User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/7

Deletion review request: Jesse Liberty

I want to request a limited undeletion of Jesse Liberty, which you administered last year. The consensus to delete the article was not strong. I believe that the article, on the subject of a published author of over two dozen books, was notable according to common sense, but that the article was deleted mainly because the parties supporting the article's retention did not understand Wikipedia's guidelines (especially WP:GNG or WP:RS) well enough to either argue that it met those criteria or that it could be improved to meet those criteria in the future. Some of the comments recommending the article's deletion were uncivil (1).

I can accept that the state of the article at the time that it was deleted may not have been strong enough to be included in Wikipedia, but I want to request that you restore the page as a subpage linked to user:Jliberty's userpage, so that the user can have the opportunity to improve the article and re-submit it when it meets WP:GNG (and/or other guidelines, and your discretion). As a good faith gesture, I would also request that we give this author very specific, clear criteria for the article's potential re-submission, because I do not believe that the user ever understood the guidelines that led to the article's deletion.Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the user has made exactly one edit since February, I'm not sure userfying it to him will do much good. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The user had maintained an active account since 2004, but my understanding is that he became frustrated with our bureaucracy after that page was deleted and left. If we userfy the page and he doesn't return to edit it, I don't see what harm that does to the encyclopedia. If we userfy the page and he does return to edit it, we might regain a productive editor and/or a better version of the deleted page.Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:STALEDRAFT. I'm open to sending it to the article incubator though. T. Canens (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Please post the relevant link when this process is completed. I will attempt to contact the user to get his assistance in improving the article, possibly outside of Wikipedia. I will work with him to improve the article and re-submit it when I believe it meets WP:GNG.Ferox Seneca (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jesse Liberty. T. Canens (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What is rationale for restoring this? This is an WP:Autobiography by an individual who believes he should be notable simply by virtue of having written a lot of non-notable "how to" books. A thorough search was made during the AfD and not one independent secondary source was found. Even though the article was deficient, e.g., with that overly-promotional list of the subject's books, that isn't the reason the concensus was delete. It wasn't even just the fact that proper sources weren't cited. It was that the sources don't exist. Is there any reason to believe that new sources now exist? Why is this autobiography and its author getting special deference we don't usually give to other autobiographies? How much time is being requested to improve the article before it can be nominated in good faith to XfD? It seems to me that WP:Userfication might be justified (if the editor was active) but WP:Incubation not at all. Msnicki (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never actually seen the article, had never even heard of "Jesse Liberty" until after it had been deleted, and still know almost nothing about him, but I want to have the opportunity to salvage it because the AFD forum that I saw led me to the conclusions that I have posted above. I'll do the research myself, and I am sure that I should be able to improve the article to meet WP:GNG within several months if it is possible for me to do at all. I don't see how this could possibly make the encyclopedia worse or how this is damaging anything or anyone.Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I submit that the reason you've never heard of him and still know almost nothing about him is that he's just not notable.
The article was deleted because sources to establish notability don't exist, not because of the lack of any other "improvements". The subject himself couldn't suggest any sources. If he's so intent on his own notability that he's writing his own WP:Autobiography, don't you imagine that if a proper source existed, he would know about it? I asked him directly if there was anything we'd overlooked. Do you know of any reliable independent secondary sources? If the answer is yes, then you have a case. But if the answer is no, restoring the article doesn't change that.
All of us who participated in the AfD gave it careful thought and we spend time on trying to arrive at a consensus that adhered to the guidelines. If you think the outcome was wrong, a WP:Deletion review would be appropriate where a proper debate (which I think you would lose) would follow. And if you personally are asking to work on it, then it should go into your userspace, not into WP:Incubation. Msnicki (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I submit that I am not completely familiar with all of the world's notable people, and that it is impossible for me to determine the relative notability of a person until after I have done sufficient research.

WP:DRV states clearly that users must first contact the admin responsible for deletion of an article in order to resolve their concerns, and should submit a formal deletion request only if they are not able to satisfactorily resolve the issue with that admin. According to WP:DRV, this talk page is the appropriate channel for my request, and a formal deletion review is completely unnecessary at this time.

