User talk:Daniel/Archive/94
- 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.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
Contents
- 1 Discussion on Jimmy's talk page
- 2 The Signpost: 28 May 2014
- 3 The Signpost: 04 June 2014
- 4 Central Coast Mariners
- 5 The Signpost: 11 June 2014
- 6 The Signpost: 18 June 2014
- 7 The Signpost: 25 June 2014
- 8 The Signpost: 02 July 2014
- 9 The Signpost: 09 July 2014
- 10 Melbourne City Football Club vs Central Coast Mariners FC
- 11 The Signpost: 16 July 2014
- 12 The Signpost: 23 July 2014
- 13 The Signpost: 30 July 2014
- 14 The Signpost: 06 August 2014
- 15 Edward Tobinick page, request to revert the protected page to the protected version from August 4, 2014.
- 16 Why so hasty?
- 17 The Signpost: 13 August 2014
- 18 Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borrowed Time (Doctor Who)
- 19 The Signpost: 20 August 2014
- 20 The Signpost: 27 August 2014
- 21 The Signpost: 03 September 2014
- 22 Closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 Liga Bet
- 23 The Signpost: 10 September 2014
- 24 The Signpost: 17 September 2014
- 25 The Signpost: 24 September 2014
- 26 The Signpost: 01 October 2014
- 27 The Signpost: 08 October 2014
- 28 The Signpost: 15 October 2014
- 29 The Signpost: 22 October 2014
- 30 The Signpost: 29 October 2014
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
- News and notes: The English Wikipedia's second featured-article centurion; wiki inventor interviewed on video
- Featured content: Zombie fight in the saloon
- Traffic report: Get fitted for flipflops and floppy hats
- Recent research: Predicting which article you will edit next
- News and notes: Two new affiliate-selected trustees
- Featured content: Ye stately homes of England
- In the media: Reliable or not, doctors use Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Autumn in summer
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
- 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
- News and notes: PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
- Traffic report: The week the wired went weird
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
- Special report: Questions raised over secret voting for WMF trustees
- Featured content: Politics, ships, art, and cyclones
- News and notes: With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
- Featured content: Worming our way to featured picture
- Special report: Wikimedia Bangladesh: a chapter's five-year journey
- Traffic report: You can't dethrone Thrones
- WikiProject report: Visiting the city
- News and notes: US National Archives enshrines Wikipedia in Open Government Plan
- Traffic report: Fake war, or real sport?
- Exclusive: "We need to be true to who we are": Foundation's new executive director speaks to the Signpost
- Discussion report: Media Viewer, old HTML tags
- Featured content: Showing our Wörth
- WikiProject report: The world where dreams come true
- Recent research: Power users and diversity in WikiProjects
- In the media: Wiki Education; medical content; PR firms
- Traffic report: The Cup runneth over... and over.
- News and notes: Wikimedia Israel receives Roaring Lion award
- Featured content: Ship-shape
- WikiProject report: Indigenous Peoples of North America
- Technology report: In memoriam: the Toolserver (2005–14)
- Special report: Wikimania 2014—what will it cost?
- Wikimedia in education: Exploring the United States and Canada with LiAnna Davis
- Featured content: Three cheers for featured pictures!
- News and notes: Echoes of the past haunt new conflict over tech initiative
- Traffic report: World Cup, Tim Howard rule the week
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
- Special report: $10 million lawsuit against Wikipedia editors withdrawn, but plaintiff intends to refile
- Traffic report: World Cup dominates for another week
- Wikimedia in education: Serbia takes the stage with Filip Maljkovic
- Featured content: The Island with the Golden Gun
- Wikimedia in education: Education program gaining momentum in Israel
- Traffic report: The World Cup hangs on, though tragedies seek to replace it
- News and notes: Institutional media uploads to Commons get a bit easier
- Featured content: Why, they're plum identical!
- Book review: Knowledge or unreality?
- Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate
- News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Wikipedia find?
- Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab World
- Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit
- Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons
- Technology report: A technologist's Wikimania preview
- Traffic report: Ebola
- Featured content: Bottoms, asses, and the fairies that love them
- Wikimedia in education: Leading universities educate with Wikipedia in Mexico
Edward Tobinick page, request to revert the protected page to the protected version from August 4, 2014.
editComment 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
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
- Special report: Twitter bots catalogue government edits to Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Disease, decimation and distraction
- Wikimedia in education: Global Education: WMF's Perspective
- Wikimania: Promised the moon, settled for the stars
- News and notes: Media Viewer controversy spreads to German Wikipedia
- In the media: Monkey selfie, net neutrality, and hoaxes
- Featured content: Cambridge got a lot of attention this week
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
- Traffic report: Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero
- WikiProject report: Bats and gloves
- Op-ed: A new metric for Wikimedia
- Featured content: English Wikipedia departs for Japan
- In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Wikipedia news
- News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster
- Traffic report: Viral
- Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures!
- Arbitration report: Media viewer case is suspended
- Featured content: 1882 × 5 in gold, and thruppence more
- Traffic report: Holding Pattern
- WikiProject report: Gray's Anatomy (v. 2)
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
- Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity
- Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue
- WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right
- WikiProject report: A trip up north to Scotland
- News and notes: Wikipedia's traffic statistics are off by nearly one-third
- Traffic report: Tolstoy leads a varied pack
- Featured content: Which is not like the others?
- Featured content: Oil paintings galore
- Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary
- Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland
- WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time
- Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education
- From the editor: The Signpost needs your help
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: Animals, farms, forests, USDA? It must be WikiProject Agriculture
- Traffic report: Shanah Tovah
- Featured content: Brothers at War
- In the media: Opposition research firm blocked; Australian bushfires
- Featured content: From a wordless novel to a coat of arms via New York City
- Traffic report: Panic and denial
- Technology report: HHVM is the greatest thing since sliced bread
- Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?
- Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened
- Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace
- Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext
- Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data
- WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest
- Featured content: Admiral on deck: a modern Ada Lovelace
- Traffic report: Death, War, Pestilence... Movies and TV
- WikiProject report: De-orphanning articles—a huge task but with a huge team of volunteers to help
- Featured content: Go West, young man
- In the media: Wikipedia a trusted source on Ebola; Wikipedia study labeled government waste; football biography goes viral
- Maps tagathon: Find 10,000 digitised maps this weekend
- Traffic report: Ebola, Ultron, and Creepy Articles