[edit] New messages Please click here to add a new message. Cheers, Daniel (talk) - You sir, are a genius! :) —Dark 06:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is very difficult to disagree with :) Daniel (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gray's Anatomy (the textbook, not the stupid pop-culture reference) Article Deletion What possible rationale was behind the deletion of the page List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology? All the other image lists remain, and have for over two years after this article was deleted. Wilford Nusser (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology; I apologise for not including a link in the deletion reason to that discussion. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Daniel, Can you please help me post a "neutrality of this article is disputed" notice on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh The article is clearly written by sympathizers of an organization which Amnesty international has blamed for thousands of deaths. Really appreciate the help. Thanks, evox777 PS: Sorry, if i have posted this in a wrong place :) Evox777 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Hello! R u online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripparuhlla (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009 [edit] The photo screw-up My bad about the Agraceful photo. I wasn't attempting to mark it as that. I was trying to get an image from a website, but i guess i clicked the wrong link. Sorry, I'm still relatively new to the uploading thing. I've had several pics deleted already due to mess ups. Sorry about that.--Krazycev 13 other crap 22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Jon CJ Graham DrV Daniel, Could you clarify that close? Are you saying that you overturned to delete on the basis that BLPs that are no consensus should be deleted? Your closing statement reads that way to me, but I wanted to be sure. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - I closed it as delete because there was a consensus at the deletion review that there was no consensus at the articles for deletion, and as a result the consensus at deletion review was to delete the article based on the lack of consensus at the articles for deletion debate. If that makes sense. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that took some work to parse, but I got there :-). My turn. As there isn't consensus at WP:DEL to delete BLPs that don't have consensus, I think your review, which found no consensus, shouldn't have resulted in deletion, rather it should have continued to be kept. Drat, I think that's actually readable on the first pass. Hobit (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- At the DRV there was a consensus that the delete-in-absence-of-consensus should be applied in this situation, and that's what I based my decision off. Unless there's conflicting policy, consensus at localised discussions (such as DRV) are what decisions are made off; at the moment the BLP policy doesn't contradict the consensus at the DRV, so I went with it. Daniel (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure the current policy remains "default to keep" and that the consensus at WP:DEL's talk is that is how it should be. Only two people suggested overturn to default to delete (one of which I responded to pointing out that that's not policy), so I don't think there was consensus for that reading. Hobit (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this humour is strictly British in scope, but I'll say it anyway: that second comment really did warrant a reply of Yes, Daniel. Sir Humphrey would be proud. AGK 19:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am frankly astonished at the way this DRV was closed. It has become overwhelmingly clear at WT:DEL that Lar's proposal is not going to gain consensus. As best I can tell, Daniel you closed the DRV the way you did on the basis that it is acceptable to default to delete on no consensus. There wasn't even consensus for that view in the DRV itself, let alone at the talk page at DEL. I also note that you haven't addressed Hobit's latest post on this matter. Could you please clarify further? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC) - I have more important things to do than edit Wikipedia on weekends; a cursory check of my contributions would have shown that. I'm only stopping by for one minute now, so your impatient request for a reply will have to remain outstanding for another 48 hours still. Daniel (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in no rush. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- And I apologize for impatience -- my sentence on Hobit's post was out of line. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, finally back at my computer and catching up with things. I think this boils down to simply a difference of opinion about the strength and frequency of arguments put forward that no consensus should default to delete in the deletion review discussion. If you have any ideas how to resolve this moving forwards, I'd be interested to hear them, because at the moment I still believe I was correct to close the deletion review as I did. Regards, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Rationalising the 42 General Questions Hi Daniel, I'm listed as an assistant to the electoral process. We're trying to get the General Questions down to a manageable size. I wonder whether you might consider reducing the number of principles you ask candidates to support or oppose. I see that candidates are required to respond to all of the GQs, and we are also thinking of the task of reading the responses (times the number of candidates). They are here, or if you'd prefer to see the themed presentation, here. Thank you. Tony (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) - Replied at User talk:Tony1. 11:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Daniel, thanks for your reply, including your kind words. My personal view is that your questions are among the most specific and relevant. Of course, there might be a phenomenon in which most of them hold off responding to yours, waiting to see what the others write. That would be a pity, and there's nothing one can do about it. I would keep all seven short questions while severely pruning others, but regrettably the pruning looks like it will have to be severe all over. 42 times the number of candidates is a lot for voters to read, and doesn't even include individual questions. If you had to remove, say, two or three, which ones are the less penetrating?
- But I wanted to ask for clarification on whether candidates should read any of the evidence, the context of each case? Even though the principles you've raised are generally applicable, they arise from a specific set of circumstances that the arbs would have taken into consideration. Reading through each case would be a big job for the candidates. On the other hand, dry voting on a principle that arises from it might be reframed as simply asking whether they agree with the principle in general, without reference to the case. On a related matter, I guess finely balanced voting (e.g., 8–6) is a sign that the principle was hotly debated by the arbs and might have involved difficult decisions.
