User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/5

Renewed edit war at List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes
Hello. You closed this 3RR report as stale, and indeed it was. User:Ruin Cireela remained off line for several days after the report was closed. That user appears to be back, though, restoring the previously reverted text to List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes three more times on 29 April. Unlike last time, an IP user has reverted these changes, though I haven't checked to see if that IP address might be linked to User:AdventureTime, the other participant the last edit war. Cnilep (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted again: . Cnilep (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected for 3 days. Looks like there's a TP discussion ongoing so I'm not quite minded to block right now. Tim Song (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't really paid attention to the content of the edit warring. I hope the discussion will work it out. Cnilep (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

fyi
you tagged Bagdadjenny rather than User:Bagdadjenny, and also the three others. 66.57.1.7 (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, how did I manage to do that?! Fixed, and tags applied to the correct pages. Consider the fish eaten. Thanks! Tim Song (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Karunyan
Do you remember this guy? He was wikihounding me, primarily through and you did an IP block. He is back again, wikihounding me through the same article List of Blood+ characters and with the same behaviors he showed before. I've reported that IP for blocking and the article for protection, but he's already hit it on two IPs, so wondering if another range block might be good? Really disturbing that he is continuing this mess over a month later.... -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Make that three IPs. Before the AIV could be reviewed by a second admin, he changed IPs again. The third has been blocked by an admin reviewing my RPP request for the page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 10:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * blocked for 1 month. Tim Song (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Kissle Questions
Hi, Tim (First) just wanted to let you know I Love Kissle, I also have AWB and Huggle but Kissle is my definite favorite. Ok now to my questions, how do I "load" an article into Kissle or how do I make Kissle look at a specific article ? Second is there ever going to be a "User" Userbox for Kissle ? Thanx.  Mlpearc  MESSAGE  16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's currently no way to "Load" an article, since it is designed to patrol newly created pages, and not specific pages (it would be easy to implement that, but could you give me a scenario related to NPP that requires it?). For userbox, see User:Tim Song/User Kissle. Tim Song (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well my scenario doesn't have anything to do with NPP. I will be working on existing articles using Link Classifier. It would be nice to send the page through Kissle first before jumping in on prose. Thanx for the Userbox I'll wear it proud ! (if you do "incorporate loading" of Kissle my hopes are, you could message me.) Mlpearc   MESSAGE  19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

?
Tim I spent hours writing up the lists. Can you please undelete it. I made a list to match up with the charts for the list of Video Game Publishers and Video game developers, except the list is for Film companies. I just didn't know how to word it. Ideally, it should be listed as Film Distributors and Film Production Companies.
 * Userfied to User:Misterix/List of theatrical film production companies. Tim Song (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Massive template breakage"
Hi Tim, just FYI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Cheers, Amalthea  09:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. Oh well, it seems that whenever I mass rollback something, it's bound to go wrong... :( Tim Song (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm done, just much ado about nothing. What I've written on Daedalus's talk page is probably true though, if this had taken a quick spin through ANI the additional eyes would probably have helped. But I of course know the dilemma when something needs (or seems to need) quick action to prevent the mess to get even bigger. :) Cheers, Amalthea  19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For cleaning up messes that were not your own. Tim 1357  talk 05:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Need you to take a look at this
Hello, I need you to look trough a SPI. Its very important that you read through everything. From the beginning to the end. 

Then, what I would like is a comment from you on the last part of the evidence, where I point out this edit. The fact that after exclusively using the NT account to back AC on several articles for 7-8 months, (considering everything I have pointed out in the evidence) the NT account then contacts ACs sock before it was revealed that AC controlled it and "asks" him to go to the article. How can this have been a coincidence? Can you take a look at the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you reply to this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in reply; I was busy and could only work on wiki intermittently, and don't have the time necessary to give the case a full review. It takes very compelling behavioral evidence to overcome a ❌ checkuser finding, especially when a CU has been ran on the suspected sockmaster twice at different times and did not found a connection with the alleged sock. I don't know if the evidence here is sufficient, and I'll be very busy in the next couple of weeks, so I probably won't have enough time to give this case the full review it requires. You might want to ask someone else. Tim Song (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, and I believe that if you carefully read through everything you will see that the evidence is compelling. Admin moonriddengirl said it looked quacky and that I should open a SPI, admin Shirik now said that the evidence is pretty compelling but since he is relatively new to SPI he wont act on it:. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it
I was just about to do the exact same thing, for the exact same reason. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo
Hi Tim. I was told you were familiar with this case. I've been blocking a few socks of Timmy Polo recently. Your reason for his original block was "block evasion". That implies to me that he's not the sockmaster, but rather just another sock. Do you know who the sockmaster is? Thanks, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is your sockmaster, Timmy Polo was his first account created.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

unblock lando09
he has contributed so much to rugby league pages on wikipedia Youndbuckerz (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not excuse his lengthy history of abusive sockpuppetry. Tim Song (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever
Been a situation where a sock like DavidYork71 history and notice has been played with by the sock that they are actually been hidden - or is it that they simply need to be protected ? SatuSuro 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

House of Cerva
Sir,

Could you, please, unprotect the House of Cerva article? I do not see any 'Excessive sock puppetry' as you claimed. I want to improve the article considerably.

