User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2015/11
 | 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. |
The Signpost: 28 October 2015
- From the editor: The Signpost's reorganization plan—we need your help
- News and notes: English Wikipedia reaches five million articles
- In the media: The world's Wikipedia gaps; Google and Wikipedia accused of tying Ben Carson to NAMBLA
- Arbitration report: A second attempt at Arbitration enforcement
- Traffic report: Canada, the most popular nation on Earth
- Recent research: Student attitudes towards Wikipedia; Jesus, Napoleon and Obama top "Wikipedia social network"; featured article editing patterns in 12 languages
- Featured content: Birds, turtles, and other things
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Community letter: Five million articles
Deleted Article IPG DentistEdu Technique
Hello,
I have noticed that the article "IPG DentistEdu Technique" was deleted. This article is mine and i couldn't upload it due to some restrictions and i gave it to an "expert" to do so. (in case my name does not match the uploaders one)
Why was it deleted in first place ?
Can you advice me on how to undelete it? If not, can you tell me how to upload it again from scratch ?
Request for userfication
Hello Timotheus,
a while ago you deleted the article Solrad 9 because it had been created by the serial copyright violator User:Marshallsumter. Could you please restore this page to my user space so that I can work on it. I intend to rewrite the whole thing and I will take special care to remove any possible copyvios. Thanks, Reyk YO! 18:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Reyk: I don't want to restore potential copyvios, but I'd be happy to email you a copy. T. Canens (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, that will be fine. Thank you. Reyk YO! 08:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Reyk: Email sent. T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, that will be fine. Thank you. Reyk YO! 08:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 November 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation finances; Superprotect is gone
- In the media: Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: propaganda myth or history?
- Traffic report: Death, the Dead, and Spectres are abroad
- Featured content: Christianity, music, and cricket
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Dear Timotheus Canens: I found this abandoned draft. It seems that you deleted the mainspace article a couple of months ago because of undisclosed paid editing. This draft was around longer than that, and hasn't been edited for six months. I was planning to look for some references and improve it, but if it's "tainted", I don't want to waste my time. Should it be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: The draft should be OK. A common OM sock tactic is to take declined/abandoned drafts and create articles out of them (without proper attribution). Looks like that's what happened here. T. Canens (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I (and several others) have been going through the abandoned declined drafts systematically. When I find one that's been pasted to mainspace by a different editor from the one who created it, I've been merging the histories back together. I've done about 200 of these. Is there something I should be checking first? I wouldn't want to be impeding your investigations. By the way, I read the section that you linked above, and aside from the pasting without attribution, a lot of the "behavioural traits" in that list apply to me. I spend most of my time improving and promoting abandoned AfC drafts. I even like linking geographical placenames, although I don't consider it useless. As well, several people have contacted me in the past in reply to e-mails which they had received, ostensibly from me, offering to improve their articles (which I didn't send, of course). If this happens again, where is the best place to report it? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: If you see similar suspicious behavior in the future, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody is probably the best place to report it. For known OM creations, I'd recommend not merging the history (and just restart from the declined draft), unless you can verify that the OM creation introduced no other copyright issues. History merges shouldn't be an impediment to investigation - if anything, the deletion/restoration makes it obvious where the original article came from. T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I (and several others) have been going through the abandoned declined drafts systematically. When I find one that's been pasted to mainspace by a different editor from the one who created it, I've been merging the histories back together. I've done about 200 of these. Is there something I should be checking first? I wouldn't want to be impeding your investigations. By the way, I read the section that you linked above, and aside from the pasting without attribution, a lot of the "behavioural traits" in that list apply to me. I spend most of my time improving and promoting abandoned AfC drafts. I even like linking geographical placenames, although I don't consider it useless. As well, several people have contacted me in the past in reply to e-mails which they had received, ostensibly from me, offering to improve their articles (which I didn't send, of course). If this happens again, where is the best place to report it? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 November 2015
- Arbitration report: Elections, redirections, and a resignation from the Committee
- Discussion report: Compromise of two administrator accounts prompts security review
- Featured content: Texas, film, and cycling
- In the media: Sanger on Wikipedia; Silver on Vox; lawyers on monkeys
- Traffic report: Doodles of popularity
- Gallery: Paris
Talkback
Message added 02:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Orangemoody again
Dear Timotheus Canens: Sorry to bother you again. I did report some stuff at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody as you suggested, but I was told that the examples I listed were too old, and then the whole page was immediately archived and the case closed. I guess I made a pest of myself. Can you tell me how fresh the edits need to be before they should be reported? Should I report them at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody instead, or is there a better place? Today I can across Faraz Minooei, at which a brand new editor improved a page and submitted it, and when it was declined moved the page to mainspace today after exactly ten edits, then unhid the categories, after which another user with only one undeleted edit marked the page as reviewed using the page curation tool. Is this the type of thing I should report? I'm pretty sure it's fresh enough.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- CU data is generally kept for 3 months. I took a look at those users and didn't see anything obvious, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sunday Nov 22: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon
| Two options for this Sunday: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for one of two edit-a-thons this Sunday, just bring your laptop and an interest in participating! No special knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia knowledge is required, and there will be Wikipedia training workshops for new folks. Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon @ Center for Jewish History
Join at the Center for Jewish History (drop-in any time!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to the American Soviet Jewry movement. Women In Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences
Join at the NY Academy of Sciences, during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to the lives and works of women scientists. Note that seating is limited for the Women in Science event, as well as signing up on-wiki, please RSVP by email. Bonus event:
| |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
The Signpost: 18 November 2015
- Special report: ArbCom election—candidates’ opinions analysed
- In the media: Icelandic milestone; apolitical editing
- Discussion report: BASC disbanded; other developments in the discussion world
- Arbitration report: Ban Appeals Subcommittee goes up in smoke; 21 candidates running
- Featured content: Fantasia on a Theme by Jimbo Wales
- Traffic report: Darkness and light
Jean-Pierre Bolduc
Hi, I saw you closed the deletion review for Jean-Pierre Bolduc as default closed. I don't believe that is the correct outcome as the majority (very experienced users) supported overturning or overturn to NC, and for valid reasons. Multiple sources were provided that attest notability, and I don't understand why they are being ignored and dismissed. Please take a second look. Thank you. [1] —МандичкаYO 😜 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- And a substantial number of equally well-experienced editors found the AFD close to be within admin discretion. I stand by my close. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not sure how you can claim there's no consensus to overturn. I think you should take another look. I see clear consensus to overturn - 2:1 in favour in fact. How can this be anything other than another supervote? Experienced editors wished to keep the article; even more experienced editors wished to overturn the closer's decision. You seem to have ignored all of them and just endorsed the original closer's decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I count six people who either said it was within discretion or explicitly endorsed the close (Sandstein, Hobit, Stifle, HW, Bearcat, and Calton) and seven overturns (you, RAN, No such user, Wikimandia, DGG, Lankiveil, and WilyD). Doesn't exactly sound like 2:1 to me. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Bearcat certainly didn't opine that and Sandstein, as the closer, can hardly be expected not to endorse his decision. So that's actually 7:4 (which is near as damn it 2:1). Certainly nothing like a consensus to endorse there, is there? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Bearcat wrote If things had been different, and my comments in the discussion had been signed by someone else while I had been the person assessing it for closure, I would have assessed it the same way: three policy-based delete votes to just one policy-based keep, constituting more than enough for a delete consensus, with three irrelevant keep votes that had to be discounted for lacking a connection to Wikipedia's actual notability or sourcing policies. That's a completely correct and valid close option according to AFD's actual rules. Sounds like "within discretion" to me. As to Sandstein, I didn't discount you because you are the nominator, who can "hardly expected not to" !vote to overturn, did I? WP:AN is that way. "Certainly nothing like a consensus to endorse there, is there?" - where did I say there's a consensus to endorse? T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Bearcat certainly didn't opine that and Sandstein, as the closer, can hardly be expected not to endorse his decision. So that's actually 7:4 (which is near as damn it 2:1). Certainly nothing like a consensus to endorse there, is there? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I count six people who either said it was within discretion or explicitly endorsed the close (Sandstein, Hobit, Stifle, HW, Bearcat, and Calton) and seven overturns (you, RAN, No such user, Wikimandia, DGG, Lankiveil, and WilyD). Doesn't exactly sound like 2:1 to me. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not sure how you can claim there's no consensus to overturn. I think you should take another look. I see clear consensus to overturn - 2:1 in favour in fact. How can this be anything other than another supervote? Experienced editors wished to keep the article; even more experienced editors wished to overturn the closer's decision. You seem to have ignored all of them and just endorsed the original closer's decision. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 November 2015
- News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations
- Featured content: Caves and stuff
- Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol
- Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
An Inquiry From Old Times
Hi. Back in 2010 I was banned from a topic. I believe you were the administrator that issued the ban. It's been years. You probably don't remember me. I can't (at least the details). An appeal of the ban was not successful at the time. I consulted AGK recently to figure out what to do as well. Here is the link to that discussion if you're interested. What I want to know is whether that process still has any repercussions to this day? If it does, how can I fix it? The reason I ask these is that I'm hoping to move on to a new account and read somewhere that such issues can carry on to the new account. The purpose is to have a complete clean start. If you're not the right person to ask these please refer me to the right person or the process in which to resolve this. Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)