User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/9


Duck

Hi, Tim! I am certain that User:ILuvAMRadio is a duck sock of SRQ, back to harassing her favorite target, User:DocOfSoc. The third edit for this "new user" is telling[1]: but it continues. Issues "the challenge"[2]: you see where it goes. Revert, as expected[3]. Reverts her here[4] as well. Other edits are the "copy-editing" familiar to SRQ. 100% convinced this is her, and I'll add it to SPI if it's not quacking loudly enough. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain, too, and I've indef blocked them. TFOWR 10:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw

I'm confused by your conclusion; please see my comment at the above page. Thanks. 160.39.222.244 (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi, I've been wondering something about a SPI case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PFW_tournaments/Archive dated August 12th). Is it possible/desirable to create a separate SPI page for IWEWrestlingKev2010 and his socks (as recent as IWE2010 (talk · contribs))? Mainly because these accounts were seen as probably unrelated to PFW but they do form a group on their own. The MO differs from PFW that the accounts create IWE event pages that mimic WWE/TNA events, dates & venues in article space as opposed to creating user pages. Jarkeld (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle log thing

Resolved

Re. User:Tim Song/twinklespeedy.js and User:Tim Song/twinkleprod.js (which are excellent, by the way, extremely useful),

Can you make it put a colon before "File:" / "Image:" to prevent it actually showing the images? It can cause trouble with CSD'ing non-free images, for example [5].

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as always.  Chzz  ►  17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Return of a sock ?

Hi,

Can you have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Londo06/Archive and then have a look at The Infoboxer (talk · contribs) Codf1977 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look at this ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. Sorry for the delay. T. Canens (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for confirming what I and at least one other editor felt. Codf1977 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:24sims

Hi! It looks as if this fellow may have gotten caught up in a TW glitch. I got sent a message regarding my posting of a speedy deletion notice on the MascotGuy CU investigation archives...which I didn't do, of course. May I assume good faith and unblock this account? That is, unless you're positive it's a sock. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no TW glitch because he's not even eligible to use TW. 24sims did it by hand (as evidenced by the lack of an edit summary here). Then Srobak (talk · contribs) requested a G3 speedy on the MG SPI page, and since you created that page (a long, long time ago, I'd imagine), you got notified by TW as the creator, and someone deleted that page...Then I saw it and restored the history minus 24sims' edits. That's all. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that it was GF, honestly. He (re?)created the sock page and/or overwrote the sock archive and named WhatGuy as the sock, based upon (and I quote) "having a name ending in guy". WhatGuy was on my watchlist (don't recall why, obviously ages ago) and I saw the notice so I went to check it out - saw that it was patent nonsense and then I RSD'd the page (via TW). I think that is where you got the notification from - as I am guessing you did the sock page way back when. Another admin deleted it, and then 24sims re-created it again, but this time with links to all the archives of the previous sock cases, at which point Timotheus came in and started cleaning up the mess.Srobak (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. Regarding the closure of this case, was a determination made as to whether either of those two IPs were Asgardian? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Any CU determination will not be publicly disclosed, per the privacy policy; it will, however, be forwarded to arbcom for any necessary action. T. Canens (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
That seems odd. In the past, when editors were found to be socks, they were blocked, and the block notice on the IP's page would obviously be a public indicator of this. The reason I'm asking is because another editor came to me asking for help with that other anonymous IP, which is why I requested the sock investigation. Given this, and the fact that I was also the one who began the Arbitration case that resulted in Asgardian's ban, how should I proceed regarding this? Or will the actions the ArbCom decides to take be make public then? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
What should I tell the editor who came to me about this? Nightscream (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this - if arbcom takes any action onwiki (e.g., blocking the IP) it will likely be public in the sense that the block, etc., may appear in the logs, but there would not be a link to the account (e.g., the block reason may simply be {{checkuserblock}}). I suggest that you tell the editor to follow up with User:Hersfold, who ran the check, and/or arbcom. T. Canens (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

I think

You missed this as a result of this. — ξxplicit 08:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. I need to fix that script some time... T. Canens (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A question of attribution

Hi

Some time ago you e-mailed me the deleted page Bruce Lee (arsonist). I have been working on this in userspace here. In the meantime, a new page has been created at Bruce George Peter Lee, so I gave up on my draft and edited that.

Seeing as my edits were based on the deleted article is it now necessary to history merge the deleted article to my draft and then history merge that to the new article in order to provide attribution for whoever edited the deleted version?

