User talk:xDanielx
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Hey there! I'm xDanielx (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email), a student from California and an admin on the English Wikipedia. I'm often busy with academics, so I may be late in reading messages posted here, but feel free to email me if you need my attention.
I am the owner/maintainer of fuBot. If you were redirected here from the bot's talk page, please leave your message here so I'll be more likely to see it promptly.
RFA Thanks[edit]
Dearest XDanielx,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.
Credits[edit]
This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.
Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin[edit]
My dear Wikipedian XDanielx,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day.
Credits[edit]
This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.
This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.
Re: Arch Coal logo[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)[edit]
| The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | |||||
| ||||
Content
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter[edit]
| |||
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Edit that don't respect NPOV[edit]
Hello,
This is a polite observation that some of your edits appear to not respect WP:NPOV. This edit isn't neutral. You removed peer-reviewed scientific studies from the lead, even though these are given considerable attention in the article. Your edit summary "Attempt at a more neutral lede with less details" doesn't make sense. The lead is not too big at all (according to MOS:LEADLENGTH) so why would you want the lead to have less details? Indeed earlier you had added opposing viewpoints to the lead. Your edits seem to be violating WP:FALSEBALANCE as they seem to equate the majority of sources that find GHM figures credible with those that don't. VR (Please ping on reply) 22:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time seeing your rationale here. The current lede is entirely one sided - more than half of the lede is about sources claiming the data is reliable, while opposing views are never mentioned. It's so one-sided that readers are going to be rather confused about why there's so much emphasis on supposed accuracy, when we never mentioned any questions about accuracy.
- Yes the Lancet articles are peer reviewed, but they're also rather old now, and only examined certain aspects of the data. They do not contradict the concerns later raised by Wyner or Spagat, which for the most part don't even pertain to the same data (only Wyner and one Lancet article had overlapping data). So I don't understand why they keep being compared, as if the stronger one would override the weaker one.
- If we remove the mentions of the Lancet articles, the lede is still one-sided, but at least it's not promoting a seemingly unopposed narrative in such detail as to bewilder readers.
- The edit you mention was clearly a good-faith attempt at a compromise. It was following an option mentioned by @IOHANNVSVERVS: (the user who removed the Wyner mention from the lede), who expressed indifference to it. It's hard to see how you could interpret such a compromise as some kind of POV pushing.
- — xDanielx T/C\R 01:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)