--71.163.232.225 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not unprotecting that. If you wish to suggest an edit, you can use editsemiprotected on the article talk page. Tim Song (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
FYI I have closed this request with no action as the report is becoming a violation of WP:BATTLE. I have also warned anyone thinking of bringing the matter back if the disruption recurs to read WP:OUCH first. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Hi Tim Song. Could you please take a look at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Despite 2 complaints at WP:ANI, admins seem to ignore the extremely disruptive behavior of as well as his POV pushing, various violations of Wikipedia rules, as well as constant insults and name-callings against other users. (Just a note: it was not me this time who reported him). Thank you. Tajik (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why admins seem to ignore the report is because they are smart and have realized that I'm innocent of the false charges you and editor Ariana310 are accusing me of. I suggest you two stop harrasing me. User:Tajik has said to Ariana310 "Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..."

Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Powlz.com
Hello, Powlz.com's page had a clear importantce and signifcance you would of read why if you read the whole artical. I have made a final revision of it but i can't seem to upload it now, please can I have another chance and upload it and if you dont like it please say why as importance and signifcance isnt well defined, as people who create the articals may think its fine

--Jacobhasnopens (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been listed at DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NickLenz19
Hi, Tim. User:NickLenz19 ((talk) has begun the same disruptive edits for which he has been blocked three times. He began immediately again on May 8 after your 72-hour May 5 block ended. Thank you for any help on this. With best regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my block; I merely declined an unblock request. Nonetheless, blocked indef for returning to exactly the same behavior. Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Thank you, in any case, for handling the situation quickly and well. We all appreciate the extra work that being an admin involves, being asked to help regulate behavior on top of any editing you might one to do yourself. Just taking the opportunity to say how much it's appreciated. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help!
Hey Tim,

Thanks for informing me that I should be using AFD instead of speedy deletion. I can stop wasting admins time now :P.

Bsanders246 (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; thanks for helping out! Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sironta Article
Hello Tim, I would like you to review your decision about the Sironta article (Discussion)(Article). In my opinion:

1. I accept the decision of closing Sironta page, but I believe that non-objective factors have contributed to the initial decision and I cannot be agree with them.

2. The fact, however, to not consider relevant references provided, I must say that this references have passed a comprehensive peer-review by international specialists and have been endorsed by the European Comission's own decision, so this is a decision that I cannot agree, even calling into question the objectivity of self-evaluation criterion. The long extension of some of these references is not a serious or sufficiently objective criterion.

I believe that in Sironta's case a discrimination has been committed, because the objectivity of the arguments is not evident. I would like to understand, therefore, the differences between my article and articles such as Huddle or Collanos to enjoy the same benefits. The case of Huddle, a computer application with a clear commercial orientation, represents a clear example of this lack of argument uniformity or consistency.

3. Finally, I appreciate the fact that the inclusion of Sironta in the 'List of free and open source software packages' is considered useful, as well as other lists of related software.

I hope you find my explanations useful. Thank you. -- Marj9543 (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a good argument; the general agreement in that discussion is that there's not enough independent sources to establish notability; without independent sources it is impossible for us to establish a neutral point of view. Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AE Ban violations by TheDarkLordSeth
Greetings Tim Song. As the subject AE was closed by your participation, I'd like to inform you, that the ruling of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive60 was at least 4 times violated by user:TheDarkLordSeth. He was warned the first time by User:KillerChihuahua and no sanctions were enforced, but failed to commit after.

1st: ,

Warning: "Violation of topic ban",

2nd: "You might be interested"

3rd: where on its turn he was warned again,

4th: "Question".

Considering the multiple violations of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive60 and 2 warnings after which the editor still continues his actions, please take appropriate measures, the choice of which are entrusted to you. Sincerely, Aregakn (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

user:TheDarkLordSeth is notified about this appeal ([]) and can make his point, if desired. Aregakn (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a violation; and in any event any complaints should be made at WP:AE, not here. Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nine Racing, Inc.
Hi, Tim,

I'm new to Wikipedia and I do not wish to cause any offenses because I sure respect the process. It looks like you deleted the Wikipedia entry I made on Nine Racing, Inc. because it was promotional. This is a truly historic race team where such great American drivers as Tony Stewart and Kasey Kahne first captured national attention. The team won 10 USAC National Midget Championships.

