Jump to content

User talk:Daniel: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 331: Line 331:
</div></div>
</div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=621471796 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=621471796 -->

== Closing of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borrowed Time (Doctor Who)]] ==

Hi. Can you explain to me why you don't consider the 3 sources I provided in the deletion discussion as adequate to show notability? [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] ([[User talk:JulesH|talk]]) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:33, 18 August 2014

Archives

So much for being unbiased & neutral – show some actual skill rather than power-tripping, kid.

You deleted my entry on Carson Block & Muddy Waters & for what? It was all neutral, firmly substantiated, and properly sourced. It's people like you that censor inconvenient truth for personal gain & crookedness.

Rondonvolante (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC) RonDonVolante[reply]

Neither personal gain nor crookedness, I'm afraid. The article was far from neutral, by the way - to the point that it was unencyclopedic. Daniel (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

OTRS Volunteer

I have submitted a OTRS Volunteer application here.--Dom497 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom497, can confirm we have received the email (OTRS #2014042810000351). Your application will be processed in due course. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Four-character idiom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Carson Block and Muddy Waters Research.

Hello. Since you cleaned-up Carson Block and protected it a while ago you might be interested in this report at WP:AN3. Thomas.W talk 09:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas, I actually posted at BLPN requesting a block also, I didn't even think to look at AN3 to check if someone had filed it there. I could technically block per policy as I'm not strictly involved and have the immunity which BLP provides, but I'd prefer someone else to, just to keep it clean. Fingers crossed one of my colleagues sees one of the two reports sometime soon! :) Regards, Daniel (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, hello. Related, why is this clearly photo-shopped picture uploaded by the now banned User:Rondonvolante not deleted on the wikia picture project? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carson_Block.jpg Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mosfetfaser, just saw this now. Will see what I can do. Daniel (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess as I blocked, I might as well tidy up this loose end... WJBscribe (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...you just saved me an email I was drafting to yourself! Thanks Will. Hope all is well. Daniel (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

AFC gadget error

FYI, you have importScript('User:Tim_Song/afchelper4.js'); in your monobook.js which pulls in the gadget, hence the error. -- KTC (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KTC :) Daniel (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Lord Laitinen

  • I sent you an e-mail regarding the deletion of "Lord Laitinen's Female Relatives, September 2011.jpg", which I had previously not known about. I spoke to these female relatives at a party today, and they both liked the picture, and wanted me to put it back up on my user page. Neither of them requested its deletion, so I wondered why OTRS was involved. Please send me an e-mail reply at geopatdoer@yahoo.com, or reply on my talk page. Thanks. Lord Laitinen (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Mariners FC nominated for removal of FA status

I have nominated Central Coast Mariners FC for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BencherliteTalk 19:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Jimmy's talk page

Hi. Jimmy has opened a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164#Philosophical discussion of hypothetical BLP situation and some have suggested OTRS could play a role in one or more of the proposals. Would you be interested in commenting? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time is very short at the moment so unfortunately I won't be able to personally. I noticed Keegan replied, and you've alerted the rest of the admin team (saving me an email to our mailing list!), so hopefully someone will jump in in due course. Regards, Daniel (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Central Coast Mariners

Hi Daniel. The lack of a source for the team's players appears to be one of the biggest sticking points remaining. The print sources I've been using have worked wonders for citing most of the article, but they aren't going to do much good for a list of this nature. If the club has a list on their website, that might be the best bet; the A-League might also have one. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind trying to locate a good source for the section? I've been focusing more on improving the larger sections, but failing to address this will cause the FAR to continue. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I'll see what I can hunt down. Thanks again for all your help. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You said that you would format the references after substantial work had been done on the article. I think we're at the point now where this would be a good idea. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. I've pencilled it in for a weekend job. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Melbourne City Football Club vs Central Coast Mariners FC

Having just re-read it, I wanted to thank you for your common-sense comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). It's clear to me that "Melbourne City Football Club" is preferable over the "FC" abbreviation. I haven't invested in the "Central Coast Mariners FC" naming issue but it does seem that there are scant references to support "Football Club" being part of the "official" name (unless the consensus is to use "Football Club" in all cases regardless of whether the club uses it, but I'm not advocating that position). I do hope common sense prevails and reasoned comments like yours shine through. Thanks! —sroc 💬 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sroc, thank you for the kind words. Football/soccer is a dispute I refuse to let myself get involved with generally, because I have very strong opinions on the topic and I don't have the time nor emotional energy to fight that fight. However, given this related to CCM I felt the need to pipe up and add my $0.02 on the fullname issue. I'm glad it was appreciated, at least by yourself.
Regards,
Daniel (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Edward Tobinick page, request to revert the protected page to the protected version from August 4, 2014.

