User talk:Daniel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:07, 1 January 2024

Close for Atton Rand

Hi Daniel, wishing you happy holidays and hope you are well.

I have read the AfD for the above article and I've thought about doing a deletion review for this topic, so I'd like to give you a heads up before I proceed. There is a simple majority for the discussion, but almost all of them are essentially votes without applying guidelines or policies, and I am fairly certain that none of the participants considered all of the extent sources carefully.

To reiterate, it's nothing personal and I understand if you maintain your position that it was rightfully closed. Haleth (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haleth, I don't think I can reverse the outcome here re-reading the debate. Happy for you to go to DRV or alternatively you could write a new and significantly different article to replace the redirect (if you think the existing article could be significantly improved - not sure if your contention was that the previous article was fine, or if the previous article could have been improved). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, however neither the nominator or any of the participants put in a genuine effort to discuss the extent of the sources cited in the article or out in the wild otherwise. Anyway I wanted to go directly to DRV, but I'd give you notice first. Haleth (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth: have relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atton Rand for you to argue alternate viewpoints regarding the sources, please see my relist comment there. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Hello, Daniel,

I don't know if you celebrate Christmas but I just wanted to thank you for your AFD patrolling on this holiday. Despite what the calendar says, Wikipedia goes on and tasks need tending to. If you do observe Christmas, thanks for taking some time out of your day to close deletion discussions. If you don't observe the day, well, thanks anyway for all of your work while your fellow admins were occupied with off-wiki activities! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks! Very much do celebrate Christmas down here, my time zone (UTC+10:30 - strange, huh?) means I was able to jump on at the start and end of my Christmas day while much of the world was either sleeping or pre-occupied. Happy holidays to you too, and appreciate the kind words as always. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at UTC−08:00 so it looks like we are on opposite sides of the world! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recent ANI

First, thank you for clarifying the rule that draft is only when there is full consensus.

I have a question: Is calling a BLP subject derogatory names including a “serial pest” in talk page or ANI (not in the main article)- against Wikipedia rules? And if yes - what could be done?

Thanks. CaseeArt ^Talk 08:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the exact same phrase used in the Guardian (probably a reliable source?) to describe this person, so in this case either it definitely isn't against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or at worst it's a borderline case. I'd suggest focusing your energies into one of the three venues I provided (AfD, BLPN or the article talk page), rather than trying to get the other editor sanctioned through other means (such as coming here). You are obviously free to do as you please and not take that advice, but I have minimal interest in being involved any further. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Guardian is a strong source and I’m very surprised they call someone “serial pest”. Im planning on editing that article and would love to see that Gaurdian article and Mayby contribute from there. Could you share the link?

PS - Actually I did not appreciate at all that the editor tried to get me sanctioned for a policy that I did not even know about, until you clarified the policy and warned me a few times not to do it again.

And I was also surprised that no one on the ANI answered all my requests about the “serial pest” comment. Until now. And I’m trying to figure out if users are more get away with BLP violations attacking conservative subjects.

I do think that I should get on. Still need to decide which avenue to go, maybe to take a break for now. CaseeArt ^Talk 10:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source is here. I'm a small-l liberal for what it's worth, and while I think conservative subjects do indeed get attacked more than their left-wing counterparts (and often unfairly), Avi Y definitely brings a lot of it on himself - and is unlikely to end up with a particularly favourable article considering his chequered history, all of which has been covered in reliable sources. My $0.02 anyways. Daniel (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to provide that link @Daniel, but you beat me to it. I agree that there's not a whole lot of material to write a favourable article about Yemini considering the WP:RS and this is a result of his endless pursuit of notoriety. @Caseeart you could have easily found that information with a tiny bit of research, I'm not a man of many original ideas and I certainly didn't come up with that description of him independently from reading about him/watching the news/etc (perhaps helps a little that I live in Melbourne). Alternatively you could have just asked me why I was calling him a serial pest instead of claiming that was some sort of basis for not engaging with me and I would have been happy to oblige you with a WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...aww....

