User talk:Mdaniels5757/Archive 1

Phyllis Chesler revert
Hi Mdaniels,

Can I ask why you reverted the IP editor at Phyllis Chesler? The information you restored was poorly-sourced (to Breitbart/original reasearch) information in a WP:BLP, introduced to the article by a novice editor just a few days ago. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry, didn't realize that. I reverted due to unexplained section blanking. The first paragraph looked adequately sourced. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph was sourced to an article from Breitbart News, which I don't think counts as a WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're talking about different things; I'm referring to https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/may/04/mideast-studies-chief-at-ua-suspended-o/?page=3, which appears to be reputable. That article credits "Breitbart's report" (in scare quotes because it is, after all, Brietbart) on the fact that the presentation was cancelled, but it appears that the Democrat-Gazette based their reporting on emails from a public records request. In any event, this is all moot, as it looks like it's adequately covered in the rest of the article. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A side note while you're here: what would proper etiquette be on removing the "April 2019" talk section above (given that the The Right Version of the Charlottesville article was semi-protected as a result of, in part, the posting user's actions)? The user pages article didn't seem to say much either way on this. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello. I've granted you the rollback right. I'm sure you can find and read the documention and template that I'm probably supposed to provide here, so please do that. Like anyone I grant rollback to, you get additional notes, since I view the misapplication of rollback/Huggle one of the biggest problems around. I don't like to see either misused and don't afraid of removing them. So, please be careful and take things slowly, every time. If in doubt, please provide a meaningful edit summary instead. And always check the page history so you don't rollback to a wrong version. Thanks, enjoy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Careful with Huggle
Hi there. Just a friendly reminder that WP:PROD templates can be removed for any reason by any editor, so this revert of yours was a mistake. Regards So  Why  08:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad; it won't happen again. Thanks for letting me know. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism
Hi! I reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strom_Thurmond&diff=892813521&diffmode=source this because the original edit was done by an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D1:42C:583F:222:8D66:24BB which has done nothing but vandal edits like this one to other pages. Then, it was edited by another vandal to a worse vandalism, which was then reverted by a someone else to the minor vandalism. The ips edits have all been unsourced claims of white nationalism. Bepvte (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC) It looks like some of these edits were valid, and that in my first vandalism cleanup attempt I was a bit overzealous. I will try to be more thourough in the future.Bepvte (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

.
You are a terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.181.6.237 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

New section
Screw you fucking libtard, I hope you go die in hell. Libtards are crybabies! 2603:9001:E08:A6D:C89A:5187:CC40:7D7D (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your team trees wiki revertion
Hy Mdaniels, I am the dude that put the lorax thing in the TeamTrees wiki page, and i want to ask you, why do you take it off? It's just a joke

190.242.110.202 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC) a random redditor


 * Were you trying to vandalize the article? Vandalism is not tolerated here. However, I will add what you said about Tobi Lutke's The Lorax reference in the table, under the "Notes" section. -Melofors (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Hey, I was just wondering why you removed my comment on Kalen Ballage’s page about how the dolphins are the worst team in the nfl this 2019 season? This is a very very true statement and their stats prove it. Drednaw (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is moot, as Drednaw (talk) was blocked for being WP:NOTHERE, but I reverted due to the edit being non-constructive. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Mistake at Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)?
Hi I wonder if you may have made a mistake in this edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)&diff=927670736&oldid=927413400] at Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor) as you seem to have left a !vote in the subthread intended for further threaded discussion rather than the main thread where it's intended. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did put it in the wrong thread; I've moved it. Thanks for letting me know! Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ezra Lavant
Why did you revert my edit to Ezra Lavent's page? If you have seen any of his videos you will see that he is an ebegger. Please only revert when the edit is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.181.184.30 (talk • contribs)
 * Note to future readers: user was banned for BLP policy violations. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

ISS/CBM-related Images
I've left notes for you on the talk pages of four images you've recently tagged for deletion. I'll leave it to you to decide whether my rationale is adequate.