Comment to Mr. Stradivarius, who denied a request to edit the protected page:

Mr. Stradivarius, I must beg to differ, specifically with two of the points you discuss.

Your suggestion that “detailed information on the clinical trials of etanercept would probably be better off in the Etanercept article” does not describe an issue with this biography. There has been no detailed information on the clinical trials discussed on this page.

This is the biography of a physician who is the inventor of new methods of treatment for neurological disorders. The inventions are why the doctor is notable. You can’t separate the doctor and his inventions. The inventions belong on the page.

While there have been no detailed discussions of clinical trials in this article, note of all trials and news stories should be listed, as they represent the response to these inventions. It is the comprehensive and objective listing that readers want, and expect. It is not NPOV to cherry pick which trials or news stories are included, as Positive Stranger has done.

How is the recent Daily Mail (UK)(this article having been removed by Proper Stranger), “Arthritis drug could also halt Alzheimer's: Treatment found to stop progression of memory loss and poor mood” article not relevant to the topic? The doctor’s invention for the treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease, first reported in 2006, has again been reported on by a major London newspaper, its efficacy being confirmed by a randomized clinical trial. This is not detailed information of a clinical trial that belongs on another page. This is news of the results of a randomized clinical trial, from a major news source, confirming the efficacy of a new method of treatment by the inventor. This is exactly the subject of this article.

The doctor is the holder of the following patents for his inventions: U.S. patents 6419944, 6537549, 7214658, 7629311, 8119127, and 8236306, and Australian patent 758,523. The reporting of all trials and news stories relative to these invented new methods of treatment is exactly the kind of comprehensive, objective evidence the reader wants and deserves, and which is required by NPOV.

Intractable spinal pain is a major public health problem around world. This page discusses a doctor and his new methods of treatment for this health problem. Is there evidence of the efficacy of these inventions? Yes, there is. Four randomized clinical trials (their listings removed by Proper Stranger) report on the efficacy of these treatments.

Proper Stranger removed the listing of trials and news stories that speak to the efficacy of these inventions. He did not remove detailed discussions of the trials themselves, which he argues belong on another page. But mentions of the results of these trials, as a reflection of the inventions, belong on this page. And they must not be selectively edited out.

Regarding your statement that you “don’t think it’s fair to characterize the edits in question as “[removing] positive clinical trial results, while leaving other results in.”” I can’t help but think that’s exactly what was done. Why leave a trial with unfavorable results (Johns Hopkins Walter Reed), but remove the positive trials? Why does the unfavorable trial remain? How is it different?! If the stated purpose is to remove what is relevant to the article’s topic, how is this trial more relevant to the topic than the positive trials? The selective removal of positive trial results appears to be simply because they were positive. This is not NPOV.

The cherry picked version of this article, as edited by Proper Stranger, should not be allowed to mislead and misinform readers for a minute more. Please revert this page to the protected version of 4 August 2014.

Thank you. Rjwrjw100 (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so hasty?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople who died during their careers.

Hi, Daniel. The article was deleted just five days and a couple of hours after it was first proposed for deletion. Why the haste? Normally, deletion debates remain open for "at least seven days". There were 6 votes for delete and 3 for keep/fork, which is hardly an overwhelming reason to rush to judgement.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JackOfOz I fear your maths may be slightly out; the deletion discussion began at 20:45 7 August 2014 (UTC). My closure at 21:08 15 August 2014 (UTC) was 8+ days after the debate started. In my opinion the consensus was clear, having discounted the final vote as having no policy-based reason and the other 'keep' as a non-committal crack at the nominator. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borrowed Time (Doctor Who)

Hi. Can you explain to me why you don't consider the 3 sources I provided in the deletion discussion as adequate to show notability? JulesH (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel&oldid=621730611"