Are you suggesting that this article only existed to satisfy the egos of its supporters and not because many editors believed that there was a common sense reason that it should be retained? That idea violates WP:AGF and comes close to WP:ADHOMINEM.

The parties favouring retention argued their case according to common sense and not according to Wikipedia's formal guidelines, indicating that they were mostly novice users who had reason to believe that the subject was notable but who did not regularly participate in bureaucratic debates here and did not understand our guidelines. I only need time to review the article and find any sources that might exist, and if I am unable to do so then the page will not be restored. Incubation will be preferable in order to encourage collaboration. I don't see how this will damage the encyclopedia in any way.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's enough. Userfication or incubation is usually granted upon any good-faith request in the absence of BLP/copyvio/other equally serious issues. T. Canens (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

AfCHelper ate my article!

Hi, maybe I did something worng, but when I accepted an article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_Lu%C3%ADs_Pequito_de_Almeida_Sampaio
after cleanup it was just about blank: there was the article title, and a ratings box.
And it was a detailed, professionally written article. Not small, no.
Well, you've got my username; you know which article it was, and I installed the standard script (v.4) as you will be able to see.
After I got over the shock I undid the "cleanup" and got the article back.
I hope that was the right thing to do! Please check and let me know if it was a bug/glitch in the software or if it was the user (in the latter case, I would like to know better next time!)
I'm using IE8 with autoupdates off. Hope to hear from you (or mabdul) soon. David FLXD (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that mabdul introduced a bug somewhere when he modified the script. I'll take a look. T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, odd, I just tried moving a copy of the same text to my userspace and the cleanup worked fine for me [1]. So I'm going to suspect that there was either some weirdness with IE or with the retrieving of text from the server for that edit. I don't have IE8, so I can't test the former hypothesis; and if it's the latter it's going to be a Heisenbug that's going to be very hard to reproduce. If you encounter such a problem again, let me know. T. Canens (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Uuuhm... That's the first report of such a problem... The script didn't changed since 26th... interesting. Please report if there are more blank pages. mabdul 10:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

AFCH

As you know, I'm overtook the development of the script. You have a test in the AFC/R section parsing related to mass-moderated submission. I don't know if this is historic, but I have never seen them. For what was that for? Is it still in use? How was it created? Can we remove that check if it is unused? mabdul 10:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC) PS: the comment in the source code starts with // second, strip out the parts that has been mass-moderated.

I believe that back when AFCs were reviewed by hand, they were used to accept/decline multiple sections at the same time (see the documentation of {{afc-c}}), but with the script it's not been used for a while. I suspect that removing it should be OK. T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

AFC Helper Script suggestion--auto check for COPYVIO

Hi Tim, I've gotten interested in reviewing AFCs and have been using your helpful script. I have a new feature suggestion: Can you have your tool provide a quick COPYVIO check? It would be good for it to run a few searches on some of the strings of text in the article against either the URLs provided as references or just as general searches to provide a quick check for blatant cut and paste copyright violations. Thanks for considering... Zad68 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So basically you are asking for a CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) in JavaScript? I don't think that's going to be feasible, sorry. I'll see if I can get AfC pages included in the bot though. T. Canens (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up! Zad68 13:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your grave dancing allegation

• • - diff

Hi - you were mistaken to assume my comment to GoodDay was in any way grave dancing - Myself and GoodDay are good wiki friends and as such I would never dance on his grave - Youreallycan 07:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept this explanation, or do you still assert grave dancing? Youreallycan 14:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My apologies. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool, apology is not needed - just as long as you accept my explanation I am happy - sometimes easy to take keyboard comments the wrong way - regards - Youreallycan 09:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Query