Thanks for the supervision. Not fred999 (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I've removed the PROD tags. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Photo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WinterStorm20181206.jpg
Go ahead and delete it. Its old, and since no page has used this, it needs to be deleted. Thanks Bryce M (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Bryce. Thanks for your response. FYI, as I am not an admin, I cannot delete an image. Rather, I tagged the image with a "PROD tag", which marks the image for possible deletion by an admin. I'd recommend reading WP:PROD for more about the process. Cheers! Mdaniels5757 (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Closure of Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (3rd nomination)
Could you please explain how you arrived at your keep closure at Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (3rd nomination)? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Barkeep49. Thanks for your question. I'm on mobile right now, but wanted to acknowledge you and let you know that I will respond to your question by about 10PM CET at the latest. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience. I'll start by breaking down the nomination into its components and analyzing the discussion's response; then explain why I believed that the consensus was keep and non-admin closure was appropriate.
 * 1. "No significant coverage in WP:RS."
 * This is not true. User:Djm-leighpark examined the prior AfDs and Google Books and found reliable sources, including a book chapter.
 * 2. Poor Alexa rank.
 * This is true. The website currently does have a poor Alexa rank. Presumably this has to do with the fact that the site is defunct. Per User:Djm-leighpark, its Alexa rank was 47,000 in 2005 when the site was operating.
 * 3. Fails WP:NWEB.
 * WP:NWEB states that "web-specific content may be notable" if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." For the reasons in #1, it satisfies this requirement.
 * Additionally, although WP:GNG was not cited in the nomination, the article satisfies the GNG for the reasons above.


 * Now we move to consensus. Consensus is, of course, not merely determined by counting heads; rather, it is determined by looking at, inter alia, the strengths of each argument. The nomination amounted to a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Although this is not necessarily fatal provided discussion backs up such claims, the nominator failed to support their claims in the discussion, and the discussion in fact rebutted them.
 * Finally, I believed that non-admin closure was appropriate, as I thought the call was fairly clear. If you think that, even if the consensus was to keep, the call was too close, please let me know so I can improve in the future. If you'd like me to reopen the discussion or have any additional feedback, please let me know. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Courtesy ping. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to write this out. A few comments:
 * I think character count tells you nothing about strength of arguments. I am longwinded a lot of the time. I admire those who make the point as well as I do in half the text. For an extreme example of how lots of writing can add up to little see this AfD.
 * I see three participants at this AfD. I think Djm has done more than enough to provide and defend sources that demonstrate notability. However, it's essential two editors disagreeing with each other, and a brief mention from a third editor siding with keep.
 * Based on the analysis you did and dearth of participation I would suggest participating in the the AfD would have been more helpful than closing it. As is it seems like a bit of a super vote.
 * Given the length of discussion some version of what you posted here would have been called for, in my opinion, rather than a close with no statement.
 * I think given my relisting statement and the quality of discussion that it was not, as WP:NAC lays out "beyond doubt a clear keep and thus inappropriate for non-administrative closure. As such I would ask you to consider reverting your close.
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Yes, I agree that the character count doesn't say anything about the strength of the arguments; I should have been clearer about what I meant. I agree with your feedback, and have reverted my close. Thanks again and best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. would it be appropriate for me to comment with some version of this, notwithstanding my prior close? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Yum, thanks! Any particular reason or nah? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerning an informal study
Hi there. I was conducting an "informal" study on the usage of Portals on Wikipedia, and for that reason, I've come to ask you a few question: Apologies for wasting your precious time on Wikipedia. P.S. It's all fine with me if you don't want to answer these questions. Ambuj Shukla (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How often do you use Portals?
 * Which Portals do you visit (if any)?
 * How useful do you find them?

