Misplaced Pages

User talk:Daniel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:40, 6 July 2008 editHurricanehink (talk | contribs)Administrators61,879 edits →Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #18: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:54, 5 January 2025 edit undoDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,540 edits →Jennifer Parlevliet DRV: r to Cryptic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:Daniel/Top}} {{NOINDEX}}
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class=" multicol" style="background:transparent; width:100%;" {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class=" multicol" style="background:transparent; width:100%;"
| align="left" valign="top" style="border:0; font-size:95%; font-family: Segoe UI, Tahoma, sans serif; font-size: 95%;"|
<p></p>
| align="{{{align|left}}}" valign="{{{valign|top}}}" style="border:0; font-size:95%; font-family: Segoe UI, Tahoma, sans serif; font-size: 95%;"|
__TOC__ __TOC__
| width="270px" align="{{{align|left}}}" valign="{{{valign|top}}}" style="border:solid #{{User:Daniel/Colour I}} 1px; font-size:95%; padding: 3pt; background:white"| | width="360px" align="left" valign="top" style="border:solid #0581B5 1px; font-size:95%; padding: 3pt; background:white"|
;Archives
{{User talk:Daniel/Archive}} {{User talk:Daniel/Archive}}
|} |}
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class=" multicol" style="background:transparent; width:100%;" {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class=" multicol" style="background:transparent; width:100%;"
| align="left" valign="top" style="border:0;"|
<p></p>
{{-}}
| align="{{{align|left}}}" valign="{{{valign|top}}}" style="border:0; font-size:95%; font-family: Segoe UI, Tahoma, sans serif; font-size: 95%;"|


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
== An email ==


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
is on its way. ] <small>(<span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small> 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->


== Question About Formal Tone and AI Concerns ==
==Another e-mail==
You have maaaaiiilll...lll...ll...l ] | ] 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC).


Hi Daniel,
== I think you may have lost your way... ==


I just wanted to ask, does using a formal tone in my responses mean I'm using AI? I’ve been trying to keep my responses clear and respectful, but I didn’t realize that could be seen as AI-generated.


Is it a problem to write in a more formal style here, or does that automatically raise concerns about using AI? I'm just trying to understand what's expected.
Are you serious? Surely you cannot be serious. And, let's upack your statment just a little bit, how on earth do you know that I did it "just to prove point"? What was my point, anyway? That it's a waste of space to template paste in a swath of empty section I'll never use? That splitting discussion is a bad thing?


Thanks for your input! ] (]) 20:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I (re)used that section because it's fussy and pointless to enforce this foolish consistancy. The vast majority of editors can work just fine in a shared section, and suprisingly did so
:Two (out of two I checked) of your posts came up as 90% AI-written according to the AI detector I used (which is falliable, but that's such a coincidence). Further, the subheadings that you used were distinctive of AI-generated messages. I still believe you were using AI to generate those two messages. (By contrast, this message registers 0%.) ] (]) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, . ] (]) 22:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What's the current guidance on blocking AI trolling, which this clearly is? ] (]) 23:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't feel good about feeding back the "tells" either ("subheadings") ] (]) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::There's no automatic prohibition in project-space, so it needs to be judged through the lens of general disruption. The use of subheadings is both a tell but also part of the disruptive nature of LLM-generated projectspace postings, so I don't think it's fair to say "you're being disruptive" but not explain ''how'' it's disruptive. ] (]) 00:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::In response to your fairness objection, I think it's wrong to knowingly assist in calibration of such models. We don't feed trolls, we shouldn't tutor AIs. ] (]) 00:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
|}


==AFDs==
There appears to me to be far too much paper shuffling and not enough actual dispute resolution going on here.
Hello, Daniel,


