Jump to content

User talk:Daniel/Archive/94

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 93 · Archive 94 · Archive 95 →

Discussion on Jimmy's talk page

[edit]

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

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

[edit]

Central Coast Mariners

[edit]

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

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

[edit]

Melbourne City Football Club vs Central Coast Mariners FC

[edit]

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

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Hi JulesH, sorry I missed this message, I must have acknowledged the notification but not responded to it. I closed it as delete because, even though you found those three sources, nothing was changed with the article and hence the delete arguments were persuasive. If you want me to undelete the article and userfy to your userspace, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. (It can then be moved back to articlespace once referencing/formatting/etc. are fixed.) Regards, Daniel (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

[edit]

Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Liga Bet

[edit]

The closure has again been done by non Admin Natg 19 without any rationale .I note that you had reverted a non admin closure by MrScorch6200 and this ANI discussion and this most felt it was close call for a non admin and "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." applied.As it applied then it again applies now .Since you reopened there has been only one more keep.Feel an Admin should close it with a clear rationale.Please note this request is only procedural.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pharaoh of the Wizards, I agree that the closer should have left a rationale given the history of the discussion, including my reopening. That being said, I would have closed as 'no consensus' also, so I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face if I reopened. I see you have shared your concerns on the users' talk page, thanks for that. Beyond that, probably nothing for me to do. Regards, Daniel (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel/Archive/94&oldid=1076245134"