How did you conclude that that 99.237.236.218 and 99.237.115.11 were the same person as they do not appear to have ever edited the same article. Was it based upon similar POV and similar location? Ankh.Morpork 13:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Were you planning on saying anything to me regarding this mistake? Or is common courtesy not the rule of the land here on Wikipedia when people, including administrators, make mistakes? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, now that I have seen what you posted on the AE results section, that IP is NOT the same as me. And I resent the fact that you are making that accusation without backing it up. If you want to submit an SPI to verify, then go ahead. I do not make disruptive edits the way that IP does. All of my edits are sourced and I always try to edit based on Wikipedia policy. I don't appreciate my reputation being tarnished like this based on the actions of another IP. Have you heard of WP:HUMAN? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I request that you update this page [2] to reflect the fact that I am in no way associated with that other IP. You have no right to make up that association and link me to his problematic edits just because we geolocate to the same metropolitan area. Do you know how many millions of people live in the GTA? There are only so many ISPs and therefore IP starting #s available to all those people. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timotheus Canens. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision.
Message added 22:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 22:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

email

I've sent you another email. Thanks, nableezy - 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This one looks like a sock too...

for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingsamali from these edits but I don't know how to add it to the present SPI since it has been closed. You might also find this image: File:1st Album Art Picture.jpg to be of interest. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

AE

You have some familiarity with the involved parties. Comments appreciated. Ankh.Morpork 23:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

• Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

• News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

• Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

• Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

• Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

HI

From fear of clogging the ban request page, as you haven't provided a reasoning for a block suggestion, can you please provide that here? - Ottomanist (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there is a conflict of interest between me and the reporting me. But why is his word stronger than mine when he has a very long history of tendentious warring on Albanian-Balkan related pages? - Ottomanist (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much whitewash

Hi, Timotheus Canens. Thank you for cleaning up after me on Floq's talk page, where I had applied a little too much whitewash. Now that I see how it could have been done better, I will do a better job next time. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

2 Questions

Okay fine, I accept your recommendation and findings but you indicated that a warning for his carelessness should suffice. That's fine by me. I'm assuming that you mean an ARBPIA warning, is that correct? My next question is this. Let's assume that someone who never received an ARBPIA warning (and never participated at AE) engages in source distortion. What would be the appropriate forum for such a breach? If he never received a warning, presumably AE would be powerless to do anything. Would ANI be the appropriate venue?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes. 2. If you want community sanctions, ANI is the right venue, though I doubt that anything but the clearest-cut cases would be actioned there. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Query

Any update on my mail?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a second opinion. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

sent mail--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Light Current SPI

Pardon me Mr. Canens,

I see that I am a suspected sock on the current LC SPI case. Reviewing the main SPI page, I note in the opening paragragh that:

• "Investigations may only be opened if you provide, on the investigation page, clear evidence that two users have the same operator."

Under the "Important notes" the 2nd bullet advises:

• "Without exception, you must supply evidence (with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that substantiate your suspicion that two accounts are sock-puppets."

As you have endorsed as Clerk or Reviewing Admin the SPI asking for check user, I was hoping that you could identify for me the evidence that justifies the investigation.

1. Hipocrite's single cromulent sentence(?),contain no information that would drag me into this investigation. The only fact that I was able to extract was a link showing that I responded to allegations made against me. I see nothing unusual about responding to a discussion where my user ID comes up.
2. Baseball Bugs evidence is an anagram, yet Elvis=Alive wouldn't be cause to exhume. There are +100K anagrams for your user id here are they a cause for concern?
3. Steve Summit has "Strong suspicions", but this hardly embiggens the justification for a checkuser.

Please advise me on the evidence that your endorsement is based on so that I may defend myself as suggested here. Thanks for your time. Bred Ivy (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

When you act like a sock, you shouldn't whine when you get treated like one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

AE

You may have missed another edit of mine just following the one you noted where I added and explicitly quoted Stein in connection with Nasser disregarding his military staff [3] My sourcing is meticulous and painstaking. I check and double check and I expect no less from others. I'm noting this here because I don't want to clutter the AE for what I consider to be a straight forward issue. He wrote "According to Shlaim" and in fact the sources that were noted just prior (and in fact even quoted) clearly attribute those views to Stein and Oren NOT Shlaim.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also commented on the page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And just for the sake of clarity and side by side comparison This is Oren and this is Shlaim. Something that should have been straight forward has now turned to clutter but whatever.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the inaccurate attribution to Shlaim and added an inline cite [4]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Re User talk:AgadaUrbanit/Archives/2012/July#AE ban. Am I allowed to comment on ARBFLG2? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits to your javascript

