User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/10


User:历史研究

“User:历史研究” is a chinese wikipedia editor.Not the sock puppet of Yongle the Great,you can see in this.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciked (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked with my apologies. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I greatly appreciate it. T. Canens (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Michael J. Trout page

Why did you delete the page? [bit.ly/SSFmedia] has all the media about him. If you do a search on Google about "Michael J.Trout" he is the only one to come up... He has contributed to Tallahassee Florida is a tremendous way! You action makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.229.100 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock

Why did you delete my comment? I was standing up for myself here! AJona1992 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's an archive and no one should be editing it? T. Canens (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
But I didn't see that page, I JUST found it. So what if its an archive if I want and need to stand up for myself especially if someone is accusing me of something then by all means I have a right to do so. Unless there is a rule then I will follow by it. AJona1992 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
No. First, there is no "right" to defend oneself at SPI. Second, no one will read your "defense" anyway since it deals with a case that has been closed months ago. T. Canens (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a rule against it? AJona1992 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It is disruptive. Period. If you do it again you will be blocked. T. Canens (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Timotheus Canens's Day!

Timotheus Canens has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Timotheus Canens's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, Timotheus Canens!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fyad

I restored the redirect Fyad - I must have missed the history when deleting. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted template

Thanks. I'd just discovered it after reverting vandalism by another Yongle sock Peter I of Russia (talk · contribs) - this is a new stage by this sock, vandalism directed at me in a sense, ie adding a deletion template from an article I took to AfD to other articles. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Can you please restore the page Mirage (other incarnations) to my userspace? thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin

You unsalted this during the recent DRV; this is just to let you know that I have re-salted it, as the article was created again today, with the edit summary "Reinstating article previously deleted by an overly zealous deletionist", only a day after the second DRV was closed as endorse deletion. They are certainly persistent. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Note from the one who reinstated the article: I tagged the article with "please hold" but JohnCD couldn't wait a few minutes for me to update the article. Here it is again deleted and locked. I have absolutely no idea why you're doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShoWPiece (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 October 2010

Okay, thanks for letting me know. T. Canens (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfy

Can you userfy Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant) and Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant), I want to add a few sentences about them into the mail article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Early closures

You're about to experience why closing a seven-day discussion of a hot topic after only two and a bit days, whilst editors were still actively participating only an hour before, and with the discussion only running over a weekend, is probably not the best of ideas. ☺ I suggest as the better course of action re-opening and letting the people who edit mid-week participate; because I predict that otherwise this will go to Deletion Review, and everyone will end up arguing the deletion there for another seven days or more, with the disfranchised AFD participants trying to make their AFD arguments heard coming up against those trying to prevent a Deletion Review from becoming a deletion discussion.

It would be so good if one of the times that this happened we ended up not having the usual mess and had one discussion, in one place (AFD), for one continuous solid week, without early/speedy closures, without bouncing back and forth between AFD and Deletion Review, and without multiple parallel discussions. I really thought that we'd come close to managing it this time. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Personally I would have had a lot of sympathy had you closed it as moot and specially allowed a relisting to discuss the new article. In either event, DRV will relist this if it goes there. Maybe better for everyone to help this settle quickly by relisting it yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in reply; I was rather busy the past few days.

If someone could make a convincing argument that there is some realistic chance of a consensus to delete, given what we got so far in the AfD, I would happily reopen it; otherwise, it seems to me that it becomes process for the sake of process, and falls into WP:NOTBURO territory. There are precedents for closing those kind of debates early - the AfD for Annie Le (AfD discussion), which I cited in the close, and the AfD for Colorado balloon incident (AfD discussion), which was "resoundingly endorsed" at DRV were both closed after 2~3 days, for instance.

@Spartaz: I'll have to say that, given my experience with DRV, I'll have to disagree with your prediction. T. Canens (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler clementi

Hiya,

Firstly, let me make clear: I fully agree with your choice to close the discussion, as yes, there was no realistic chance of a consensus.

Secondly, I am not intending to continue the discussion.

All I wondered was, your own opinion, regarding WP:1E in respect of that discussion. I'm a bit confused, myself; either I've misinterpreted that guideline, or it isn't really used, in practice. I fully appreciate that each case is different, but this one seems about as clear as a 1E could be. If that was not considered 1E, then I cannot see how the policy is valid in any cases. It certainly changes my opinion on whether we should bother to nominate things as one event.