- The harder thing to do, of course, is to draft a principle out of mock evidence—particularly when parties are/were allowed to bloat, but that might be a little harsh and would suffer even more from the cross-examination of other candidates' responses. Tony (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay in response, busy time of year at the moment.
- My actual hope is that the candidates wouldn't read any of the cases at all - I simply wanted their opinions on the principles, in a vacuum. Do you think it'd be better if I copy-and-pasted the principles and asked them as questions, rather than linking to the actual decisions on the case pages, to ensure that this happens? Daniel (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- The pipe-links you've got there now is neat, but you're right, linking to each case will encourage some candidates to show that they've researched the whole case. Yes, you might consider replacing each link with the text of the principle and explicitly stating in the lead that the questions should not be considered in relation to specific cases, even though they arose from ArbCom cases. Can you reduce the seven to, say, three or four? I think voters will get a good sense of the candidate's powers of reasoning far earlier than even the fifth response. I suspect most will take more than two lines to respond to each, anyway. There are likely to be well over a thousand responses for voters to sift through and there is a one-question rule, although several questioners have not agreed to reduce their contributions. It's now at the template stage. Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- PS Deadline could be extended if you can't get to it tomorrow until after 11am AEST. Please let Manning know if that's the case. Tony (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- This was about all I could bring myself to do. I hope it's enough. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009 [edit] Deleted Image Hi, I recently uploaded an image (HZurich.jpg) twice in the past 6 weeks and both times it was categorized for speedy deletion. I have gotten permission to use the image and I forwarded the email I received from the image's owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org as directed. Skier Dude (talk) categorized my image yesterday for speedy deletion and he recommended that I should contact an admin to verify the email and to have the image re-categorized. I've forwarded the email twice in the past two weeks awaiting re-categorization, but I have not heard nor seen anything about it. Can you look into it? Thanks. Jrnhoops (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009 [edit] Brisbane State High School Hi Daniel! Just curious about the removal of content from the article on Brisbane State High School and why you would consider the information unencyclopaedic. Also, in the section ref #2, it clearly states one of the teachers charged was from the school, but now I do see ref #1 says 'a' in front of it, but I believe (and could be gravely mistaken!) there is another reference somewhere that confirms it is this high school in fact. So I won't restore that information until I have properly referenced it. Cheers JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Questions What, cribbing from Hkelkar 2 and no mention of the "On notice" remedy? Shame, that one actually gave Brad pause (right before he used it). Hkelkar 2 and Durova had a lot in common, particularly the vexing question of private evidence and off-wiki actions. Interesting choices. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Image copyright Hi, this is regarding File:Ruslan Sirota.jpg – the appropriate e-mail has been sent on Nov. 9, if you could please look into this issue as soon as possible it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - Please note this response. Let's keep any discussion centralised, so please respond there. Thank you so much, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 17:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009 Hey, just letting you know about this. On hold for GA sweeps, could be delisted. Wizardman 19:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009 [edit] Translation My pleasure! :) Eelam StyleZ (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Arbcom-l For your understanding: I've never read much of the Ottava Rima case. I've been away, and I will not participate in deliberating the case; I was not actively browsing it. This section was only brought to my attention because of an email to arbcom-l, which pointed out how unhelpful the commentary was. ArbCom is already aware. To prevent further conversation along those lines, I put it under a hat. Cool Hand Luke 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - Surely jumping in and closing discussions when you haven't been actively following the case (and hence don't know the intricacies of it) is a technique fraught with danger, lest you act in a manner which is inconsistent with how the rest of the case has been managed to this point? But I digress. Daniel (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I cannot imagine a case where dispute resolution would be aided by inviting debate about an incendiary comparison to a remote dispute involving a real named living person, who might not be pleased with the comparison himself. Don't do that again. Just don't. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I hope this means that nothing "incendiary" will never be said about me in the future, as I am sure I will be similarly displeased. I will contact you should I ever need your assistance in archiving off any such discussions, because of course my real name is linked to this username prominently (more than can be said for most of the Arbitration Committee, a smidgen ironically). I trust I will have your support in ensuring that any similar "incendiary" remarks made towards me and others are archived and hidden, just as you did so here. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- If someone invites comparisons to you in a case about unrelated User:XYZ, it would be similarly inappropriate, yes. I would act upon that immediately. Cool Hand Luke 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good to hear. I've filed it in the memory bank. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009 [edit] need help finding the author of a Wiki page Hope I am doing this right.... Can I contact the author of a particular page? I think I found an omission in some statistics - but I do not want to assume my information is correct and make changes to the article. I would prefer the author have the opportunity to look at my information. The page is on Sugar, and I think the country of Guyana (South America) has been overlooked in the top 10 sugar production ranks. Guyana produced 273,317 tonnes of sugar in 2000, but I do not see them listed. My information comes from the Guyana Sugar Corporation's web page. (GuySuCo.com) I have tried to find information on the original contributor, but I am not having any luck, probably due to my lack of experience. I am far more used to being on the receiving end of information from Wikipedia and am a little surprised (and unsure) to find myself on the contributing end. Thanks - Anita —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahspringer (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009 [edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009 [edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009 |
