User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/8

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

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your work on the AfC helper script! APerson (talk!) 13:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Mentioned

Please see User talk:Previously ScienceApologist#unblocked. You enacted a topic ban of this editor from fringe science under WP:ARBPS in January 2011 and people are now discussing whether it remains in effect. Two relevant AE threads may be found at:

One relevant question might be whether SA ever met the terms which you set for resetting the topic ban from indefinite back to its original one year length. So far as I can tell, such a resetting of SA's ban was never formalized or logged. As the banning admin you probably have the last word, though an AE thread would allow more people to express an opinion. At the moment there is no active request from SA regarding his ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have started a WP:AN thread about the topic ban, because the issue wasn't really addressed in the unblock discussion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There's also now an ArbCom clarification request here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Email request

Hello, Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 06:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Proposed decision

Hello T. Canens, would you be kind enough to review my comments regarding the FOF on me at the PD talk page before you vote? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding Colton Cosmic

This guy keeps turning up like a bad penny every few months, and there's chatter over at That Wikipedia Critic Site(tm), so I figured I'd come ask for some clarification. Last year you blocked this user with reason of "(Abusing multiple accounts: WP:ILLEGIT; undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space)"

It seems that "Colton Cosmic" was not this user's first account, yes? Is there a reason why this C.C. account was not or cannot be linked to the original owner or sockmaster? Or if this was a failed WP:CLEANSTART ? Tarc (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure who the original owner is (others have ideas, though I can't vouch for their correctness - see, e.g., MastCell's comment in [1]). But it's definitely not his original account, and the fact that it is an undisclosed alternative account that is editing project space and stirring up trouble sufficed for a block. T. Canens (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that thread. I'm satisfied, thanks for the info. :)

137.99.17.121

This editor is caught by a rangeblock which you applied, and has requested unblock. Other than this appeal there are no edits shown as coming from this specific IP since April, and there are a good range of good edits for some long time before that. It seems unlikely therefore that this is the specific IP from which the vandalism has originated. Would you care to take a look, and decide if he can or should be helped? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The rangeblock is targeted at a particularly persistent troll. The IP in question should request an account via WP:ACC, as suggested by the {{checkuserblock}} template. T. Canens (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding info(boxes)

Thank you for opposing the "finding" about me: "Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to many articles systematically and without prior discussion." But it's true, I have added, and I think it was good that I did, Infoboxes about stories and compositions should not require prior discussion, - "waste of time" has been mentioned. - Bruckner's symphonies have infoboxes since 2007, why not Mozart's Sparrow Mass? Why not The Ban on Love, - an infobox opera was recently made available by the project? Those are the questions that need a solution! - You can go over the list of debated additions (the list of additions that were kept without debate would be much longer) and check if you find one that is problematic. - I don't understand why so many comments center on the old battles. You know from my history that I opposed infoboxes in spring 2012 - when I met the topic, I am a newcomer - and was "converted" in fall. I respect the precious writers of featured articles who wish to protect their creations (you will find most of them in my list, and I am on good terms with many of them, having contributed to Messiah written by Brianboulton and Tim riley), but I and others are more interested in the needs of our readers who deserve to be informed at least about the topic, time and location of an article. I tried such a simple think for Verdi, as you will remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Sabrina Deep

  • Would you have a problem if I moved this into mainspace? I didn't see the article either time when it was deleted, but since the most recent deletion two years ago, the subject has attained two non-scene-related adult film award nominations (thus satisfying WP:PORNBIO). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
My impression has been that PORNBIO is on rather shaky ground, and I'm not sure I see enough independent sources that would pass GNG. Maybe try DRV? T. Canens (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It's already been to DRV though. What other sources do you think it needs? The two award noms pass point #1 of PORNBIO. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been to AfD and DRV in a while, but the last time I was there my impression is that AfD has deleted articles that passed PORNBIO but failed GNG, and DRV has generally upheld those deletions. If the only thing that's changed since the last deletion is the two nominations, then I'd prefer you take this to DRV for more eyes. T. Canens (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sabrina Deep

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sabrina Deep. 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. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2013/8&oldid=1168309066"