Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 89 · Archive 90 · Archive 91 →

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

[edit]

Question

[edit]

Why was the Rob Sawivki AfD courtesy blanked? Could you email me the rationale if too sensitive to post here? Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll email you in a sec. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I understand. Rikster2 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate the understanding. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

[edit]

"Courtesy blanking" on Talk:Moral_panic

[edit]

Per the talk page template, I have a question about the following edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_panic&diff=537301801&oldid=536810824

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moral_panic&diff=537301908&oldid=537301801

Certainly some of the comments elsewhere were personal attacks, and I see you removed those as violations of BLP, but this seems excessive. Discussion of the COI contributed by multiple SPA accounts should remain on the talk page in case those accounts or others later continue the publicity campaign. At this point all we have to count on are the personal memories of those editors who saw it happen at the time. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two individuals won't be editing again, and if they do then the content can be restored then. But consider this a form of right to vanish/courtesy blanking. BLP is the justification behind the 'culture' that allows edits like this to happen, as opposed to being a descriptive policy in this instance. It is unnecessary to restore the content also because it is in the history. I ask that you don't restore it. Regards, Daniel (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on it. I restored it when it was just a brand new user blanking it, but if a neutral third party who is another longtime editor thinks it should be removed I'll accept it. Hell, even if I were bent out of shape over it I wouldn't put it back, as it's not worth a fight.DreamGuy (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it heaps. That was sort of similar to the logic when I removed it - I figured it wouldn't be too much skin off any of our noses to leave it only in the history, so if it makes someone happy then we may as well just do it. Thanks again, Daniel (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

[edit]

Lally Weymouth

[edit]

Is there an OTRS ticket for her? Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, but I'm not going to fight too hard on the personal life section because her email was really focusing on the unsourced quote that was removed by the IP address (presumably the subject) and wasn't restored when the personal life section was referenced. If anything, the sourcing of that personal life section is so good now that there'd be no way to justify removing it, even if a massive song-and-dance was made about it. Daniel (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, I've got better things to do anyway. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]

{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=04:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)}} Rschen7754 04:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, replied. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

Six years ago, you did an amazing job of mediating a content dispute between myself and another editor (now retired). Over the past month, I've found myself in some content and conduct disputes with three specific editors who often contribute to the same articles. Over the past two days or so, I've eben subjected to maybe half a dozen personal attacks by these editors across multiple talk pages. I trust your judgment, so I'd like to ask what you think I should do. The three of them have been blocked at various times for edit warring, personal attacks, and vandalism, one of them in particular due to a conflict with myself a few weeks ago. That individual opened a somewhat (unintentionally) humorous case against me which is ongoing at WP:ANI. I hope those last few bits give enough background and that you find the time to give me some advice. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

[edit]

unprotect request

[edit]

Please unprotect (or reduce to semi) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log so that I can:

Done. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WDSU

[edit]

I had posted my concerns on the talk page, but I was just about to make a more concerted effort to get the page protected, then you did just that. Thank you. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There's something going round the internet at the moment about it, we got an email just before. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

[edit]

Juno Roxus

[edit]

I noticed that you recently changed the birth dates for Juno Roxus citing update dob per suggestion (seems to have some google presence). Following which another anonomyous editor switched them back. Is it possible for you to provide inline citations as to the birth date of Roxus, which would then provide clarification for all. Dan arndt (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have a source for it (I was replying to an OTRS email), and in my opinion both DOB's should be removed as neither can be nailed down as being sourced. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

[edit]

OTRS

[edit]

Looks like we were working on the same ticket at the same time! (BIll Clinton article) Hope you don't mind, I sent a reply letting the sender know it was all squared away. Mike V • Talk 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah no worries at all. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predators Watch

[edit]

Hi there, can you please think about closing AFD as no consensus instead of delete. I do not think that there was any consensus. Thank you , MarioNovi (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article did not comply with our policies, and the nomination statement wasn't refuted. Daniel (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you disagree if it was with in policy but there was still no consensus. I disagreed with nomination and supplied many sources and the nomination only wanted to delete it because it had vandalism. Does not sound like consensus to me. Can you reconsider? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough with my deletion. Sorry, Daniel (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Predators Watch

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Predators Watch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MarioNovi (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Stockton and George Komsky

[edit]

My Wikipedia approved page titled "Becca Stockton and George Komsky" keeps being tampered with. I see now you have deleted it. Please explain why a legally sound article was removed? I have all of the proof in the world that this is a verifiable act.

Thanks for your help,

KS 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komskystockton (talk • contribs)

Replied here. Daniel (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

[edit]

OTRS Login

[edit]

Hi Daniel,

I tried logging on to the OTRS website, and it says that there isn't an account under my username (Mike V). I can still log on to the interface just fine, but not the wiki. Any idea what's up? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 17:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. I tried renaming you again, hopefully it works now. Let me know how you go. Daniel (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it worked just fine. Mike V • Talk 19:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Gao

[edit]

We are wondering why you removed our information from the "Godfrey Gao" wiki page and claimed vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.254.118 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content lacked an independent reference to verify it; linking to your own website doesn't count. Daniel (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a press release showing the facts the were removed were true. http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/superbox-talent-management-client-godfrey-gao-lands-role-the-mortal-instruments-city-pinksheets-sbox-1683950.htm We would kindly ask that you revert back to the facts about Godfrey Gao's contractual management that was previously posted on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.254.118 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases issued by your own company don't count as independent reliable sources. Daniel (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

[edit]

Deletion of Buffalo G

[edit]

Hi - going back six years here, to this deletion of Buffalo G. It was deleted on the basis of failing WP:MUSIC; the official Irish Charts website confirms that their single We're Really Saying Something charted for 3 weeks in Ireland in 2000, peaking at 13. They received significant coverage in Ireland and the UK at the time. --Kwekubo (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content that was deleted is pretty average and doesn't assert notability, but I'd suggest anyone would be more than welcome to recreate the article with proper assertions of notability and it should be fine. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

[edit]

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

[edit]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/90&oldid=1090500085"