User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/2

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation

I notice that you caught and reverted that alternate account deleting my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions.[1] and also went to ANI about it.

I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. Thanks. Hope to see you around.Ikip 04:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Tim, thanks for your input at User_talk:MuZemike#Your recent block. That administrator has now changed the ban of the editor in question from temporary to indefinite, upon the discovery of subsequent sock(s). I inquired earlier today whether he had or would rollback the editor's changes, but although he has made several edits, he hasn't responded. What is your opinion on the matter? I am unfamiliar with his other identities, but under the User:190fordhouse account he was making several to dozens of erroneous edits a day, many to older and/or fairly esoteric song articles. I take your point that if edits have been made since then, your solution won't apply, but in those cases at least someone has seen the article since him. If it's your judgement that rollback should happen (as it is mine), I would appreciate if you'd do that.

If not, I'm willing to drop the issue, certainly at least with you and Muzemike; this is certainly not personal for me, but I'd be interested to know what informed a different judgement, and how mass vandalism or mischief or whatever one calls that user's edits, should be handled in the future, if not with a total rollback at an early date, before subsequent edits can prevent the bot from working. It seems part of what some of these vandals enjoy is wasting other people's time as well as their own (I sound like I'm seventy years old!), and when a vandal makes dozens of edits a day, seven days a week, before being blocked if not banned, it seems totally unreasonable that someone should have to choose between going through those hundreds of edits with a fine-tooth comb, assuming good faith on each one, or leaving the vandalism in the hopes that it will be discovered. In a case like this, where the vandalism isn't profanity or substitution of images or something obvious, but instead often adding and subtly altering dates by a period of weeks, months or a year, it's not the sort of thing that's going to stand out as obvious vandalism to a future reader, even one who is moderately well-informed. It seems clear to me that if a user is widely adding erroneous data, we shouldn't be concerned about the possibility that some small percentage of their edits may have been otherwise. I'd be interested to hear your response, and then, as I said, if you disagree, I won't press you further. I appreciate your time. I'll watch this page for your response. Abrazame (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation for User MBernal615

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the sockpuppet investigation .

If Nelsondenis248 was indefinitely blocked for attacks to the Adam Clayton blp and this user User_talk:MBernal615 has been basically doing the same thing, the Adam_Clayton_Powell_IV_(politician) blp was editing to a clear attack article and MBernal also uploaded multiple copyright violation pictures to add to the negative portrayal and is now apparently sending otrs details of the copyright status belongs to him on his article Nelson_Antonio_Denis and that makes MBernal, Claytonns political opponent and also the previous user that was indefinitely blocked then this is block evasion with exactly the same bad editing that got the original account indefed, I would like to see him blocked for repeating the previous behavior and block evasion, checkuser would confirm this but the whole thing is quacking so loud is t is ridiculas, could I have some action on this or can we at least get an administrator to have a proper look at the accounts actions. In my opinion it is cut and dried that its the same account block evading.Off2riorob (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

Tim Song,

The sockpuppet charge is unfounded.

There has been no abuse of multiple accounts, disruptive edits, or efforts to distort consensus or circumvent policy.

There has been no recruitment of proxies to sway consensus.

The history of my editing will speak for itself. It is not limited to Adam Clayton Powell IV, and it is always well-documented (sources, newspaper articles, in-line references) and constructive. I have not engaged in edit wars or other negative behavior.

I did not understand all the protocols for uploading a photo. I corrected any errors as soon as they were brought to my attention, and did not repeat those errors afterward.

Again, this charge is not backed by the evidence.

Thank you for your consideration.

MBernal615 (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enough. My talk page is not the place for this. Off2riorob, if you think there's enough disruption to block, report to ANI, or wait for someone to review the SPI. Tim Song (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting AFD submissions

Would you mind having a chat with TheRealFennShysa (talk · contribs) and Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) about the inappropriateness of removing AFD notices and corresponding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log pages? They apparently don't like the fact that an IP editor is prodding and AFDing pages. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Left message on both users' talk pages pointing them to the relevant paragraph in WP:AFDHOWTO. Tim Song (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of mondayMEDIA article

Hi Tim,

I want to thank you for extending the time for discussion about the deletion of the mondayMEDIA article.

I am trying to meet all the requirements and address all the points made by the editor who proposed the deletion and the comments made by a couple of editors who have voted to delete it.

I feel that there is lack of understanding about the category, in that I can find dozens, if not hundreds of examples of similar music and film companies who have long-standing valid articles, but that mondayMEDIA is subjected to a different standard - OR - there are dozens, if not hundreds of music and film production companies that should be deleted (but I think that would be a terrible mistake).

You can read the full discussion at: Article for deletion/mondayMEDIA

If you look at the list of Record Labels or Independent Film Production companies, you will find the examples I'm talking about.

For instance, compare the mondayMEDIA article to film production companeies C2 Pictures or Davis Entertainment or Record Labels Yazoo Records or Alchemy Records (U.S.).