I know you needed to take a break from admin responsibilities and I probably feel like that every week! But it's great to see you back, helping out in AFDLand. You've been missed in our regular rotations of AFD closers. Glad to have you back! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
<font color="black">]</font> 07:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks Liz! Yesterday and today have been reasonably quiet for me so thought I'd jump in and help out. Life gets busy again tomorrow for a few weeks but I'll do whatever I can to help! Cheers, ] (]) 06:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:This issue is too frivolous to bother about... both of you, just calm down. &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 09:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::Aaron, I am merely charged with doing what ArbCom tell me to. ArbCom told the clerks to change the workshop manner and to refactor new workshop pages to comply with it. If you have an issue with it, lobby them to fix it - I can't help you. I could care much for either format, to be perfectly honest, but that's irrelevant in my view. What is important is how ArbCom want it, and to what degree they want edits refactored to comply with it. ] (]) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I've just read my comment above as if someone else had written it, and my "tone of voice" is way off base. In real life, I've got a high squeaky voice and a big cheesy grin, so I can rip into you outrageously and not give much offense. None of the light heartedness comes across in plain text, and this is often a problem for me. Same goes for kicking the tires on the arbitration pages: Brinksmanship is more dangerous when the other person can't read your body language, etc.
:::That aside, I see that we clearly have different ideas about clerk-hood. (This next bit I'm trying to be nice but clear, so if I'm a dick please just tell me and I'll redact.) I'd presumed that clerks were not just automatons, but that they combined the ability to not get bored with fiddly work '''and''' a healthy dose of judgement and discretion.
:::Taking my recent poke-in-the-arb's-guts as an example:
:::* Editing the "proposed decision" page was admittedly a way-out there step, BOLD<sup>2</sup>. It was not disruption to make a point, since I actually do think it needed to be done, but I am a strong believer that ]
:::* Sharing a section with D, however, were so trivial that reverting them was serious overkill. Again, sharing the section wasn't done for disruption, but because it's a senseless rule. Note the duplication of proposals that has resulted from everyone having their own little patch? How can that possible be helpful?
:::* The later section heading was just me being an arse, but was the change really required?
::: In case it's not utterly clear, I agree that the specifics here are trivial beyond belief, but I'm pretty concerned about the generalities. I'd like to have the issue of clerk's roles discussed further, but I can also take "bugger off twat" pretty genially.
:::<font color="black">]</font> 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree that reverting would have been way overkill, and discourteous. Rather than reverting (and removing your comment entirely), I simply made your edits comply with the format ArbCom want. Kind of a dont shoot the messenger situation, really. ] (]) 01:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


== Hougang knife attack AfD ==
Brenny asked me to pop by. Why, I have no idea. I'm supposedly some sort of raving loon according to some, not the calm reasoned voice that he thinks I am... But anyway, enough about me. I think this every person for themselves format in Workship is a failure, at least in some cases, and it should not be rigidly adhered to, instead used flexibly based on the situation.
*But, Brenny... why not ask the arbs to allow forebearance, instead of making their work harder by somewhat pointy exercises? Just before this you were merrily editing on the workshop page itself were you not? What is UP with that, man, are you daft? Er, don't answer that, mate.
*And Daniel, why not let it slide, and find the most sympathetic arb and ask HIM to revert it or direct you to, if it's that big a deal?
Really, there's no need for anyone to get their back up even one bit. I'll say this, though. ANYTHING that gets certain (*cough* SV/FM *cough*) cases moving a bit faster is to be welcomed. Even if it gets up arb's noses. If it just makes them sneeze instead of sit catatonically I'll call it a win. ++]: ]/] 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I wanted to ask about the close at ]. You found that the consensus of the !voters was to merge the article, but none of the !voters supported a merge. ] (]) 23:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Charles and I ==
:Hi ], that seems odd — I agree, it should definitely be "redirect" rather than "merge". Fortunately in this situation a redirect is simply a merge with no content copied, so no really big changes. I'll go and update the close and the paperwork accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up, ] (]) 08:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
I don't know if this is generally known; but I think I shall make you aware of it: that Charles Matthews and I know each other in Real Life. Its visible on his homepage for those who look carefully; alas I doubt that includes most of the arbs in this case. Whether this constitutes a COI I leave up to the arbcomm; I find it odd that it hasn't at least been mentioned to be dismissed ] (]) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
== Vandal Proof ==


