User talk:Daniel

Request for Undeletion of Baltic Chemistry Olympiad Page

Hello User:Daniel,

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.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, Olunet (talk) 20:13, 3 February 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]

Australian IP editor

Found them at 124.170.169.93. They gave themselves away when they restored an article that had been deleted by AfD. TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and reverted, thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks Daniel. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadugegoda

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]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

How does a 2 delete, 1 keep, and 2 merge vote end up being a merge close? If anything, this should have been a relist. Pilaz (talk) 17:21, 18 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]

VPK

VPK Group AfD is closed by you but tag is still there? Seems weird. Please take a look. Thanks. 108.160.119.59 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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.

JMWt (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Embassy of the United States, Managua. 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. Pilaz (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Record-keeping note: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 23 closed as endorse. Daniel (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi Govvy, can just be a straight redirect then. I'll action now. Daniel (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revive the deleted page under my user page

Hi Daniel. I request (according to this link) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hilja_Tavaststjerna, this article will be revived under my user page so that I can complete it. Best. —Patricia (Talk) 13:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patricia Mannerheim, done at User:Patricia Mannerheim/Hilja Tavaststjerna. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so much thanks dear Daniel.Best.🙋‍♀️ —Patricia (Talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • 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
  • The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further issues with NewPedia24

NewPedia24 has been acting weird again, and has requested that I unblock them. They're acting quite strange again. I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to bother you, but this is a really an odd situation. I honestly suspect the account might be an AI bot or something. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore them, and leave it to administrators. If they request unblock using {{unblock}} as explained in the block message, it will go into a category for admistrators to look at. There is no need for you to continue to engage with the blocked editor. Daniel (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your TFAR nomination

Hey, I was just in the process of replying when you pulled it :) Do you still want to run it? - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, I was just on your talk page writing you a message! One sec, will finish writing it and copy it across here. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Reruns are fine, though we generally prefer that go through WP:TFAR, the requests page (as opposed to just the pending page, WP:TFAP), and the bar tends to be higher for reruns. In this case, the problem is that Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln was up for a long time on WP:TFAP for its anniversary on April 14, and I've got it on the draft schedule at WT:Today's featured article/April 2024. But April 13 is open if you want it ... people in eastern Australia would actually see the article on their screens for around 10 hours on April 14, so it would seem like the right day for the anniversary for them, if this works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I was writing on your talk page...
Hi Dank, hope you are well. Was reading the TFA nomination guidance around articles that have previously been featured. From what I could see, provided it was more than 5 years ago, there could be up to two per week. But then I read this and it made it sound like an absolute rarity (lets face it, a storm is not the same as the Rosetta stone). Keen for your feedback about whether this is a suitable renomination or not - I profess to have absolutely no idea about the cultural norms around TFA, so very happy to defer to your guidance and advice on this. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
April 13 also works for me too, and agree regarding the time zone comments. Apologies for not going via TFAR. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did put it up at TFAR, it looked fine ... but I'm putting the finishing touches on the first half of the schedule now and you got in on the 13th, so TFAR isn't necessary at this point (but you can still do it if you want). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly how much of the insured damage occurred outside Sydney and its suburbs? - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: - will consult the source material and come back to you, not sure if that was ever specified to be honest but it was 15 years ago so memory isn't all that clear! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's say 5%, then i'm comfortable just talking about "Sydney and its suburbs". If it's 50%, then not. - Dank (push to talk) 05:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much OR but I can't see it being any more than 5% down at Kiama (probably closer to 1%), based on the path of the storm, when it was most severe and the population density of Kiama compared to Bundeena > Palm Beach (aka Sydney & suburbs). By the time it hit us near Gosford it was close to a non-event. But I'll check the sources, especially the Coenraads book if I still have it, to see what they say. Daniel (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 05:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked Coenraads (all 576 pages of it) and there's no breakup included, just the total number. On that basis, I think "Sydney & suburbs" or words to that effect is the best way forward as you have copyedited it to say. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

Typo

You closed Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_February_17#Chikki_Panday_(closed) with the words: Speedily overturned as an inappropriate NAC and incorrect reading of consensus, in my capacity as an involved administrator per. I assume that you meant as an uninvolved administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up, fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Unblock

