User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/4

re: Water Tribe

You recently closed a DRV decision on this page and indef-protected the page. Unnoticed but in parallel to that discussion was an RfD debate on Water tribe, Water tribes (capitalization variants) and Water Tribes (plural). The RfD resulted in the creation of Water tribe (disambiguation) and the pointing of all the variants to that page. I overrode the protection to align this page as well. It would have been nice to treat them all together but that's the hazards of a decentralized project, I suppose. If the disambiguation page stays stable for a while, I would hope that we can lift the protection in a year or so. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that the two redirects should be consistent. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901

I'm not disputing your block (although Nathan certainly is). One question, though: I can't find the entry in the block log that prompted this comment from you. The only autoblock trip I can find is at 16:58. Obviously, that one concerns me as well, but I don't know if there's a way to be certain whether it's an IP address or another named account.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a very handy trick: Look at the contribution page of the IP address before and after the block. If you go to Special:Contributions/108.64.1.166, you see the line " For 108.64.1.166 (talk | change block | unblock | block log | uploads | logs | deleted user contributions | filter log)". Coupled with Special:BlockList/108.64.1.166, this means that the IP is under an autoblock. And if you compare it with the line that was there before you blocked the account, you can figure out if the autoblock is caused by the block on the account. T. Canens (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Given a confession and a promise of good behaviour, I've shortened the block to time served+72 hours My comments are here.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I expect that this is the last chance. T. Canens (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeating of the same mistake

Hi Tim, a few months ago you suggested an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban for me. My blocking administrator Gwen Gale examined my contributions and came to this conclusion: "I didn't see anything straightforwardly linked to IP topic warring as such".Then administrator AGK reviewed my block per my request and came to conclusion my block was unwarranted to begin with. Now two moths later you are repeating the same mistake. You suggesting topic-ban me over a few words "trolls" I used, and most of which have nothing to do with I/P topic. Where are real disruptions that merit topic ban of an editor, who wrote such articles as The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Comedians of Middle East conflict;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;Everest Peace Project. Who else from the both sides of the conflict wrote anything like that? In a worst case scenario ban me on using the word "trolls" and "hounds" as passionless suggested, but there is no merit to ban me on I/P related topic.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tim I just added another section named "How it works (repeating the same mistake)", in which I recounted 10 differences that are related to I/P from all that were presented. All others are not. I could have missed on something but should be correct more or less. As you could see my editing problems, if any, are not specific to the area of conflict.That's why to topic ban me on I/P related topic only will be inconsistent. If you really believe that me using words "hounds" and/or "trolls" is a disruption for the project, it is better to cite ban me that would be more than unfair, but at least consistent, but better yet to ban me on using words "troll" "hound" and zero tolerance for civility and allow me to contribute under such conditions. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

• News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

• In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

• Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

• WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI Clerking Request

Can you look at the this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Resident Anthropologist. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:DOPPELGANGERs might be a good idea. Anyway, checked, closed, and archived. T. Canens (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I intentionally left that one open and watch listed the page. As soon as it was account was created/and or blocked it would show up there and it worked. I had hoped some one would be stupid enough to use it and be caught in the act by CU but hey win some lose some The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI report edit summary

I tried to submit my report without an edit summary, but it wasn't accepted, twice. That has probably something to do with my preferences ("Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary"), but I generally like that. So I entered a space. Sorry about the extra work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It's just MediaWiki's brokenness (new sections use the edit summary as the section title...). T. Canens (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hit you twice in a hour but

Could you clarify This statement I am not sure how to read it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The last appeal

Timotheus, I added the text I am posting below to AE, but I am not sure it will be noticed. So I'd like to repeat it here please:

I realize that calling users "trolls" is unacceptable. I could be banned on using this word. I could be placed on zero tolerance civility alert, but there's absolutely nothing in the presented, taken out of content differences, none of which was made in the main space to topic-ban me on I/P conflict. Please allow me to contribute to wikipedia. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My block

I don't know if you saw my email, but I am sorry for what I did. Edit warring is very out of character for me. What would I have to do to regain rollback? Up until this past incident, I haven't used it abusively and I think my past responsible history should be considered. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 06:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

After a reasonable period of time (a month or so seems to be the current practice), you can ask at WP:PERM/R for it to be given back to you. You should be prepared to show good behavior in the mean time (no edit warring, etc.) and an understanding of the circumstances in which it is supposed to be used. T. Canens (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. As I said, I believe my past use of it will definitely work in my favor. Thank you. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hello. You probably do not remember, but in January (2011) you welcomed me to Wikipedia with one of those welcome notifications. I just wanted to thank you for welcoming me. I thought it was automatic, I did not know someone had to put effort into doing that. So, "Thank-You". Zach Winkler (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

File mover tag

Why was mine removed? Unlike the rollback, I haven't abused it. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 22:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not my doing. You'll need to talk to User:HJ Mitchell. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 03:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

AE - Miradre

Re your comment on AE, Newyorkbrad has invited administrators active on AE to comment directly on the Requests for clarification page. That seems to be the place to resolve these ambiguities. These apparently minor differences in wording become quite problematic when applying the discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talking to arbcom is often like talking to a brick wall, except that a brick wall will never give you contradictory instructions. Oh well. T. Canens (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason not to get involved in AE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting any way. In A Midsummer Night's Dream, a wall does in fact speak in the "play within a play". The wall gives its real life identity (self-outing) and describes its limited function and faults ("a crannied hole or chink") concisely. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Separate note, same topic

Please see my comment here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AfCHelper4

