User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaza War

[1] Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of restricting talk page access due to recent behavior?Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

1 RR violation

Hello Tim, AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) has made 2 reverts at Gaza War. Both edits he removed common names from the lead as he did here. The reverts are 1 and 2. nableezy - 22:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have made such an edit against consensus anyways. 1RR is 1RR but you aren't exactly an innocent party in this one.Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Cptnono.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Really? 5 users determine a consensus against text that has been in the article for 17 months? Interesting. Agada had a clear 3RR vio that instead of being blocked for caused a 1RR to be placed on the article. Now he breaks the 1RR and you want to make excuses? Again, interesting. I'll leave you alone now Tim, but I felt a response to the above was needed. nableezy - 01:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't make an excuse. 1rr is 1rr and AU screwed it up. Unfortunately, you just did what you drug Shuki to AE for so the way I see it, AU will get some block and some people will be looking at you and wondering why you made such an edit in the first place. Pretty simple.Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim, the AgadaUrbanit has again removed each source for the Arab world calling the conflict the Gaza Massacre here and removed that the conflict has been called that in the Arab world. Should this go to AN3, AE, or will you enforce the 1RR? nableezy - 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. No comment on other issues. Take them to AE if you want. T. Canens (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

For unblocking. :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Tim. I have reason to believe that IP 209.118.181.16 (talk · contribs) is a disruptive sock of a banned user. He just restored an edit [2] to the Gaza War article that was initially made by topic banned user Cryptonio [3]. I was going to revert him but do not wish to violate the 1r restriction. Do I have your permission to do so on this one occasion without fear of sanction? Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that someone has already corrected the problem and reverted the troublesome IP but the question remains, how is this disruptive IP to be addressed should it re-appear? Thanks,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't have much time to go through it in detail. Take it to WP:SPI is probably the best way. T. Canens (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tim, I have another disruptive IP 12.39.109.152 (talk · contribs) that needs to be currently dealt with. You seemed like the reasonable person to contact since you are last one to have blocked said IP. Said IP is currently and actively engaging in vandalizing the ABC Kids (US) page with massive amounts of falsified information.172.190.214.149 (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

The article is being vandalized. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC) YES the article is being VANDALIZED by AgadaUrbanit! Please HELP!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherRealOne (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War etc.

I noticed your block of AnotherRealOne (talk · contribs) et al. for the earlier edit-warring at Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At the risk of failing to assume good faith, I'm inclined to think that maybe AnotherRealOne = Cryptonio (talk · contribs). Do you think this is plausible?

CIreland (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I do find it rather odd that a new account would find this article of all things; Cryptonio has been oddly silent, too, and they do have the same position, so yes, I do think it plausible. Perhaps an SPI? T. Canens (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Plausible? More like obvious. -- tariqabjotu 07:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive intervention on behalf of Colon-el-Nuevo

I'm former editor Jel, details still accessible probably. If my details aren't accessible, please contact me on my anonymous LiveJournal blog Rahere. My chef d'oeuvre was annotating the Albigensian Crusade page, until a crass monitor decided to insult me personally. I'm working with Laura Smoller of Arkansas Uni, who's probably the world's leading expert on the history of late mediaeval cosmology, and in particular of Pierre d'Ailly's version of it. d'Ailly inspired Columbus directly, and indirectly through Nicholas of Cues ("Cusanus") Kepler and Copernicus, all of whom realised that it was inevitable not only that the spherical geocentric model was inaccurate (Cusanus, for example, realised that orbits are eliptical, so tightly-nested spheres couldn't be possible, collapse of the music of the spheres) but that precession of other planets meant the Earth is spherical, and probably not at the centre of the Universe. I've been following up the relationship between Cusanus' later boss, Pope Eugenius IV, and Prince Henry the Navigator whilst on holiday in Portugal and have found the Portuguese are taking the subject places not done before, using their internal documentation - it's not just Colon. Colon's argument about the nobility is halfway credible, he's just not used to your rules about original work. Like me, he'll probably stop editing because that rule disqualifies the competent: you end up with an encyclopaedia built by noncompoops catering to the lowest common denominator. The Britannica built theirs using experts. Therefore, I'm dropping Colon a similar note to discover what he's published. His arguments make sense but may have overshot: I'll talk it through with him. In the mean time, I'd suggest going easy because he's doing more than simply regurgitating books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.24.114 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Serj Tankian - Imperfect Harmonies

This article continues to be deleted despite being released in almost a month. The album's tracklisting, release date, and much more information have been released since the time of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.245.5 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User Prem555 reported again