Do feel free to send me off to some more appropriate venue; I just wondered your own thoughts. Best,  Chzz  ►  05:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As a current e.g. - what should we do about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gamu Nhengu ?  Chzz  ►  01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any strongly held views on this subject (or I would not have closed that debate), but here are my initial thoughts:
  1. Do note that 1E says that "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person", so an article about a suicide - the event - is different from an article about the person who committed the suicide: the latter is governed by 1E; the former, not so much. For instance, you may notice that in the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article there are not many details about Clementi's life.
  2. As to the event itself, that is a rather different question; WP:NOTNEWS is really the primary vehicle for most argument to delete an event, on the ground that there will be no historical notability; the problem is that in most cases, the event at issue happened so soon, that pretty much all we can make is (somewhat) educated guesses. Sometimes the answer is relatively obvious - in the AfC case you mentioned, for instance, I think there's no realistic chance that there will be any kind of historical notability based on a Facebook campaign, so it should (IMO) be declined, but now that someone accepted that I have AFD'd it; in some other cases (say, the assassination of a major political figure), it is equally obvious that historical notability will be there.
  3. The more difficult - and more borderline - case is like the Tyler Clementi one; it really is hard to make a prediction either way. One might as well as consult the magic 8-ball and may even have a greater chance of success. That's when you see those tens or hundreds of kilobytes long AfDs with dozens of people arguing back and forth, almost inevitably resulting in no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that; interesting to hear your thoughts, and to see the responses on that AFD. I try to remain totally objective, and on that basis, we could make a reasonable direct comparison between these two. Putting aside the specific reason for the fame, those two individuals are certainly (as of now) only known for one event. Indeed, Gamu Nhengu could be renamed "The appearance of Gamu Nhengu on X-Factor" or something.
I agree completely that it is hard to make a prediction on any future ongoing notability, but I disagree that we have any need to predict; I base my views on what we know now, rather than what might happen in the future. Maybe I am wrong in that, and maybe it is a tough choice; I'm not looking for a long drawn-out debate or anything; it was good to hear your views. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that it is obvious (at least to most people, I think) that "The appearance of Gamu Nhengu on X-Factor" is not going to have any sort of historical notability, but you can't say the same for Clementi. I think C.Fred's comment in the second AfD is hard to rebut at this stage - simply, again, because we have no way to predict what will happen. The problem with not making predictions is twofold: it's hard to square that practice with the text of WP:EVENT (which is unfortunately worded too vaguely, IMO), and delaying the article creation until we know that it is historically notable carries with it the risk of being out of date, not to mention that we might look as a fool to most outsiders, deleting articles only to restore them later. Of course, it would also alienate many new users who see their hard work deleted, when we may well restore it later. Balancing between competing interests here is very difficult - and different people strike the balance differently, hence the mess. T. Canens (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

user:Foldedwater

Hi, Timotheus, I saw your message at the user user:Foldedwater talk page.I am 90% sure he is a sock of a banned User:Abisharanhere. I'd like to submit the evidences, but I am not sure how to do it in an archived cases. Could you help me please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklin.vp with the evidence and reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Foldedwater. T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope I did this correctly?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Pooet

Hello Timotheus Canens. Pooet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  16:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on request for delection: Gamu Nhengu

Hi there I started the Gamu Nhengu article. I'd like to make a contribution to the discussion about deleting the article, I'm a very experienced writer and editor but pretty inexperienced at using Wikipedia functionality. Do you or does someone else need to approve me to do this? Also I'd like to know how to do it physically - I can't seem to find what to click to do the above. I hope you can help. Regards, Llahgob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llahgob (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Edit War Reconsideration

Please go back and reconsider this. I went through the tedious process of adding links. Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 02:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Close the WP:AE?

Thank you for issuing the blocks for the WP:AE#mark nutley enforcement request. Do you want to go ahead and close the case? EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

CsabaBabba

Hi,

It was you who blocked user:CsabaBabba for indefinite time on the ground that he is a likely sockpuppet of user:Samofi without having had a checkuser inspection. Now I assume that CsabaBabba keeps editing the English Wikipedia via Ip 85.216.253.245 ,however, I do not think that Samofi and CsabaBabba are the same person as CsabaBabba's command of English seems to be better than that of Samofi was. So that filling a checkuser request concerning Samofi does not make sense to me. Recently, I have tried to contact the Ip user, asking him to make an appeal against his indef-block ( 18:26, 18 October 2010 ) to which neither he answered me a word , nor he made an appeal against his indef-block. Instead, he continued editing Wikipedia. ( 17:02 19 October 2010 ) And I do not know what should be done now.--Nmate (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future you may report this to WP:SPI. Note that CsabaBabba was actually checkusered (with a result of  Likely). T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Nmate (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail notice