Hi Tim. I've made these edits to pages that affect those in your userspace on request of mabdul (talk · contribs). If you do not agree with these feel free to revert me and to discuss this with mabdul. Apologies in advance if this breaks anything it should not. Thanks! — foxj 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW: I have an script question: you used HTTP GET for the redirects parts and HTTP POST for the AFC stuff. Maybe I interpreted this about.com explanation wrong, but why did you choose different systems? (I'm thinking of cleaning up the code before I actually expand the tool for the FFU part) mabdul 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

GET and POST aren't 'different' systems really. They are just different ways of accomplishing the same thing. GET is often a lot simpler to implement and depending on how much data you're sending it may be better to use POST. You can mix and use either method and it is perfectly fine, and in fact it is often simpler and easier to troubleshoot to only use POST where there is a true need for it. -- Avanu (talk) (Web Developer, 18 years, yes really) 23:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wondered, because Tim wrote nearly the same function twice with the only difference is post and get... mabdul 00:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I have no idea why I did that...... T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

but I have! Browser caching! mabdul 13:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

• Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

• News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

• Featured content: Taking flight

• Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

• Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixing my mistake

Thanks for fixing that missing } for me. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
2. Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
3. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
   1. Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
   2. Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
   3. When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
5. Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
6. Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

If you can figure out how to get the Falun Gong 2 case closure announcement to show up on Ohconfucius' talkpage whilst leaving a direct, please feel free to move it. In preview mode, only the redirect was showing up. Until then, I've reverted your revert with an explanatory edit summary. Thanks --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is making it a {{softredirect}}. T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try and remember that one. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Varlaam sock

Is there any point in filing an SPI for this IP, editing in the name of User:Varlaam, who was blocked for 3 months on 14 July 2012? Or is it so obvious that you would be able to action it anyway. Never filed one before, but will do if you advise. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No need. Blocked. T. Canens (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Trichuris trichiura

He's requested unblock, and I've put it on hold because, as he complained, it was not explained who he was supposed to be a sock of. I know in these cases there's usually evidence, so I thought I'd ask you (If you need to keep it confidential, you can email me). Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(TPS comment) I'm not sure it matters what other accounts that editor has used. This particular account seems to be used almost exclusively to participate in wikipolitics and project-space discussions, and its comments are unhelpful at best. We don't really need a protracted legalistic argument to handle accounts like that; they're generally blocked and we move on. At an absolute maximum, the account could be unblocked and restricted from project-space, but those sorts of half-measures usually prove counterproductive and difficult to enforce. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know or care who that account is. It is obvious from their earliest edits that this account is not new, and that's enough for me when they are editing project space in violation of WP:ILLEGIT. T. Canens (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban violation by Ottomanist

[5] Athenean (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48h. T. Canens (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• News and notes: Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics

• Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans

• Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia

• Featured content: When is an island not an island?

• Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mind looking at some Chinese sources for me?

Hi, Timotheus, please could I persuade you to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minghao Xu (2nd nomination)? All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded there. T. Canens (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, TC.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion on sources

Earlier this month you agreed to restore the article Jesse Liberty to a temporary state of incubation, in order for me to attempt to raise the article to meet WP:RS and WP:GNG. I found some short biographies (attached to sites that have interviewed the subject) that I might be able to use to confirm the subject's notability, but the reliability and independence of those sources has been questioned by another user, and they are difficult for me to assess.

As the admin who originally agreed to have the article temporarily restored, I need to ask if you can review these sources for me, here, to determine if they can be used to establish notability. If they can be used to support notability then I will rewrite the article based on these sources, and if they cannot be used then I will abandon my efforts to have the article restored.Ferox Seneca (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend WP:DRV, but I'd be greatly surprised if they consider them enough for notability. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree: the sources are not good enough, and I am confident that no better ones exist. You can shut that article down when your feel ready.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 24#Jesse Liberty. Even if we agree the page should go, I think T. Canens is right, that we should follow the process. Msnicki (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a point to going through a formal review at this time, since none of the editors active in reviewing the page believe that the request will be successful. I'll bring the article up again in the event that better sources are created in the future, but there isn't any point in seeking a broader review of sources right now.Ferox Seneca (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have one interaction ban, indefinite in length, in place. It was placed by you on 29 November 2010. I request it be lifted. nableezy - 05:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the other party is currently indefinitely topic banned, I'm OK lifting the interaction ban. Usual caveats about gaming apply. T. Canens (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 15:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

decision made without consensus

(diff | hist) . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turun‎; 00:41 . . (+1,510)‎ . . ‎Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs)‎ (Closing debate, result was redirect to Turku#Name)

There was no consensus to do that.

