User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timotheus Canens. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, Timotheus Canens:
WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Hello, Timotheus Canens:
WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 December 2013
- Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who
- Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more
- WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie
- Featured content: F*&!
Blocked IPs
There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.
The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.
Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7
 |
Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk) |
AfD participation
You topic banned me in Nov 2012[1]. A few days ago, I was invited to take part in an AfD for the magazine "Pensee",[2] presumably because I created the article. Does my topic ban extend to my participation in the AfD? -- Iantresman 14:22 8 September 2013
Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6
 |
Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) |
No recusal?
I expected a recusal here. [3] Please strike your vote and change to "recuse". —Neotarf (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- No. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal. T. Canens (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Timotheus, I was not referring to a matter that could be described as "routine", but to your involvement in another matter--not at en.wp--which I would recall to you. I hesitate to mention the specifics in such a public venue. Thus I was surprised not to see you recuse from the current matter. Will you please consider doing so? —Neotarf (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- On what basis do you feel you cannot recuse? —Neotarf (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I do not recuse unless it has been demonstrated to me that I should recuse, not the other way around. Considering that I barely edit outside en.wp, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Feel free to refresh my memory by email if you don't want to write about it on-wiki. T. Canens (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- A reply has been made by email. —Neotarf (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you are talking about now. I was contacted once, almost a month ago, then completely forgot about it. I thought you might have been referring to it, but then your "not at en.wp" reference threw me off. Anyway, it's been archived now, but if it hadn't been I would have recused for this occasion. T. Canens (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- A reply has been made by email. —Neotarf (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I do not recuse unless it has been demonstrated to me that I should recuse, not the other way around. Considering that I barely edit outside en.wp, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Feel free to refresh my memory by email if you don't want to write about it on-wiki. T. Canens (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 December 2013
- Traffic report: Deaths of Mandela, Walker top the list
- In the media: Edward Snowden a "hero"; German Wikipedia court ruling
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments—winners announced
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Wine
- Interview: Wikipedia's first Featured Article centurion
- Featured content: Viewer discretion advised
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.22 released
Appeal POV RfC closure: John Calvin
I submitted this request for editor to close an RfC. But what happened was a person who self-describes as a Reformed Presbyterian (i.e. an admirer of Calvin) closed the discussion with no change to the article, which I had flagged as having a NPOV problem. The votes were 50/50 with all the people describing themselves on their talk pages as Calvinists (Reformed), voting for no change, and anyone not having a Calvinist background voting to change the section of the article to improve NPOV. I don't believe an editor who is a Calvinist (or an anti-Calvinist) should be deciding how to close a contentious POV discussion. Please advise me what the next step should be. I don't know how to request a review of this closure. Am I allowed to revert it? Talk:John_Calvin#Request_for_comment:_PoV_section The previous RfCs Talk:John_Calvin#NPOV_dispute_.22Securing_the_Reformation.22_section Markewilliams (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2013
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: Tunisia on the French Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Hopper to the top
- Discussion report: Usernames, template data and documentation, Main page, and more
- News and notes: Nine new arbitrators announced
- Featured content: Triangulum, the most boring constellation in the universe
- Technology report: Introducing the GLAMWikiToolset
Talkback
Message added 05:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 25 December 2013
- Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments
- Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings
- Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings
- WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos
- News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions
- Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools
Redirect template
In July of 2012, you fully protected the template {{Redirect template}}, and I was wondering if you would mind allowing access to that template by template editors? I'd like to improve it a bit as I've proposed on it's talk page. I was going to list it at WP:RFP, but I thought I should first check with you. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it. I'm not in a position to log into my admin account right now, though, so you'll have to find someone else to make the change. T. Canens (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I'll go ahead and list it at RFP. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)