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.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Chris, I think the close accurately reflects consensus (or lack thereof) and therefore won't be reverting. I also found your comment here to be quite weird in tone. Liz, thanks for the kind words as always. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of leaving it up without an open DRV though? How long should it remain up for? Just want to make sure it does not become a forgotten orphan that is left behind. - Indefensible (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of this article was discussed again and its deletion was rejected. Now can I ask why you deleted it again? The article was re-examined by the administrators and even was first deleted and then reopened. I can't find a reason why it should be deleted now. We think we use enough sources and references for its authenticity. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. Could you please restore my article? Another administrator had already opened the page again. Pay attention to the person who created the page. It had been approved by another manager. Keremmaarda (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was discussed again there and has been reopened in draft form, although it was previously deleted. The person who reopens the page is already an administrator and it has been deemed appropriate to open it in draft form. Otherwise why would they open it back? Keremmaarda (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As per their comment in that debate: "This will allow everyone to examine the article and determine if it should be kept." The debate continued and the consensus was the article was to remain deleted, and I closed the debate as such. I don't think I can help you explain this any more, the decision at Deletion Review has been made and the article will remain deleted. You cannot recreate it in its current form. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The debate about deletion was made a long time ago. And they gave up on the idea. Can I really ask why you deleted it? There are necessary sources and references. An article was previously published without any basis or source, so it was deemed appropriate to delete it. However, I re-created the article with more accurate and visible sources, and I objected when this article was deleted. It was deemed appropriate to restore it in draft form at the site of the objection. Now why and where was there a controversy and you felt the need to delete the page? Keremmaarda (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be comprehending the various deletion processes involved, including those that you yourself started.
During that debate, the administrator created the draft so people could review the content. This was the equivalent of a {{tempundel}}.
I closed the debate as "Deletion endorsed" per consensus, and therefore deleted the Draft which was only created for reviewing the content (see the wording at {{tempundel}}).
As per my close, the article can only be recreated if it is substantially different from the original that has now been deleted twice. There are also concerns about the sourcing.
If you require further assistance with the above, I will be unable to assist you. I encourage you to ask for assistance at the Wikipedia Teahouse if you are still unable to understand the above.
Keremmaarda: I did indeed reopen the draft so the discussion could examine the article through deletion review. However, the discussion concluded that, and I quote, "Deletion endorsed." I honestly do not understand how you can read those two words and understand it any other way. Please stop trying to misrepresent the discussion on all this. If you continue to do this, you may be blocked.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Korolev is a great traveller, he did a lot of remarkable achievements. And there are reliable sources that can be added!----Pustov (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Pustov (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
As far as I can see, you are the admin closer who is the most adept at finding a consensus opinion in the most complicated AFD discussions (or at least you are willing to try!). Do you want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and make a judgment? I'd likely close this as No consensus which wouldn't satisfy anyone and I'm hoping that you can see through the thicket of opinions on this hot topic and come to a decisive closure of this case. If not, that's fine, I just thought I'd ask. Thank you for considering this request. LizRead!Talk!23:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, thanks for the invitation to close, I have done so just now. I found a (narrow) consensus to delete weighing all the factors in assessing consensus. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
This page needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.
Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear Daniel/Archive/111,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Thanks TarnishedPath, both blocked. Hopefully won't need to block so often moving forward as edits can just be reverted/drafts deleted on sight, which will reduce the disruption with any luck. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to Move a Deleted article to Draft?
Hi Daniel, I discovered an article i publish got deleted with the last 24hrs by yourself, i just wanted to know would it be possible to move the deleted article to my draft so i can further improve it? instead of everything being gone? thank you. Frankymulls (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Rock Peak you changed Red Rock Peak to a simple redirect to Mirabito Range. It would have been more useful to our readers to have redirected to Mirabito Range#Red Rock Peak, and also to have removed {{main|Red Rock Peak}} from the section on ===Red Rock Peak=== in Mirabito Range. That way, links to Red Rock Peak go directly to where the information on this feature can be found, and readers do not see a circular link from this section to the parent article header. If the information on the child article did not have a target section header, you could add an anchor like {{anchor|Red Rock Peak}} in front of the content from the child article, and redirect to that anchor. I have cleaned this one up. but you may want to consider this with AfD closures resulting in merges or redirects in the future. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aymatth2, firstly apologies for the previous reply (if you saw it in your notifications) yesterday - my response was a bit asshole-y, and totally unwarranted. Thanks for your feedback, noted - one thing that would help us when closing debates to avoid ambiguity is if you could write "Redirect to Mirabito Range#Red Rock Peak" explicitly, that way can minimise confusion on my part. I know you referenced linking to a section in your comment but sometimes putting it right in front of our faces with a wikilink etc. can reduce the risk of potential errors like mine. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I added sections for features like Red Rock Peak to the parent after voting for a redirect, so there would be a target for the redirect. Should have changed the wording of the vote. There are a whole lot of little stubs like this where the content is worth keeping, but only as a section in a parent article. I would like to see them all replaced by clean redirects to the sections. A redirect to the parent title only makes sense if the redirect name is a synonym. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On desktop I'm taken to a point above the section, but I think that's because there isn't enough content below it yet so the bottom of the page is 'too high'. Daniel (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My laptop must have a smaller screen than yours. The section title is neatly aligned at the top of the window, and I have a few pixels left to scroll down. But if I click on Mirabito Range#Thomson Peak on the laptop I get the effect you do: taken to a point above the section. I can live with that.
But see the screenshots to the right from a click on Mirabito Range#Red Rock Peak on my phone. The first has scrolled down well past the section title. The second is after I set the default font to the smallest size, and displays as it should. This looks like a bug that affects people with poor eyesight. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kbcars123, you will need to be significantly more specific about what you want to see and why you want to see it. The article will not be restored as an article on Wikipedia, but if there's something in particular you need from the article I will provide it to you here. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I want the list of puma sponsorships page back is because i need to show my sister that they stopped sponsoring the Israel football association, according to an edit made in the page. I needed to show her this to show that they don’t support Israel anymore, which is obviously a good thing. When I was about to show her, it got deleted. So, please, restore the page. Kbcars123 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn't being restored, as a consensus of Wikipedians wanted it deleted at the AfD discussion you tried to re-open. I can confirm that the Israel Football Federation isn't listed on the last version of the page; an unregistered editor removed the below from the page on 18 November 2023, however did not provide a source showing where they stopped sponsoring the IFA:
There is a consensus there not to retain the article (delete and merge combined), and out of the two options, I chose merge as it is a valid alternate to deletion that was not rendered as an invalid option during the discussion. Daniel (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
I am hoping for additional participation to either shore up the 'keep' consensus, or alternatively people to argue Oaktree's contributions and sources presented. As the template says, "generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". Daniel (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to close this AFD discussion but the XFDcloser won't let me, saying that it's already closed but the page history says that it clearly isn't. Have you run into this glitch before? I purged my cache, refreshed the screen but still, nada. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Akyyka, I've undeleted it as a contested prod. You'll see from the article it's in pretty bad shape so might be worth moving to draft-space straight away to work on it? Up to you though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