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Hi there, I have had my name in the VP approval list for the last few weeks and I was wondering if you could approve to use the tool, I have over 7'000 edits (Including deleted ones) and if you have the time could you please approve me to use VP. Thanks in Advance and All the Best, --] (]) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
==''Signpost'' updated for June 30, 2008.==
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
:] {{hlist|class=inline
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|]
|}
|]
<br>
|]
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|]
|-
|]
| colspan=3 |
}}
----
:] ]
|-
:] ]
| align="left" | '''Volume 4, Issue 27''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
<!-- -->
{{s-s|2|1|2008-06-30|ArbCom and Orangemarlin|Private arbitration case criticized, vacated}}
{{s-s|2|2|2008-06-30|ArbCom announcements|Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy}}
{{s-s|2|3|2008-06-30|Taking up the mop|Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates}}
{{s-s|2|4|2008-06-30|WikiWorld|WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"}}
{{s-s|2|5|2008-06-30|News and notes|News and notes: Board votes released, milestones}}
{{s-s|2|6|2008-06-30|In the news|Misplaced Pages in the News}}
{{s-s|2|7|2008-06-30|Dispatches|Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine}}
{{s-s|2|8|2008-06-30|Features and admins|Features and admins}}
{{s-s|2|9|2008-06-30|Technology report|Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News}}
{{s-s|2|10|2008-06-30|Arbitration report|The Report on Lengthy Litigation}}
<!-- -->
|}
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}


</div>
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] (]) 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)</small>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
==Happy Independence Day!==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
As you are a ], I just wanted to wish you a happy ]! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy Independence Day! ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
== Smile! ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
Here's ] for you! Lithium somehow promotes ] and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 01:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
</div>

] '''Miscellaneous'''
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== Jennifer Parlevliet DRV ==
== Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #18 ==


My comment wasn't intended as opposing a restoration to draft, so much as letting ] know 1) that they wouldn't be missing anything if they started working on a new draft without waiting for the old one, and 2) that if they ''did'' work from the old one, that the misleading statements in it needed fixing. —] 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 18}} ♬♩ ] (<small>]</small>) 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, gotcha — I had it more as a statement of opposition rather than a comment recommending that they start fresh. I'll flick them a message directly and tweak my close so as to not misrepresent you by interpretation. Cheers, ] (]) 23:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:54, 5 January 2025

Archives edit 
101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110
111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Question About Formal Tone and AI Concerns

Hi Daniel,

I just wanted to ask, does using a formal tone in my responses mean I'm using AI? I’ve been trying to keep my responses clear and respectful, but I didn’t realize that could be seen as AI-generated.

Is it a problem to write in a more formal style here, or does that automatically raise concerns about using AI? I'm just trying to understand what's expected.

Thanks for your input! JESUS (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Two (out of two I checked) of your posts came up as 90% AI-written according to the AI detector I used (which is falliable, but that's such a coincidence). Further, the subheadings that you used were distinctive of AI-generated messages. I still believe you were using AI to generate those two messages. (By contrast, this message registers 0%.) Daniel (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, this. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
What's the current guidance on blocking AI trolling, which this clearly is? BusterD (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't feel good about feeding back the "tells" either ("subheadings") BusterD (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
There's no automatic prohibition in project-space, so it needs to be judged through the lens of general disruption. The use of subheadings is both a tell but also part of the disruptive nature of LLM-generated projectspace postings, so I don't think it's fair to say "you're being disruptive" but not explain how it's disruptive. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
In response to your fairness objection, I think it's wrong to knowingly assist in calibration of such models. We don't feed trolls, we shouldn't tutor AIs. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Daniel,

I know you needed to take a break from admin responsibilities and I probably feel like that every week! But it's great to see you back, helping out in AFDLand. You've been missed in our regular rotations of AFD closers. Glad to have you back! Liz 06:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz! Yesterday and today have been reasonably quiet for me so thought I'd jump in and help out. Life gets busy again tomorrow for a few weeks but I'll do whatever I can to help! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hougang knife attack AfD

Hello, I wanted to ask about the close at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hougang knife attack. You found that the consensus of the !voters was to merge the article, but none of the !voters supported a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thebiguglyalien, that seems odd — I agree, it should definitely be "redirect" rather than "merge". Fortunately in this situation a redirect is simply a merge with no content copied, so no really big changes. I'll go and update the close and the paperwork accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up, Daniel (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Jennifer Parlevliet DRV

My comment wasn't intended as opposing a restoration to draft, so much as letting The-Pope know 1) that they wouldn't be missing anything if they started working on a new draft without waiting for the old one, and 2) that if they did work from the old one, that the misleading statements in it needed fixing. —Cryptic 23:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha — I had it more as a statement of opposition rather than a comment recommending that they start fresh. I'll flick them a message directly and tweak my close so as to not misrepresent you by interpretation. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)