I really liked my "tl;dr. stfu". But I agree with the blanking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was truly one of the most impressive bits of writing I've seen in a long time! Daniel (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close of The Go Getters

Would you consider reopening and relisting? Some of the new sources were just added yesterday (Christmas day), and it might be good to give a little bit more time to the editors who previously !voted to delete to reevaluate. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you foresee this changing to 'delete'? All sentiment late was moving towards 'keep', so I can't see 'delete' happening. I can relist but all that's going to happen is it will be closed as 'no consensus' or 'keep' in 7 further days. Both of these have the same practical outcome (retaining the article). I'm not seeing the point of relisting for a third time here given the outcome will 99.9% be one of these two outcomes that both share the same end result for the article, but if you want me to I will do so. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian IP editor

FYI.

203.221.17.174 the current IP that the editor is using. It looks like they were temporarily blocked for a period but that block has now expired. Their contribs show that they have recently written on a bunch of different editor's talk pages as they did mine at User Talk:TarnishedPath#Reconciliating to you and the community of Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Callanecc beat me to it. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Mehmood Alam

Hy! You have recently deleted article Arif Mehmood Alam, There was a minimal participation in deletion discussion, only one vote for delete. I want to ask you to open its deletion discussion for a week or delete as "Soft delete". So that if we want to work on it after finding more sources, so we can request it for un deletion and work on it. Thanks. 2404:3100:1006:6DD7:5D67:8FAD:83D3:A0E4 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this cannot be done - there was in fact two !votes, in addition to the nominator, and all made compelling rationales for deletion. Further, the sockpuppetry and disruption from new and unregistered editors in this debate makes me even less inclined to reopen the discussion. I am happy with the close and you will need to file a Deletion Review to have this overturned. Daniel (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gurion Canal Project

@Daniel Are there any particular reason why this page was deleted 25 December at 22:20 CET? It was a well documented page and now also highly requested too research certain events taking place in the geographical area. Rgds Captain8lue (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain8lue: Per an overwhelming consensus of Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Gurion Canal Project. FYI - this is linked in the deletion log as the reason, a deletion administrator will always include a reason and sometimes this involves linking to a discussion. Thanks Daniel (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it impossible to search it then? And where are the good arguments. The ones without bias? Rgds Captain8lue (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of good arguments in that discussion, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you disagree, you can file at Deletion Review, although I caution that there is close to 0 chance of my deletion being overturned in this situation. I would encourage you to ask for assistance at the Teahouse, as a new editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Daniel (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

challenge accepted 😁 LtCdrLaForge (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Novoa Invented the Melbourne Shuffle

I think you deleted the creator of the Melbourne Shuffle why did the subject not tell the media about it for 30 years?? Purple rain and black sky (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Novoa will not have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia consensus is that he isn't to have an article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Novoa. Are you Maurice Novoa himself, again? Daniel (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Canterbury Tail - this seems familiar... Daniel (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sheesh. I see at least 2 IPs addresses as well that are likely our old friend. I think we'll need a checkuser, but probably enough for blocks. Canterbury Tail talk 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to block as sockpuppetry/block evasion, [1] [2] from four weeks ago is clearly WP:DUCK. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. I see the Maurice Novoa self promotion mass media attack is on again. Seems relentless, but we can only every find sources written by him, his mother or friends or mysterious files uploaded onto his various web servers that are not publicly searched. All very blatant. Canterbury Tail talk 03:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also incredibly blatant how they use the Commons media that was uploaded to try and get his name out there however possible. Those files really should be deleted from Commons tbh. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

id:Melbourne shuffle is hilarious - the same Wiki that Australianblackbelt got blocked on a year ago for disruptive editing. Absolutely no doubt this is just the same person. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm under no illusions. Canterbury Tail talk 03:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

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

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

Sent by ~~~~

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 ::Why is it impossible to search it then? And where are the good arguments. The ones without bias? Rgds [[User:Captain8lue|Captain8lue]] ([[User talk:Captain8lue|talk]]) 11:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 :::Plenty of good arguments in that discussion, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you disagree, you can file at [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]], although I caution that there is close to 0 chance of my deletion being overturned in this situation. I would encourage you to ask for assistance at the [[WP:TEA|Teahouse]], as a new editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel#top|talk]]) 15:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
+::::challenge accepted 😁 [[User:LtCdrLaForge|LtCdrLaForge]] ([[User talk:LtCdrLaForge|talk]]) 21:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 == Maurice Novoa Invented the Melbourne Shuffle ==