Sorry, bit of a mess I know!  pablo 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I could histmerge the original and the new one, I suppose; I don't think it's a good idea to histmerge the draft and the new article, due to WP:PARALLEL; since you are the only one who edited the draft there should be no attribution problem. T. Canens (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
That would be simpler, the original and the new one should have no overlapping edits I suppose! (Not entirely sure how histmerge works, I must admit).  pablo 22:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. T. Canens (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I was just curious, but can you explain you closing decision here? SilverserenC 16:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Call it a keep if you want, it's quite borderline and I don't really care; IMO it's a bit of a stretch to call 2-1 a consensus either way unless one side is very weak. I didn't bother with a relist because doing it just to differentiate between an NC and a keep is pretty pointless; we have more than enough AfDs already. T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Children and Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation

Hi Timotheus Canens I was in the process of getting a page 'validated and verified' according to the requests by the wiki admin who was giving me a list of a b c d e f g to satisify In the middle of the process... you have gone and deleted the page! THANKS! That was really polite and curteous to have a page that was in the middle of a deletion discussion - it had not even been opened up to a broader consensus etc to get verification and I find it has been deleted.

page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_Maternal_Parents_Against_Immigration_%26_Government_Nationality_Situation

thanks for ending a conversation before it had reached a point of consensus in the verification process!

Mturberville (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

AfDs are closed after 7 days. Nothing is cut short. Feel free to WP:DRV to request a review. T. Canens (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So are the cats suspect?

Noticed the block log and the pastorwayne sock block - does that mean the cats created might be suspect ? SatuSuro 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I rolled everything back and deleted the cats; feel free to recreate them if you want, though. T. Canens (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh hell I cannot remember if I had imitated in similar style - or simply followed the pattern a few days ago - oh well, if it comes back to bite me at least know where it came from - cheers SatuSuro 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:The Infoboxer

Some comments from you here might help - the request has been sitting there a while, I think because most people aren't sure what tipped you off. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but I looked at the SPI for the Londo account and saw that The Infoboxer wasn't on it. I couldn't find anything linking the account to the Londo one, but without further input from you, I can't process the unblock request. I am putting the request on hold pending your comment. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I sent Steve an email. T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of The Infoboxer

Hello Timotheus Canens. The Infoboxer (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, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For clearing the SPI backlog at it's highest point. Thank you. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Afd Mitch Waldman

Sorry, my edit (threading the discussion) crossed yours. :/ Roscelese (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Ryuki Special: 13 Riders

Consensus clearly says keep and not redirect. I only did the redirect myself because of an unnecessary emotional response to the events of that week.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I was very close from closing it as delete, and I most certainly cannot find a consensus to keep anywhere. "This obsession with secondary sources is harmful to the encyclopedia" is not a winning argument. Of course, if you can find the secondary sources, feel free to un-redirect it. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It had secondary sources in it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you at least change the close to no consensus default to keep and restore the page to what it was and remove the AFD tag?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tony Sokol

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tony Sokol. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User:Timotheus Canens. See this diff.

DRV

G'day there - just letting you know, as the nominator has failed to do, that a closed of yours has been taken to DRV here. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for usifying Robert F. Worth

Does exactly what it says on the tin... Following the deletion result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_F._Worth, please could you give me a copy of Robert F. Worth at User:Bigger digger/Robert F. Worth? I will let it wait there some sources actually bother to take notice of him. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. T. Canens (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ta! Bigger digger (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Award

The Admin's Barnstar
Because you apparently are the one to blame. TNXMan 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, two barnstars for the same thing? Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Me again - talk page merge query

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont I have merged the content and turned List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont into a redirect. However, despite reading WP:Talk page redirects I can't work out what to do with Talk:List of tallest buildings in Burlington, Vermont. Happy to do whatever's necessary but can't work out what that should be! Bigger digger (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting it is just fine. T. Canens (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that Timotheus... Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1541ultimate deletion

Hi there,

The 1541ultimate page seems to have been deleted? What gives?

I always use wikipedia to get background information on devices to verify their legitimacy and you appear to have deleted it?

Could you please consider reinstating it? I've just ordered one (today) and think it's probably the most important peripheral to grace the commodore line of computers.

Please reconsider your deletion.

Regards,

Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.29.201 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I like my blocks!

