User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/1

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

why too long?

Why is 30 days "too long"? NE Ent 12:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

All noticeboard postings are archived after 20 days, so 30 days for the talk would mean that the discussion always gets archived a long time after the main posting is. Also, since this is not "discussed for 10 days and then archived" but "archived after there's no new comment in 10 days", the chance that someone for some reason needs to comment on a post that no one has commented on for 10 days is quite minimal. T. Canens (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There's never a "need" to comment on Wikipedia, but obviously some of us feel compelled to do so anyway. Purposes of archiving are described at WP:ARCHIVE -- as the page isn't terribly long or hard to navigate there's no need to archive aggressively. I've set the page to 20 to match the noticeboard. NE Ent 13:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Scripts

Hi T,
pointing out two scripts that you might find of use now, see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive10#Small script for CUs to help navigate the log. Belated congrats BTW on your strong election result. :)
Cheers & happy new year (I'm a month early for you, aren't I?), Amalthea 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy!

I'd like to congratulate you on your election to Arbcom, hope you will keep up the good work. At the same time, I should wish you a happy new year! Regards, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Tour of Consumer Reports' laboratories

Wow! Laboratory tour!

On Tuesday January 15 at 3pm Wikipedians are invited to join a tour of laboratories at Consumer Reports in Yonkers. If you would like to attend please RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/January 2013. If you have questions feel free to ask on that page or contact me on my talk page or by my office phone at 914.378.2684. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pks sock

I was going to say "wtf?" but then I got it, ie: history issue, I should have undone the whole thing, then removed without the subpage being ticked off. D'oh. I will remember that from now on. I haven't had a lot of people to ask stuff like that, so have to wing it sometimes, and have caught several of my own errors through pure deduction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Needing some clarification

Hi Tim, I'm enquiring if my topic ban on Falun Gong expired. I have no desire to edit in the area again, but I'm in the process of reviving an unresolved dispute resolution case, and since the article casually mentions FLG, it would make my efforts much easier for the restriction to be removed.--PCPP (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that ban does not expire. If you want it lifted, you need to file an appeal at AE. T. Canens (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so under WP:FLG-A, the ban did not expire after eight months and only allowed me to reappeal? I have no problem with that, but can you clarfity if I can discuss or edit the article on Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, outside of the paragraphs which casually mentions FLG?--PCPP (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

ncip

Ah, I see. :)
I've gotten a bit more liberal recently with making implicit or explicit IP connections after a semi-recent ASUC clarification to that regard. E.g., if a user is disruptive, knows the community considers his edits disruptive, and avoids/evades consequences by using an anon sock, then I consider this tacit acceptance of having account and IP publicly connected; in that case I won't go out of my way to avoid making an implicit or explicit connection anymore.
Amalthea 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Block of Junjunone

There is no blocking template on her (his?) talk page, so I thought I would ask you why. This user has been on my watchlist for a long time, due to rather troublesome WP:IDONTHEARTHAT issues, and I was wondering what finally led to their blocking? Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This should answer your question. T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Besides being extrodanarily bitchy, I thought this editor knew waaaaaay to much for her experience. Thanks, both for whacking this mole and explaining why. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Concern: Transparency

I am truly concerned with the recent actions surrounding Science Apologist. Whatever happens I sincerely hope the discussion will take place on Wikipedia. I do have a past with SA, but trust the admins/arbs in this situation to do what is fair for all, SA included. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

What was done was done explicitly to allow SA to disengage from Wikipedia cleanly. — Coren (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. What you're saying doesn't really mean anything to me, but I do assume all acted with the best of Wikipedia and SA's interests in mind. Perhaps you can see what its like to someone who came across what went on today with admins and arbs acting at apparent cross purposes and why an editor would ask, that if possible, transparency be preserved. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Oaktreebay Sockpuppets

Should those other accounts be added to the overall sock investigation as confirmed by checkuser ? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. It probably won't have much effect in this case. T. Canens (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Levitateme

If your around, could you take a look at User talk:Levitateme, regarding a checkuser block you made. The unblock request there seems pretty credible. It would appear to apply to all the blocks in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thatguyalan. Monty845 20:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad is taking over this one. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Banned for 31 hours?

I clicked on a link sent from someone and I get banned for 31 hours? I dont ever really edit things on here but i was just curious because of "vandalism"... if you like add me on skype xemerican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.252.174 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That block of your IP address from editing Wikipedia was just over six weeks ago. It expired a long time ago, and it's also likely that the person using the IP address at the time was not you. Most Internet Service Providers assign the same IP address to multiple different customers at different times. (They can change monthly, weekly, daily, or even more often.) So you don't need to worry about it. Registering a Wikipedia WP:ACCOUNT is free and is one way to avoid receiving unrelated messages about the activities of other people who happen to use the same Internet Service Provider as you do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Editorial Voice

Please explain the process that led to the block of The Editorial Voice. It is clear that he/she was a sockpuppet but what brought you to take action on the issue? As discussed on the user's page, I did not see an SPI or response to the AE request and was made even more curious when I did not see a block notice. Did I miss something? Another editor pointed out that you might have come upon it and pulled the trigger but I was looking for your reasoning since it is not made clear.

Please note that there is no malice in this request since Nableezy has already stated that he did not seek you out off the record.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AE is on my watchlist. T. Canens (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Block of MultipleAccountsAllowed

Thanks for the block, how'd you come across him? I've also got a question, can you look at two threads on Dennis Browns talk page (one related to this situation) User talk:Dennis Brown#You'll probably say no (the editor has stated he'd leave in this case, but their method of leaving makes me think even more that they might be a sockpuppet of someone) and User talk:Dennis Brown#Is using multiple accounts just because you can a WP:POINT issue? (particularly my VPP suggestion in the second). Ryan Vesey 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Dennis's talk page is on my watchlist. On the first one, the two accounts are  Possible - they geolocate to the same (not big) city. I suspect that they are either socks or know each other IRL. T. Canens (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 rugby union handbag controversy

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 rugby union handbag controversy did not include an explanation.  Given the recent closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jill Meagher, there is a policy problem with defining "enduring" notability.  Please explain your closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2013/1&oldid=555442006"