BLPPROD
Hi there, I noticed you've been mass BLPPRODDING articles and while I feel you in the fight to rid WP of unsourced BLPs, many of these technically have sources, especially when they link authority control. Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize that the authority control counted as a "source". Is it possible for me to reverse those taggings as nominated in error, even when the article does not have reliable sources (WP:BLPPROD says "once (properly) placed (emphasis added))? Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is the biggest problem with prods including BLPPROD is that people interpret it very strictly (personally, I wish they didn't.) If there were sources originally (this applies particularly to older articles) whether they were reliable/dead links/total garbage or not, it negates a BLPPROD. It's only when no sources ever existed and a BLPPPROD is placed does the "reliable" source part in terms of contesting it come into play. It's kind of contradictory to literally everything WP stands for but dems da stupid  rules. Though when it comes to auth control, having world cat ID, if its actually the correct subject is generally a good indicator there are reliable sources. If it were up to me I'd nuke most of this category if it's been tagged for more than a year and start over and it's why I have that handy "bored?" button on my userpage ;) Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, looking at the whole category, (I got through to "H"), it looks quite dismal. I'd also note that just today, a few users on the articles I tagged actually came by and added sources(!), improving the encyclopedia. IMHO, if the tag gets removed for that reason, the PROD was a success--it improved the encyclopedia (although it'd be nice if the threshold for removal is that the BLP article is at least mostly properly sourced). I actually made a proposal on the BLPPROD talk page to not count IMDB and Twitter/Facebook/Instagram as "sources", any thoughts there would be appreciated. And with respect to fixing the mess I made, could you please confirm that I'm good to go through and self-revert as required? Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of your prods are good and even if they're incorrect, getting people sourcing the article is even better. I just wanted to give you a heads up cause I saw it in a tag feed that I watch. I wouldn't bother self reverting honestly, because as you said, it's getting the attention of other editors who are actually adding sources, I would just check the history going forward (a few I found actually had decent sources before some SPA came and mucked it all up.) As far as your proposal, I'm in total agreement especially when it comes to low profile individuals and I think that we are far, far too lax on sourcing such articles. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also an apology as I totally don't want to scare you off or discourage you from patrolling this stuff - you've done a lot of good by placing these even if some were technically incorrect, like this one which was vandalized and untouched since 2018! Praxidicae (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the all of this help. It's probably good I don't have the mop; I probably wouldn't nuke all of the old ones in that depressing category, but I can't say it would be a bad idea if I did. Also, if you do have thoughts on that BLPPROD proposal, a support there would be appreciated :). And I'm in full agreement with you that keeping unverifiable articles makes no sense -- we should make them sourced or get rid of them, and it looks like the threat of deletion is what helps the most on the former as well. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above comments as the trouble with a lot of the older articles is that the original creators have long gone and the articles have then been messed about with the removal of references so before you prod you need to check through the history to see if it used to have references and if so then revert to that version. Also you can add references yourself if possible for example I noticed you prodded some national level politicians that are bound to be notable. Also prodding so many at once does raise the workload of editors and admin on prod patrol, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But the onus isn't on the prodder to add the sources. There are thousands (literally, check the category) of unsourced and very poorly sourced BLPs. If a prod tag gets someones attention and they add a source, it takes the workload off of one editor and evenly distributes it. We need to deal with these BLPs, so I'm a fan of WP:IAR in applying these...Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the prodder to check whether articles had been prodded before (as you will know, prodding can only be done once). Obviously, if articles have been to AfD before, you can't prod them either. This article had been prodded before and been through an AfD; don't prod until you've looked at the history.  Schwede 66  18:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about regular prod. A regular prod can be added only once, it doesn't mean that a contested regular prod can't be blpprodded. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I came here to make much the same point as Atlantic306: per WP:BLPPROD, the onus is very clearly on the nominator to determine if there's a sourced version to which the article can be reverted. B. B. Chakrabarti and Stefanos Chandakas had such versions, which I've now restored. This is a very clearly explained aspect of the (otherwise generally unclear and unworkable) BLPPROD policy, so there's really no reason not to check and certainly no reason why WP:IAR ought to apply. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * got it; thanks and sorry. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)