Hi Tim, I love AfCHelper4, but I've noticed that it no longer supports FFU (probably because of the different templates used), could you create a script for FFU if that wouldn't be much trouble? Cheers, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:14pm • 10:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, it never did. WP:FFU is a pain for scripts because of the "upload" part, which I don't think you can do by javascript. T. Canens (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it did, I dunno how, but back when it was still using the {{AFC}} template requests could be accepted/declined. The upload part was manual but the accepting and declining was automatic. Or I'm getting FFU confused with AFC/R... Anyway, could you make a script for accepting/declining after a file has been uploaded? Manually editing gets tedious, especially when dealing with many, many requests. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:08pm • 10:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You are. It supported AFC/R but never FFU unless someone hacked it. I might do it one day, but no guarantees since I'm a bit busy right now. T. Canens (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought so :P alright then, thanks Tim! —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:46am • 23:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

IPBE

• Hello Tim! Well, I was referred to you for assistance regarding this matter as my IP range is regarded as a Tor exit node and oftentimes I find myself stop dead in my track when I'm about to save my work here. Any help, please? Thanks! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Email me your IP range and the block message. Are you running Tor on your computer? T. Canens (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, I don't operate Tor; but this global message from Shizhao tells me that my IP range (even though I'm logged-in) is blocked from editing because it is an open Tor exit node. Question now is, how do I even determine my own IP range? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's odd that you are not using a Tor node, but yet it says you basically are. Have you tried to edit from the secure server at all (just asking because that may help)? –MuZemike 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I know... but the problem compounding editors from Singapore is the fact that a lot of us are using SingNet and Wireless@SG, which I gathered are both using some kind of Tor exit node in their network(s) and that might be the reason why I've noticed a few of my fellow countryman are IPBE-ed. BTW, I've not run into such problem after switching to OpenNet Singapore but that is not to say that I've not run into the problem (referring to the block message by Shizhao) again outside or whilst at work, often having to fall back on my M1 Broadband as back up. Even then, it is not a sure cure as I've experienced getting the dreaded message only just less often than the former two. So, can you help me, or not? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• All right,  Done. T. Canens (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, much appreciated~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

• News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

• In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news

• Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

• Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

• News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

• WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

I've raised 2 points at ARB/EN as to why reporting edit warring might have seemed important to me and that I do not understand why this could be considered as a block-able offense. Regardless, I apologise if you were personally feeling that I was wasting people's time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Vugar 1981

If just about any other editor gave this apparently snark response to your question it would be "game over" but it appears from this editor's previous talk page edits that he's not very proficient in English. It's possible that he was just simply answering your question that he had not previously read those policies, not that he doesn't give a shit about them and has no intention to.

Just something to consider. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored his talk page access (I didn't remove it in the first place for that reason, but Mike decided to...). I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether to unblock him, though. To me, there's a WP:COMPETENCE issue here - I'm not quite convinced that someone with such poor English can be a net positive... T. Canens (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

• News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

• In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Question re: changing the capitilization of an article title

Salve Timotheus - I'm wondering if you can fix a capitalization error for me, or let me know how to do it myself. I recently created the Kirsten price (musician) page, and would like to edit the P to be a capital. I attempted to do this via a "Move" function, but got an error... would appreciate some instruction. Gratiam tibi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApisCaelestis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone else moved it already. T. Canens (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Y'all are a well-oiled machine. Thanks for looking. ApisCaelestis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC).

Special:Contributions/24.179.224.68

Hi Timotheus. As an experienced checkuser clerk, would you take a look at User talk:Cunard#Curious about this IP user? Specifically, Special:Contributions/24.179.224.68 and the IP's edit here? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for putting the Ch interpreter DRV out of its misery and closing it today. After two weeks (never mind the week of debate in the original AfD) stuck on the same arguments, it was time to move on. I suppose S Marshall might have enjoyed another month or so but I suspect everyone else had pretty much had it. Msnicki (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Imalbornoz

It seems to me that most people who commented would be OK with your plan. There were a few suggestions of changes. Why don't you see if you want to accept any of the changes, and offer a final proposal? Or if you wish, just close it. If you think any more research is needed I might be able to assist. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through it tomorrow and see what I can do. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Okay, I was just doing some minor cleaning at Islamic terrorism and replaced the poor citation tag with a reliable source. I didn't bother to look at the at the paragraph. I just spot-checked claims made by Osama Bin Laden and simply included OSL claims published by CFR (reliable source).

I didn't realize the source mentioned Israel and the article obviously isn't about the country. Anyways, I want to know if this somehow falls under the specific I/P prohibition. I didn't add any content, just reliable sources.

Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's within the scope of the topic ban to me at a quick glance. But if you prefer you might want to be a bit more cautious since another admin may well treat it differently. T. Canens (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

All right thanks for the clarity. Considering you were the admin who issued the ban I figured it would best to question here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was the comments removed

Hi You removed my comments from AE? Is there a reason for that? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

These off-line communications were sent to arbcomm but also relavent admins..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Offline communications may not be published on-wiki. Among other reasons, they are not written by you nor released under CC-BY-SA, so it is a copyright violation. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay I am sorry, I did not know about this. Please redact what you deem is necessary. Although you have to agree it is disturbing and that is what I wanted to share it with admins. Sorry about that. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How is posting by Khodabandeh14 of private (and illegally obtained information, prosecutable by the laws in the United States, where Wikipedia is based), falsely connecting someone to my identity, not a severe violation of WP:HARASSMENT? Could you elaborate as an administrator? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)