to close the discussion until it had lost momentum which I think it had. As far as Levivich's question, it looks like the discussion was closed soonafter I posted a request that it be closed because I thought it's time of usefullness on ANI had been reached. So, you can blame me for that. It looks like Daniel agreed and was just carrying out a closer's duties which I thought they handled appropriately for a devisive discussion. I think this discussion though is not "finished", it will just be relocated to a more appropriate forum. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Invitation to Meetup, 15 November 2024

[edit]
Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: 15 November 2024
Last: 6 March 2020
This box: view • talk • edit

You are cordially invited to this meetup to:

  • discuss the WikiCon Australia 2024 event to be held in Adelaide on 23 November 2024, which involves the setting up of a GLAM collaboration between Wikimedia Australia and the South Australian Museum, and, possibly later, other local GLAM institutions
  • discuss means of recruitment/mentoring/training of new editors, and the possibility of holding more regular meetups in Adelaide.
Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

safe travels

[edit]

your changes in life seem very risky, travel safely!! JarrahTree 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/114&oldid=1254801860"