Tim - Could you take a look at Prem555 (talk · contribs)? You previously blocked that editor for edit warring and they have been reported again to WP:AIAV (rev). I looked and do not see that pattern of edit warring - at least not in the short term. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking about the original block from June, see this AN3 report. It's one revert a day for five days or something like that. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Violation of 1R by LegendDestroyer (talk · contribs)

[4] First revert @18:17 Aug 16

[5] Second revert @22:04 Aug 16

LegendDestroyer (talk · contribs) was warned and notified of restriction and was asked to self-revert [6]

In addition, this account was created just after the blocking of AnotherRealOne (talk · contribs) and TheLastRealOne (talk · contribs), sock puppets of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), and picks up where those two sock puppets left off, reverting Agadaurbanit. Undoubtedly a newly created sock puppet of Cryptonio with the same obsession per WP:DUCK.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LegendDestroyer (talk · contribs) notified of sock puppet allegation [7]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks pretty obvious to me, but please ask another admin to make the block. I don't feel comfortable logging into my admin account atm due to security issues. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I referred it to Tariq since he has some familiarity with the case [8]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

Tim, no argument about resolution, agree it is a fair one and hope it would help to improve the article in the long run. Thank you for letting me to continue to contribute to Wikipedia generally. Question about what "topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content" covers. Could you clarify. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The article, its talk page, and any content or discussion that is arguably related to it; e.g., a paragraph in another article mentioning Gaza War. Obviously this is not an exhaustive list; if in doubt, assume that it is related. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tim, I am slightly confused as to why I was banned from the Gaza War article. Since you placed the 1RR 2 weeks ago I have made a total of 6 reverts on that page. How does that cause a 6 week ban from the article? nableezy - 20:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit warring is still edit warring. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is evident from the "edit warring" in "slow motion edit warring". But instead of simply continue edit warring I reported the editor that was repeatedly removing the material. For that I get a ban from the article. There were 6 users reverting on this issue, and one of those has had as its sole purpose on this article removing that title from the lead. This is one of the things I truly do not understand about how you all deal with this topic area. You effectively give a "win" to the party that made some 10 reverts in the 72 hours they were unblocked. Agada's entire purpose at that article has been to remove that title from the lead, and because I did not revert him and instead reported the reverts his goal is accomplished. Had I simply reverted him instead you may never have seen an edit-warring report and the "slow motion edit-war" would have just continued. But I decided to not continue to revert and I still get banned from the article. Could you please tell me how many reverts in 2 weeks is "slow motion edit warring"? Since August 2nd I made a total of 5 reverts on this phrase, almost all of them returning the article to the state it had been prior to the edit-warring beginning. Tell me, what exactly should I have done instead? Simply allow Agada to push through his edit? nableezy - 05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
5 reverts in 14 days, considering that you can only make one a day? Reverting in more than 1/3 of the opportunities technically available to you is not good. It takes two to tango. I don't give a damn whether the article has this phrase or not, but the edit warring must stop, and that's all that I care about. By taking away those who revert excessively we may have a chance at doing that. You will notice that your topic ban is considerably shorter than AU's. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You did not answer the main question. What should I have done. Simply allowed Agada to push through his edit? nableezy - 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tim. Yes it takes two to tango, but this looked more like a dance marathon, with partisans tag-teaming to stay away from the 1RR while wearing Nableezy out. AgadaUrbanit instigated with a Bold edit, yes Nableezy got sucked into edit-warring and has now been blocked, while Agada appears to have been sacrificed, excuse my cynicism, for the cause. I also resisted removal of the content while Talk discussions continued, whereupon I was twice reverted by User:Mbz1 (who so far in 2010 has has notched nine blocks on I/P articles). Sorry but this makes a mockery of WP:BRD and suggests that concerted advocacy-editing succeeds. So my question is, if I revert to the version that stood for one and a half years, will I be blocked? Respectfully, RomaC TALK 10:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You continue to assert that is is long standing. You always fail to mention that it has stayed in partially because of edit warring. Many editors called for its removal months ago. And there have been numerous discussions since its original inclusion. And yes, editors can allow it to be "forced" in. There is ongoing discussion. The current version may or may not be the version that is kept for awhile but a few days or few weeks is not worth getting a block for edit warring over. This is especially true when it ends up getting reverted anyways. And wouldn't you reverting right now be exactly the behavior you are speaking against?Cptnono (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually considering removing the above since it is pretty terrible to have this spill on to Tim's user page. I'm not trying to say AU did it right. I'm just trying to say that edit warring is bad. If you do choose to revert, RomaC, it would be appreciated if you reverted to the version before this recent round of edit warring. I would rather not get sucked into reverting myself.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Disregard. It has been taken care of.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Never mind it is still going. Blargh.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Tim, I hope the editor above, whom I have advised that I now ignore because I no longer trust what he says, knows that I asked my question at your Talk page because I wanted to see what you thought. The edit-warring continues, I prefer not to edit-war, but believe it bad for the topic area and the project if concerted advocacy-editing is allowed to prevail. (ADD: just noticed you are on vacation for a few weeks, enjoy) Respectfully, RomaC TALK 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your name

