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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Merry Christmas, Daniel/Archive! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me14:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
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! LizRead!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]
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?
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.
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. TarnishedPathtalk10:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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 Tailtalk03:13, 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]
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
I am writing to request the undeletion of the Wikipedia page titled "Baltic Chemistry Olympiad" which was deleted on [14.12.2023] for the second time. It is not funny that some wiki-enthusiasts decide that BChO is a minor event. You are obviously unaware of the history and traditions of scientific olympiads. Let me explain that there are only four international chemistry olympiads with a significant history: International (since 1968), Mendeleev (since 1992), Ibero-American (since 1996), and Baltic (since 1993). Most importantly, the problems of the Baltic Chemistry Olympiad problems in English. Most of them are publicly available, and I am currently working on digitalizing the rest of them. Thus, not only is it a regionally important event, but it is also a significant source of problems for the whole Olympiad community.
I have thoroughly reviewed the deletion policy and believe that the page meets the criteria for inclusion based on the reasons mentioned above. I have also ensured that the content adheres to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, neutrality, and notability.
I kindly ask for your consideration to review the circumstances of the deletion and to consider the new information provided in this request. I am open to feedback and willing to collaborate to address any concerns. For more details, please get in touch with me directly.
Dear @Daniel:, the page is completely rewritten. References are added. Please review the draft and add it to the wikipedia or let me know what should be improved. Olunet (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curious why you chose delete over NC here. Could care less about the topic, but the sourcing in the AfD is better than most things I've seen deleted and the vote was pretty well split. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jclemens, thanks for the note. When I reviewed this I largely discounted Rublamb's !vote due to being largely disproven by Sammi Brie's reply, Suitskvarts cited an essay (SINGLESOURCE), and Kazamzam's !vote lacked detail and a response to the delete !voters concerns. Nearly everybody in the discussion (including Red-tailed hawk's comment which was just about a delete !vote without labelled as such, and also Suitskvarts's keep !vote) acknowledged this had a single source but not the multiple sources required for GNG, and thus I found that the argument that GNG had not been met was probably the strongest - and had sufficient numerical support to be considered a consensus. Have I stuffed up and misread this here? I have always valued your well-reasoned opinions and input at DRV and would be keen to know if you think I've missed the mark with this reading of the debate in your view. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say you've screwed up. Or rather, I'm blunt enough that if I think you screwed up, I'd be more forthright about it, and, frankly, I rarely disagree with your closes. In this case, I think the difference boils down to interpreting Red-tailed hawk's comment. I can't access the link about her apparent near-death, but if someone says that source isn't great for notability, I wouldn't read that as a delete. Unfortunately, it was the last comment, relists had been exhausted, and it was only up for less than five hours before the close. Absent any evidence that Red-tailed hawk's comment was designed to game the system, I'd've called that a no consensus. The other contributing factor was that UtherSRG's !vote was clearly erroneous, as Red-tailed hawk's comment pointed out, leaving everything essentially unchanged since the last relist in my estimation. The world isn't going to end if this article stays deleted... and actually, now that I've typed that all out, I note that LAT piece that everyone had considered SINGLESOURCE... was in an advertising supplement, rather than actual news. So, I've convinced myself you were right the whole time, even if for a reason no one pointed out in the discussion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year. I got a request to create or undelete this article, which has been the subject of no less than four AfDs, but I can't do it now as I am no longer a sysop and am very busy IRL. Can you investigate this matter, having closed a prior AfD? Bearian (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian, thanks for the note. The editor spammed the same copy-paste message to about 15 people (including myself) according to their contribs, and subsequently were blocked for disruptive editing. I don't think a reply is needed anymore as a result, at least if/until they are unblocked. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, in no way critical of you closing this AfD as delete. It's just that I came across, the closed AfD on my watchlist today. My query is whether it would be in order to create a redirect from Wadugegoda pointing to the town of Ahangama of which it is part, if a new governance section within Ahangama was written and mentioned Wadugegoda as one of its Grama Niladhari. Sources are this official map https://www.mpclg.gov.lk/web/images/wardmaps/galle/20_Galle_HabaraduwaPS.pdf (it's no 161B division of Ward 15 in the left hand table) plus Wadugegoda is mentioned in this article where it seems homes in the "village" were damaged/destroyed in a tsunami https://www.sundaytimes.lk/050529/plus/2.html (end of 4th paragraph). Thought it best to ask your opinion rather than going alone, as it may be against some rule. Rupples (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupples, no issue at all creating a redirect here - there was no discussion about a possible redirect in the AfD, so no consensus exists either way as to whether a redirect is appropriate or not. In this situation feel free to be bold and create one - if anyone has an issue with it, they can subsequently take it to redirects for discussion. Thanks for checking though, and hope this makes sense. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Between delete and merge, there was consensus not to retain the article. Merge was chosen by me as the closer as a valid ATD. No need to relist here when there is a clear consensus not to retain the article. Daniel (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD
I saw you closed this AfD. I understand most !votes were to keep, so I'm not challenging your closure. But can you give a more detailed explanation of why you closed the way you did - especially with respect to the contention that this article's scope might be too similar to that of an existing article, making it a WP:CFORK. VR(Please ping on reply)04:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, there is overwhelming majority viewpoint that the article should be kept - there is literally no other way a closer could close that, without it being a supervote. As I referenced in my close, any further conversations around scope/potential duplication/altering focus of article to avoid being a fork can continue on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and not asking you to change the closure itself but merely give a more detailed explanation. Can you explain how you assessed whether or not this article is a CFORK of anti-zionism? Despite the overwhelming majority of !votes for keep, very few !votes addresses this point. VR(Please ping on reply)05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a well-participated debate like this one, my job isn't to assess whether an argument is right or wrong (that's for those !voting to do); rather, is the argument supported by consensus. In this situation, I assessed that the argument that it is a fork of that article did not have sufficient consensus, and therefore the argument could not be carried as successful. Daniel (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You closed the AfD on the 9th December, but I already merged the necessary content on the 3rd December last year. I am not sure if you wanted to delete and redirect or not? Govvy (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