Can you please justify what you've done? Thank you Azylber (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer who happened to be watching this page, it looks like a good call to me. The keep arguments were weak and failed to rebut the better arguments for delete or redirect based on the guidelines and on the nom's point that Turun is just a genitive form of Turku. An outcome of redirect is well-supported by the discussion. If you strongly disagree, you could request a deletion review but my guess is this one would be endorsed. Msnicki (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Msnicki, thank you for trying to help. However, I have already explained why the reason you're citing is completely wrong and irrelevant in the English language wikipedia. This is the English language wikipedia, and therefore decisions should not be made based on features of the grammar of foreign languages, but instead on the way these foreign words are used in English. If you look at the discussion, they are all citing this argument which is obviously wrong.

First I will wait for ‎Timotheus Canens to explain why he did something that there was no consensus to do and why he did it in the way that he did it. Then after he's had the opportunity to explain his actions I will decide which venue to take this to, so that the damage can be repaired.

Azylber (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I think that's your opinion, not something supported by the guidelines, and the consensus appears to agree with me, not you. But again, if you still disagree, the proper venue is a WP:DRV, which I predict will endorse. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion. Decisions on inclusion of articles in the English wikipedia cannot be based on the grammar of foreign languages. If that's a matter of opinion, then... everything is a matter of opinion. As regards the guidelines, I have no idea whether there is guideline that expressly addresses this issue, but it's definitely necessary. Is there one? Azylber (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That you have no idea whether there is a guideline that addresses this is what makes it your opinion, not a guidelines-based argument as we use the terms here on Wikipedia. This doesn't make you wrong. You're entitled to your opinion and for those who disagree to behave respectfully. But to be effective at an AfD (get the outcome you want, persuading others to your point of view) it really helps if you can cite the relevant section of the guidelines that actually exists, not just something you think should be there. By citing the guidelines and showing how they apply, you demonstrate that it's not just your opinion, but that we have a WP:consensus already in place that informs us on how we should decide the outcome. Hope that helps. Msnicki (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Msnicki captured my thoughts quite well (and thanks!). Roughly speaking, guidelines such as WP:PTM reflect global consensus. A local consensus at an AFD may make an exception from a guideline, but absent such a local consensus the global consensus controls. In this case, the argument for deletion based on PTM is fairly strong, and is not really countered significantly by the keeps. T. Canens (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing of AfD

Hello!
You recently closed this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in C.I.D. (TV series). Was the result simply keep or was it to merge the content from main article to this AfDed article? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether to merge the content is an editorial matter. Most commenters seem to agree that moving the content from the main article is preferable, though given the relatively low participation it's not something that I would mandate in my close. So the answer is you can either be bold and merge it or start a new discussion on the talk page w/r/t merging. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be bold and merge it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For the RTI LLC name block - sorry I didn't notice that angle. Did you notice my request at SPI? --Lexein (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:FoobyZeeky

Much obliged for the revert, and good block. The similarity of his edits to those User:Wagner in Brazil suggests it's a Wagner sock. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, got another one. Would you mind? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Let's hope that's all for today. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the article Didier Castel-Jacomin

Hello TC, recently the article Didier C-J was deleted. I respect that. I would like to start a new article with the same name but with only one sentence saying that Didier is a French classical pianist born in Marseille. He is a living person. Would that a good thing to start with or do you advice me not to write under this title at all? greetingsGuffens (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I restarted the articel in my sandbox and began with reducing the original text to a minimum. I added as recommended the WP:AFC in my sandbox.Guffens (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)