I just now connected you with your former identity, and have to say that your new username is clever. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation

Tim, I've just stumbled upon this conversation. It looks that Wikipedia is less breathtaking now. Do you mind to share your thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unredirect request

Could you unredirect the article List of guitarists considered the greatest and relist the second AFD so that we can get a clear consensus about this article. I think an IP doesn't agree with your decision so that he/she keep bringing the article back. I'm sorry if this is a wrong place to make such a request because I'm not so familiar with English Wikipedia administrative procedures.--AM (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer to the pending DRV, of which, btw, you are supposed to notify me. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to offend you. But not until Stifle commented, did I know that I should contact you before bring the case to DRV. I feel so strange to English Wikipedia policies. My argument in DRV is relatively weak because my English skill won't let me make stronger arguments. I think I won't be able to make any change to this case, but I still feel there is no strong consensus to make redirect this article like that. Thank you for replying.--AM (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

TheodoreNg

Hello Tim. I stumbled across this user again making pages about mixing, most recently Mineral Processing mixing and Consumer products mixing. Last time, he had two articles deleted at afd (here and here), mostly because of the tone, howto, and Copyvio potential. I left him a message about the images and articles (Of which I nominated all per F11). Since you have talked to him and closed one of the AfDs, I wanted to get your opinion before I nominated them, especially if there are similar Copyvio potential. I tend to think that his articles have potential, but I would have to talk to him about significantly restructuring and rewriting the articles. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Moonriddengirl handled the copyright aspects of the matter last time, IIRC. You might want to check with her. W/r/t the new articles, perhaps incubating them is best for now? Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi Tim. I don't like it how your new signature doesn't match your username. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, okay, sorry you didn't like it. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Canens was the personification of song, in Roman mythology. I hadn't seen the link. Maybe do like it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this include everything else

Can I discuss what you just did (banned me for removing "unsourced material") in other Wiki forums i.e. BLP noticeboard or does the punishment also include total Wikipedia censorship?Momento (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

To the extent you wish to appeal the topic ban, you may do so at the appropriate venue (WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:A/R); this is covered by the implicit exception for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. However, if you post at other venues, including BLPN, that do not have the power to overturn an arbitration enforcement action, then it is neither "legitimate" nor "necessary" and hence may be treated as a violation of the ban. Independent of the ban, disruptive forum shopping may also get you blocked. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Two things please. Which of the above entities should I appeal to? And which section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation did I violate? Thanks?
Any of AN, AE or ANI, if you want to appeal to the community; if you are appealing to arbcom, then WP:A/R. To your second question, edit warring, questionable civility, and general disruption. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your AfC script not working

Hey I just installed your AfC script, but for some reason it's not working. I made sure I put it on the right page (i.e., vector.js not monobook.js), I cleared my browser's cache and I also purged Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects' cache, but no go. Is there something I forgot to do? Oh, by the way, I have Safari on a PC. Maybe the script doesn't work with Safari? Will try to do this in Firefox. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, did not work in Firefox, either. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It's rarely useful to have a bug report that just says "it didn't work". Do you see anything in the Firefox error console? Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. There was nothing in the error console. My problem is that the script doesn't show up at all, so I guess by "doesn't work" I meant "isn't there." I'm guessing, though, if none of the other people who use this script are having problems, it's likely to be my browser/computer that's causing trouble for me. I have a very... temperamental computer. Comes complete with weekly temper tantrums and everything Is anyone else that you know of having this problem, or is it just me? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In vector it should be in the drop down menu (with "Move" etc., to the right of the star). If you still can't see it, try moving the importScript call to the top of your vector.js. Let me know what happens. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It worked! Thanks a ton. I've wanted to help out with AfC/Redirects for a while, but I'm not that good with remembering templates to use to accept or deny a request. I always have to look the template up, copy-paste it, etc., and that usually results in an edit conflict with another review 'cuz I'm so slow. Thanks again! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vo Binh Dinh

Hello Sir! I wanted to check wikipedia for the topic of Vo Binh Dinh, but I saw that you had deleted it. Is it possible to get a copy of the content that was on it before? I know the current white belt that teaches Vo Binh Dinh in Qui Nhơn which is the city in Binh Dinh. So I was wondering if I could redo the article with him as a source, also how would I cite him when it would be done verbally or through email as my source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresitonguyen (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2010/8&oldid=386860018"