Dear Administrator, I would like to address the allegation [2] and would like to send you a screenshot with a colleague- scholar permission to use text [3] at WP - please respond on my e-mail – so I’ve send you an image – please note - all private or confidential information was blanked. Thanks P.S. I've also leave same notice here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Looie496#E-mail - Just in case. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Robinson, IL article

Please review the talk page regarding sourced notable person Calli Cox. A single IP address has been removing that name (along with others, for an unknown reason) and consensus in the talk page clearly shows the content to be credibly sourced with a consensus to include the content. Your protection has locked the page as left by a user who clearly has personal motive in removing the content from their hometown article (see the user's talk page for discussions regarding this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.113.51 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

new Guildenrich sock

Aapbmb (talk · contribs). Identical interests, begins heavy-duty editing 4 days after Beserks is blocked. Identical obsessions (changing "Omar Vrioni" to "Omer Vrioni" [4] [5], also sticking "Marko Bocari" everywhere [6] [7]). What do you think? Cheers, Athenean (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

From a checkuser standpoint, the accounts are  Possible, bordering on  Likely given the geolocation data. TNXMan 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Tom Warder article.

I will never understand why it was considered that Frederick Abinger (Tom) Warder was not important enough to warrant an article about him. His invention of the Gyroscope brake, alone, was enough to warrant that. Check this out: http://thisisnotaperfectworld.blogspot.com/

Imperani (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

user talk:sulmues

Hi Tim, I trust you are doing well? I would like to apologize for calling other users "vandals" and for edit warring. Can you please unblock me and may I edit under this new nick, Makaperqafe? Thank you! I have sent similar requests to the blocking admin [8] and the blocking request denying admin [9]. Makaperqafe (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Self reverts

I made two self-reverts on Death of Aristotelis Goumas because although they weren't even partial reversions to previous versions they could confuse[10] uninvolved editors and consider them violation of my interaction ban[11][12].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene but we have a straight violation of wp:interaction ban: undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). As long Athenean created a new article, Zjarithues showed up: tagged it as pov [[13]] (1st vio.) moved it [[14]] (2nd vio.) and preformed several edits since he disagreed with Athenean's version (3rd vio.) [[15]]
Hope Zjarri. reverts himself (fully) and moves the article back to its former title. But considering that Zjarri. already had a block due to violation of the same interaction ban, he is full aware that he violated this sanction again: so a new block is completely justified in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I reverted myself on those that could be considered even slightly a revert, the rest aren't reverts so please Alexikoua don't make such (outing) attempts.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Enough of this. From WP:IBAN, "the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". I do not see how it is possible to avoid the person who contributed virtually all of the page's content while still editing the page. No blocks will be handed out here, but consider yourself warned. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Further on this

Please keep an eye on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#title and content of an article related to Aristotelis Goumas. Your opinion on the feasibility of sending this article through AFD, given the discussion and interaction bans, would be good. Uncle G (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. God, this is a mess. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Kissle Request

Just to let you know, I have made a request for Kissle. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. T. Canens (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement thread

I was already given permission by an arbitrator [16] AND the admin who topic banned me [17] to post this AE thread. It was in the context of my wanting admin attention for the same behavior issues my thread is about that they granted me this permission. The reason this thread is allowed under my topic ban is not because it’s "necessary and legitimate dispute resolution," but because a specific exception has been made to my topic ban for it, and this has been mentioned multiple times in the AE thread itself. PLEASE read the whole thread before jumping to conclusions. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

Good catch. I was in the middle of the rather laborious job of filing a formal enforcement request. --TS 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

98.234.114.225

I noticed that on 21st October you blocked this editor for 1RR violation at Climatic Research Unit email controversy under the climate change arbitration. He's continuing to edit there (so far not disruptively). Perhaps it would be as well to warn him of the discretionary sanctions that apply. --TS 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Thanks for fixing the error in my edit. I was about to correct myself, but you beat me to it.Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Postie

You have mail. Spartaz Humbug! 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it. T. Canens (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmagha/Archive

Please the notes on this case from Risker and myself. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! TNXMan 15:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kissle on Windows 2000

Hey, I installed and unzipped Kissle on my Windows 2000 VM and when I tried to run the program it barfed at me with the following error code: "The dynamic link library mscoree.dll could not be found in the specified path:" and then it listed out all the paths were Windows looks for DLLs. Any way to fix this? Cheers. Usb10 Connected? 23:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's written in C#, so you need to install the latest version of the .NET Framework. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi