Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

"list of important publications in ..." AfDs

Can you give me a rationle as to why you feel these should be kept?

I ask because List of important publications in biology was deleted.

List of important publications in mathematics was kept because 2 sources were found that indicated such a topic was discussed.Curb Chain (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to stretch the meaning of the word "consensus" far enough to reach a delete conclusion. In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side. T. Canens (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Well the articles have been relisted except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security. I'm not asking your to stretch consensus to make discussion result in deletion. I'm asking you to provide a rationale for deletion, because on deletion discussion, we assess the merits of arguments, not (by) counting disagreement within the debate.
You may have merit in stating "In any event, the primary argument that "important" is inherently OR has been substantially challenged by those on the keep side.", but in list articles which the inclusion criteria that is there on the lists, such topics must have sources that show that such a topic has been mentioned resulting in notability. You haven't provided such an argument for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security.Curb Chain (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

About Equestria Daily

I was wondering if you could move a copy of the deleted article to User:Rainbow Dash/EqD2. I personally think it should be worked on more before it goes back into the main. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. T. Canens (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 17 people said the article should be kept based on the coverage found, and 12 said delete. How is that consensus to delete? Please explain your closing rational. Dream Focus 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
[1]. T. Canens (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your rational makes no sense at all. Whether people showed up before the relist or afterwards, doesn't matter. And there is no requirement to how many edits you have to make before you can participate in an AFD. I see a delete voter near the end had only 6 edits in 4 1/2 years. I see three keeps that made few edits ever, and two deletes that made few edits ever. That isn't really something that would shift things too greatly. And there is no such thing as a fair cross section of the community. Its all just randomly whoever shows up. Most people said the sources proved it notable. Dream Focus 17:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to seek further review; I will, however, not be amending the close. T. Canens (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Have done so. ==Deletion review for Equestria Daily==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Equestria Daily. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dream Focus 17:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why'd you remove your "old afd full" tag there? LadyofShalott 16:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See this. T. Canens (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I tried to remove it with a "nevermind", but you responded too quickly! :) LadyofShalott 16:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for this. I was trying to assemble arguments related to renaming articles in WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls, and didn't realize it would have side effects. Quite embarrassing! RockMagnetist (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of important publications in networks and security

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of important publications in networks and security. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Curb Chain (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Raymond_A._Watson_(2nd_nomination)

Realizing you will not be amending the close, I would appreciate a clarification before I move on to DRV. I'm unclear on what basis you deleted this. Here are the three things I think you might be saying. Could you let me know which, if any of them, are correct.

  1. Are you claiming that the discussion showed that WP:N isn't met?
  2. Are you claiming that the discussion showed that WP:LOCAL overrides WP:N in this case? If so, is that because it always does or there is something special about this case?
  3. Are you claiming that the first AfD resulted in delete and because the only basis for the overturn at DRV was finding non-local sources and it turns out no one felt the non-local sources had significant coverage/were non-local?

Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen this and will get back to this hopefully later in the day. I'm a bit pressed for time right now. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries. This certainly isn't pressing. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. It's certainly a close case; a lot of keeps aren't well-argued (yours is one of the exceptions). There is a lot of argument by assertion. I think we can agree that the ANYBIO argument can be readily disposed of as thoroughly rebutted, leaving GNG as the primary question. GNG is a guideline, so we proceed from the premise that there are some subjects that satisfies GNG but nonetheless do not merit an article. The deletes basically says that this is one of those cases because the coverage is predominantly local, such that in the broader scheme of things he's really not notable (in the normal, not WP, sense of the word). I think it is a reasonable argument; not particularly strong, to be sure, but strong enough in light of the number of deletes that are present in this discussion and the (mostly) weak keeps. (WP:LOCAL talks about places, not people, BTW. I know what you meant, though.) This kind of tension between GNG and editorial judgment is really the community's judgment call on a case-by-case basis, so I don't think one always overrides the other in every case or something.

If I were looking at this discussion alone, though, I would probably close it as no consensus, since it is pretty borderline. But when you look at the history of discussions I'm convinced that delete is the right way to go. AfD1 was a pretty strong delete, and DRV sent it back to AfD again to consider the new sources. It's pretty clear that those sources changed nobody's mind (just compare the people who commented in both AfDs). So I think it appropriate, in this case, to factor in to some extent the strong delete consensus at AfD1 as well (since a number of delete !voters at AfD1 didn't participate in AfD2, while most of the keep !voters did), and that tips the balance towards deletion. In most cases the earlier AfD is either old or substantially undermined by new sources, so giving it weight would not be a good idea, but in this case AfD1 is very recent and we have some pretty strong evidence that the new sources would not have changed minds.

Shorter version:
  1. No. (Tryptofish's creative argument notwithstanding - I think it's better to classify it as an argument for deletion notwithstanding GNG rather than for a creative interpretation of the word "trivial".)
  2. In this particular case, I think the discussion, taking into account all the relevant circumstances, supports the conclusion that inclusion is inappropriate due to the local nature of the coverage notwithstanding GNG. It's up to the community to exercise its judgment on a case-by-case basis.
  3. That's my reading of the AfDs and DRV; it's not enough to justify a delete close standing alone, but together with other factors, it tips the scale in favor of deletion. T. Canens (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I generally prefer to have a given AfD stand on its own. But given the closeness in time of the three discussions, I think it's not unreasonable to get a delete outcome. I'd argue that when the letter of the GNG is met by such a large margin there needs to be a stronger consensus to delete than shows up in the 3 discussions, but I'm aware my biases lean toward inclusionism. Thanks for the detailed response. Hobit (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To relist, or not to relist, that is the question

Hi, Tim

Could I please draw your attention to Cunard's request on Mkativerata's talk page, here? It strikes me that you may feel able to intervene where we do not. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad and ending that mess of a discussion. User:Phoenix B 1of3/Caiyad Phahad, a copy of the article, is now a redirect. However, it is a copyright violation since it has no attribution information.

Re your green light, I thought you've been on 24/7 for the past year. You've just burst my bubble. :( Cunard (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. And no, unfortunately I don't get paid well enough to justify me staying up 24/7 :) T. Canens (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's about time that you get a pay raise. ;) Your detailed analysis and explanation above of the AfDs and DRVs is incisive and shows a level of thought few admins have and can articulate. A significant improvement, in my opinion, from a year ago. Best, Cunard (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Hello. You recently blocked an anonymous IP [2] who has a dynamic IP address (or so it is claimed). This was perhaps related to this [3], because User:Cardamon noted the block evasion here [4]. It seems that this anonymous IP has returned here [5] and here [6], before the expiration time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, already taken care of [7] - thanks anyway. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

AE on Ludwigs2

T: per this[8]. I had been assuming that this request would be dismissed on the merits (it seems weakly formed and too close to harassment to merit any real consideration), and so I'd merely been keeping an eye on it. If you'd like me to respond, I will; I just hadn't seen any sense to it, to date. Do you think it's necessary? --Ludwigs2 14:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you've already responded following NW's comment. In general, my view is that it is almost always better to respond. T. Canens (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose. Maybe one of these days I will come to terms with the fact that large swaths of wikipedia culture are built on petty harassment. That would make me a more relaxed person, yes, but I'll still count it as a loss. --Ludwigs2 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed for a student class project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.

So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Geology list deletion review

Surely this deletion review has been relisted for long enough. There has been no new comment since Oct 8. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Older sanction update

Hey there. You might like to take a look at a preliminary assessment of what needs to be updated and offer comments on the talk page there? Feel free to point out if I've forgotten anything. — Coren (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Please review

The empty boiler plate pages were put in a category do make deleting them easier. Instead all pages, including those with anniversaries on them were deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

Fixed. It's kinda hard to notice a category that's not mentioned anywhere in the debate, you know.... T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

afchelper for the new 'draft' submissions?

Dear Tim

I'm one of the newer users of your AfC helper javascript.

The AfC process seems to be being tweaked (- my ear being tweaked, actually) with a new 'draft' mechanism which means the existing script doesn't work properly - there are different coloured boxes, reflecting a new 'h' parameter .... guess it means yet more coding. If you have the time.

with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the new version! It works beautifully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

UTC+01:30 Closing without restore

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20 you closed [9], can you please restore the old revisions of UTC+01:30 and also restore Talk:UTC+01:30? TZ master (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No. A speedily closed DRV is a nullity for all intents and purposes. Therefore, I will take no admin action because of it. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Had TZ master asked Fastily‎ nicely in the beginning, I suspect Fastily‎ would have gladly restored the whole thing. For that fact, Fastily‎ might even still be willing to restore the old revisions if TZ master were to ask nicely (and perhaps retract the personal attacks he made towards Fastily‎). --Tothwolf (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably, but that's Fastily's prerogative. T. Canens (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

AE issue maybe?

There's some drama at ANI after an editor added this userbox to their page and was indef blocked. I'm not really versed in these matters, but doesn't something like that fall under the jurisdiction of WP:ARBPIA? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The only precedent I am aware of is [10], but even that case involved an editor who was (and is, as far as I know) editing content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't think Colofac made any substantial edits related to the conflict in article space, so I don't think this is covered by ARBPIA. T. Canens (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I see. I had assumed that Colofac was involved in editing in the area because of his user-box position statement, but apparently he hasn't edited in it. Given that, it's quite odd that he made this comment about User:Nableezy. Might Colofac be a returning sock of another user with a grudge on Nableezy? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nother help request

Hi Timotheus, can I please direct your attention to User:Postdlf's question on my talk page and the subsequent discussion? We need your advice, and possibly your Chinese language skills, I think. All the best—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

question

A quick question regarding your discretionary sanctions at Falun Gong: the current version of the page is PCPP's, as he expressed a far greater willingness to revert than others. Seeing as his changes quite substantially altered the content of a previously stable page, they have not been discussed, and several appear to be quite contentious, how would you view an editor who, pending the results of the AE, reverted to the previous version (or even to the previous stable version) of the page? Best, Homunculus (duihua) 13:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:WRONG applies here. They will be treated the same way as any other revert. T. Canens (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. "However he may treat me, I must deal rightly by him," as they say. I'll wait until the dust settles. ThanksHomunculus (duihua) 02:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My AE request

Hey, I'm currently writing one now, but I am quite busy with real life matters as well. Is there a set time which I have to finish it?--PCPP (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Preferably within the next day or two, but if you need extra time, that's fine, just let me know. T. Canens (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Kissle

Would you please review my request at the page? I would be much obliged as Kissle would really help me with NPP. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

D'oh. Just saw your #Requests for Kissle access. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Usually a bot reports edits to that page to me via IRC, but I guess either my IRC client or the bot was down at the time you made the request. T. Canens (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Timotheus Canens! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hounding and stalking

In relation to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia, I would appreciate that issues of hounding and stalking also be dealt with at this request. I haven't started another request in the past in relation to it, as I have been doing more important things, such as uploading to Commons and working on articles in userspace. But now that the issue has been raised, I would appreciate that it be dealt with in the current request, so I ask that instead of a hasty and quick close to the request that admins take the time investigate this as part of the current request. I can be contacted on my talk page for further information. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AfC script improvement request/suggestion

I'd like to able to use the script to leave comments even when the draft is not submitted for review, e.g. when the status is "d". Currently, if I do that, my comment is rejected with an abort message. Because there's no preview for the various decline-type messages via the script itself (like Twinkle has) I sometimes find necessary to add comments to supplement the decline message after the decline. Of course, I can edit the draft the old fashioned way and/or preview the decline message first by manually adding it, but that kinda defeats the purpose of using your script... Uʔ (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Troubles 1RR

Thank you for adding the 'pro forma 1RR'. In case this type of restriction needs to be formalized, there is a way of doing it that has been tried at Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonchapple

I see you blocked the above user after the report on AE, I asked for clarification on the about talk pages do you have an answer as it has know be archived and probably wont get a response. Mo ainm~Talk 10:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the particular topic ban. Whether the editor is allowed to edit talk pages is up to the admin imposing the ban. T. Canens (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ask them. Mo ainm~Talk 20:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2011/10&oldid=475812849"