Thank you for accepting to unblock me. But I just would like to inquire about this statement: Note that as per the comments below, it goes without saying that you are on a pretty tight piece of rope here, and any further disruptive behaviours will result in the block being re-instated. Happy editing and welcome back. Does this mean that if I made any mistake, I will be indefinitely blocked? This is my only time with disturbive editing since almost 8 years of editing and second time of being blocked for engaging in the Palestine-Israel conflict area. If I was indefinitely blocked from the problematic topic area, this would solve the problem. Why should this be my fatal mistake? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reported back to AN/ANI for disruptive editing (ie. something significant or persistent), if the complaint is upheld, it is likely the block will be reinstated. This is how second chances work. Daniel (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "the block will be reinstated" you mean indefinite block? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will be up to those who review any subsequent complaint, but it will likely be longer than someone who wasn't on a second chance. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Salmoonlight

Hi, I now understand the report I made was insufficient for reporting on the ANI, however I do notice your verdict seemed to only apply to the disruptive editing on the current events page. I would like to ask why exactly was his decision to remove the report considered just a careless mistake where it actually exemplifies traits equivalent to being disobedient to rules/laws? An innocent person committing contempt of court should still be charged with contempt of court. Weisz21 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from your analogy, if this editor was 'guilty' of 'contempt of court', you would be similarly 'guilty' of improper use of process and likely vexatious litigation. For the same reason I didn't suggest any disciplinary action for your incorrect filing (instead of using any other dispute resolution tool available), I would suggest that you would do well to drop any issues you have over their process foibles. Equity in response for equivalent actions is something I believe strongly in, and if you are wishing to push the envelope on this issue, it opens your actions up to review also. On that basis, I would recommend focusing on the content issue with the current events page. Daniel (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand Weisz21 (later renamed to 'Shakdust487') is now blocked as a sock of User:Alpoin117 after this report I made. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop going after me in bad faith. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Salmoonlight: no need to get involved here, and please do not bite back. I agree this editor needs to stop and focus on the content issues (per my above comment). Daniel (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You understand the situation completely, I trust you can read the characters behind the situation and I’m clarifying just in case that the matter was that it wasn’t enough for an ANI, I do not have knowledge of vexation litigation cases but I trust it can include cases where the accused is not completely innocent, such as this one, cheers to intelligent editing. Weisz21 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

  • The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ*ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
  • Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for all of the work you do in AFDLand. It's appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babysharkboss2 again

Hi Daniel, they are at the peanut gallery comments again. I know they want to help but they have been warned multiple times to stop it. Do they just need a final warning? Thanks, v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 18:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. That one, while pointless, isn't bad enough to escalate just yet. Thanks for the heads-up though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Does this push it over the edge. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 16:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, thank you for closing this discussion. I was just wondering if you judged whether or not there was consensus for the mass-rollback proposal contained within the same section.

All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A smart kitten: no consensus achieved for that action from that discussion, unfortunately. There hadn't been a comment in that section for nearly a week, so short of restarting the discussion (feel free to do so as a new subsection if you so wish), unlikely consensus would form. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Goumas

Hi, i want to create the page which deleted. I will use further information with more reliable sources. I want an answer if i have the right to ceate again. Thank you for your time Thanbla (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Draft:Konstantinos Goumas to improve the article, then request approval via WP:AfC. Given it was deleted at AfD only two weeks ago, it will have to be a significant improvement to not be re-deleted immediately. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox storm

Template:Infobox storm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AATalk 16:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI, HELLO

In an article recently merged with the afd where is consensus made to know? The dogcat (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment makes no sense. Please explain what you mean, and provide links to the relevant pages and/or discussions you are talking about. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, I refer to Yuuki (Sword Art Online) where the discussion was made. The dogcat (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online). It's pretty clear from that discussion that a consensus of editors believes that the article shouldn't exist. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, Yes, but I can improve it, so can I recreate it or not? The dogcat (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to create a fully-complete draft and then file at deletion review to ask for approval to move it back to mainspace. Daniel (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, One question I already have a draft but how is it presented? The dogcat (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel&oldid=1214220863"