With the changes made since the deletion discussion began, I believe I've now made the mondayMEDIA article encyclopedic, with valid references, and with a neutral POV.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Pope

Tim, you closed the Pope as non consensus? I'm not a deletionist, but this one surprises me! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, link? Tim Song (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the bishop, the idea is that the discussion is such a trainwreck that any attempt to determine consensus from it would be unsafe. Tim Song (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/2 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14#User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava

Hi, Tim. Because you requested Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 11#Ambarish Srivastava, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14#User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)

Hi, Tim. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kelly_Carrington

Hi there. I'm here to respectfully request that you reverse your good-faith NAC of the Kelly Carrington AFD. I don't perceive that discussion as being unanimous or close to it; the discussion topics were contentious; and in the end you apparently made a judgment call based on a disputed guideline, without mentioning / acknowledging the BLP policy that was the foundation for the nomination and my own "delete" argument. Thanks for your consideration. Townlake (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the AfD again and stand by my close. You can ask for review at WP:DRV if you so desire. Tim Song (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but what was your rationale for your decision? Townlake (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, that there is a rough consensus to keep? Tim Song (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kissle

Hi there, I am interested in using Kissle to help NPP. Manadude2 : Talk 14:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tim Song (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cookies

Thank you for helping with my Wdefcon! Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 05:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Kissle - Cannot login

After being added to the list of authorised users, I still cannot log in.

It throws up an error:

'Unhandled exception has occurred in your application. If you click Continue... blahbeblah. Action "login" failed, the query string was and the post string was lgname=Osariuslgpassword=*********.'

Then there's a whole list of details (See User:Osarius/KissleCode)

Osarius was Manadude2 : Want to chat? 10:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be caused by a mediawiki config change.  Working on a fix....Tim Song (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if there's still a problem. Tim Song (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange bug

I came across a really peculiar bug today that you might want to investigate. Out of complete stupidity, I tried to log in to Kissle using my old Wikipedia name (which I filed a WP:CHU for and is now Shirik). Wikipedia lets you log in to the old name (and so does Kissle), but Kissle then assumed I wasn't authorized (which is to be expected). Strange thing is when I corrected the username and tried to log in, it still said I wasn't authorized. In fact, it kept saying I wasn't authorized until I completely shut down the app, pulled it back up, and logged in again. It seems something about the first inappropriate but successful login borked the internal state. I may be able to get some more info for you if I debug it a bit, but just thought I'd let you know. Most certainly a very low priority bug, but I figured I'd toss it your way anyway. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reproduced. Looking into it...Tim Song (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed in revision 30. I'm too lazy to upload another version just for this though, as it seems to be rather unlikely to occur in a normal scenario. Tim Song (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember Alfred Seiwert-Fleige?

I think we might have another sock replacing the stuff you threw out. I've reverted twice, and am now being accused of vandalism by the one replacing the removed material. Modus operandi and edit comments are very familiar sounding. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is probably the best venue here. Tim Song (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

HAVE EITHER OF YOU EVEN READ THE NEW ARTICLE THOUROUGHLY? IT IS VERY WELL SOURCED AND NOT ONLY ARE YOU VANDALISING THE ARTICLE BY REMOVING SOURCED TRUTH YOU ARE NOW EDIT WARRING. WIKIPEDIA IS VERY STRONGLY AGAINST EDIT WARRING. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS ARTICLE. IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND IMPROVED GREATLY FROM THE PREVIOUS SOCK PUPPET EDITION. READ IT... IT STATES FACTS AND THE ENGLISH AND GRAMMAR ARE GREATLY IMPROVED. THE PROBLEM PEOPLE HAD WITH IT BEFORE IS NOT THE INFORMATION BUT HOW POORLY THAT ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN. IT IS VERY WELL WRITTEN NOW WITH ONLY A FEW MINOR TYPOS THAT I WILL FIX TODAY. ANYONE CAN MODIFY AND EDIT AND PUT WHAT EVER THEY WANT ON THE ARTICLE AS LONG AS ITS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF WIKIPEDIA.. THIS DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON A SOCK PUPPET BECAUSE. THIS MAKES A PERSON AN EDITOR. MAYBE YOU TWO ARE THE SOCK PUPPETS SINCE YOU TWO SEEM TO ALSO BE HAVING SIMILAR "ACTIVITIES" OF REVERTING AND VANDALISING A WELL SOURCED AND WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE !I CAN NOT BELIEVE THE DRAMA THATS GOES ON IN WIKIPEDIA. THIS IS LIKE HIGH SCHOOL BEHAVIOR. --Michelle cannon (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There's someone new editing Alfred Seiwert-Fleige - goes by name of Ban Yoo. Edit war looming if not in progress. Quite different ideas. Michelle Cannon thought he was something to do with me, but I've not heard of him (her?). Looks like SPA. Interesting - just blocked as a sock of Ralph... Peridon (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

cfcuk

Hi

Thank you for your comments regardiong the cfcuk fanzine.

I must say however that I feel that several of the comments made lead me to think that those endorsing the delete also did not read the full AfD debate, prefering to read the reasons for deletion rather than both them and the reasons not to as follows; [[2]]

As I have stated, I feel that I have put valid points forward to 'save' the article from deletion but it seems - judging from the comments that follow, that some have not fully read the above link. "Endorse. The consensus at the AfD was clear that the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the fanzine does not meet the general notability guidelines. The only apprent claims to notability presented in the AfD were 1. archival at the British Library - as noted, the British Library archive a copy of all publications, regardless of notability. This is not therefore an indicator of whether a publication is notable or not. 2. uniquely low cover price - this claim was not only a very weak (as noted) but it was also refuted. Could not have been closed any other way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)"

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 11:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Einsiders.com

Regarding this discussion, how do we/you go about adding Einsiders.com to the spam blacklist? 842U (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Tim Song (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Kissle

Hey Tim, how's it going? I'd like to give Kissle a try, so would you mind adding me? Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 04:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tim Song (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger

Hi, Tim. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)