Pretty! They stack so nicely! The bright and shiny colors! I can't tell you how much they've helped my eye-hand coordination. No more self-blocking. So far.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect for Clackson scroll formula

Hi !

I wonder whether you might take a second look and possibly reconsider your descision to turn this into a redirect. In particular in te light of my comment /Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clackson_scroll_formula and Whpq's last argument in the AfD discussion.

regards,

--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the content stays in Archimedean spiral - and I have no opinion on whether it should stay - the redirect must remain. This is required by our license; when/if it is removed, feel free to take the redirect to RfD. T. Canens (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
sorry, I didn't realize that other people had moved the content before your decision. I'll discuss that on archimedian spiral then.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, since gandalf61 has no objections, I removed the section from Archimedian spiral. Is that good enough for you to delete the redirect or do you need me to open a new AfD?--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I saw WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Request review of my actions. From your actions and comments, it looks like you are conversant with this issue. The current situation is that the merged content has been removed – not deleted – from Archimedean spiral. Any editor is able to restore the unattributed content at any time, violating WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. As you know, the common solution is to restore and redirect, plus the inconvenient alternatives at WP:Merge and delete.

Since WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD, WP:Revision deletion was enabled, adding a possible solution: revert (already done) and revision delete the September 10–23 edits with a log comment like hide merged content deleted per [[WP:Articles for deletion/Clackson scroll formula]]. This may not be an allowed use, please review WP:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction yourself. There is current discussion (WP:Village pump (policy)#Evolution of Copyright policy to account for introduction of WP:REVDEL) on whether revision deletion should be used to make WP:Copyright violations inaccessible, preventing restoration. Copyright policy discussions are usually focused on the reuse of external content, so I'm not sure if it extends to internal copying. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone restores it, it's their problem and blocks/protection/revdel can be applied at that time if necessary (alternatively, if there should be a consensus to include the material, I can restore the redirect); there's no strict rule mandating removing license-violating material from history (when viewing an old revision, the site actually has a disclaimer that "This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License."), and in this case that could be complicated since some of the edits are to unrelated parts, so I'm not inclined to take any action now in the absence of clear necessity. T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that the restoration will go unnoticed, but it seems that the article's regular editors would remove it immediately. I guess that's fine. Thanks for your quick reply. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy/Triton Rocker

Hello, Tim! I know that "short summaries" are preferred at SPI, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean in this particular case. Triton Rocker is at the very very least a staunch and SPA "meatpuppet" of LevenBoy, so closely related in reverting that they should be considered together as one disruptive account; even if CU, indeed, proves them to be unrelated. I feel that a CU is needed to determine the relation between these two (non-IP) accounts, and with the many diffs provided (a long read, I know), I think it's warranted. The short summary is: I believe the evidence shows that Triton Rocker was brought into the "fray" simply as "backup" as a sock/meathead in the edit wars against User:HighKing that LevenBoy was already involved in, and his instant conversion from peaceful editor to POV warrior is no accident. Notice how neither LB or TR ever actually deny the socking accusation, but rather only point to HighKing as the reason for it. Please let me know what additional evidence (or "culling" of evidence) would make this report more "readable". If CU is denied, of course I'll have to expand the behavioral evidence here, which would make it even longer. I've got a "shitload" more, but I'd rather not waste further time if CU isn't warranted in your opinion. What is the definitive evidence needed to process this case? I'll give it to you happily. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird

Hi,

concerning the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Olson&diff=386849717&oldid=386792952 - i first included another link whith the Moussaui-trial-details, where you could see that Olsen did not reach her husband-it was an unsuccessful call; the link was called "conspiracy-website", so i left it aside, now you delete my entry with the hint "Complete OR, not in source given)" If you download the zip-file from the official link and execute the Flash-application you can see the call details that i referred to in my entry, it IS given in the source.

So what exactly is the problem?

Regards,

DonRamon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.11.114 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

93.82.11.114 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't tell anything when there are something like half a dozen "unknown" calls. One of it could be hers. But we need not speculate since presumably this has been confirmed by her husband if it were reported. T. Canens (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if thats proof enough; strange fact nevertheless, first it was an onboard-phone-collect-call, then a cell phone...regards

comment added by (talk) 93.82.11.114 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI comment re the Healthy2010 SPI case

Tim, I mention you here in the new subsection. I would have just discussed your close of the SPI case here, but, as you will see, there is a related and more complicated issue associated with this that I am trying to get addressed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Timmy Polo regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010