But the team also has remained open currently as an arrive-and-drive kind of program, which is probably where the promotional problem occurred.

Any advice? The team deserves mentioning in any record of great racing in the past 30 years. You can mention Nine Racing to Roger Penske or Tony George, and believe me, they know what you're talking about.

Should I recreate the page and reduce the copy about Nine Racing's current state where it is available to help young drivers get a ride and get properly coached?

May 11, 2010. Clem3000jk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clem3000jk (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a good idea to clean out the puffery and peacock words, and write in a manner that is suitable for an encyclopedia and not the team's brochure? I'm happy to userfy or incubate it for you, if you want. Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to reconsider the deletion for the article "eFront_eLearning_Software"
Hello,

I would kindly request to reconsider the deletion of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFront_%28eLearning_software%29 This article did not produce enough negative votes and at the end of the day it was one's people opinion over the other. I would suggest to read the discussion or have another administrator consider the arguments and facts presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papagel (talk • contribs) 08:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments from single-purpose accounts are granted substantially less weight; AfD is not a vote and there is no quorum. If you disagree, deletion review is the place to go. Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WOW, THAT WA...(goddammit...) Wow. That was fast.
Nice one. Half Shadow  23:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was acting on :) Tim Song (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd block
User talk:92.40.48.167 -- he does have something of a point, no? I mean, "your mom" in a sandbox, even repeatedly, is still playing in a sandbox. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Playing in a sandbox knowing that it would trigger a filter, especially when doing it repeatedly, is a bad idea (TM); it's not a good idea IMO for even a sandbox to display "your mom" prominently on random locations on a page, in a manner that defeats easy removal...but feel free to unblock if you disagree. Tim Song (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what our sandbox policies are, actually. --jpgordon:==( o ) 07:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, can I get the talk page, too?
Thanks for creating User:Starblueheather/Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy --- can I get the associated talk page, too? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock
Hi. On 7 May, you blocked 74.12.0.0/20 for two weeks (vandalism). has filed an unblock request asking why. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's used by a persistent vandal harassing User:AussieLegend. Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. DoRD (talk) has replied to the request. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Deletion request
Yes, I am invoking my right to vanish. -- Afghana [talk]  20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on policy
There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/DougsTech
Hi Tim. After speaking with Risker, I decided that it might be best to unarchive the case for now. Do you want to take a look at the comment I posted? Thanks,  NW  ( Talk ) 15:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Proxy & Sockpuppet
管理员好，跟您联系主要是为了这件案子.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ZHU_Yeyi/Archive

我使用的IP地址是我工作的里昂一家教学医院的IP地址，另外G.G.使用的是国内一家大学的IP地址. 这些IP流量大，日夜不休很是很正常的，但是不是代理Proxy. 管理员可以核实.

GG确实是我认识的人，所以他投票的时候自己把选票划掉. 应该说我们没有做过分的事情. 请核实:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rjanag/Latin_phonetic_method_of_Shanghainese&diff=352911205&oldid=352879161

另外牵涉到一位用户是我的一个同事B，我帮助她建了她第一个条目. 她不会英语，也不会来英语版，也不参与的我的条目. 我们当时不知道系统自动建立了个英语版帐号. 因为我的帐号比较老，英语版、法语版、汉语版都是一次一次建立的. 所以我给她建立的条目加了个英语版链接. 结果她的英语帐号也被封了. 她根本不会来英语版，但是不知道什么时候会为了英语版的这件事情，法语版的帐号被当作马甲被封.

Ryulong曾经扬言可以把我的帐号封掉，没想到是这种方式.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZHU_Yeyi&action=historysubmit&diff=352396677&oldid=352304918

尤其讨厌的是还无缘无故牵涉别人. 我自己倒也算了，只是对其他受害者感到非常不好意思. 所以我只好来跟管理员商量，解除封禁的事情. --83.145.72.66 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You may wish to comment there since you made the block on that IP range. –MuZemike 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented. Tim Song (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted a follow up question there. Peter 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Formerly You are a vandal supporter (indirectly)

There is a user that you blocked. I reviewed the most recent 6 edits that are not marked as minor. Some of them are fighting obvious vandalism. By blocking that user, you are indirectly supporting vandalism.

If there is another reason, you have the obligation of clearing explaning your actions on that user's talk page. I looked at the checkuser and there is no positive result. There is an adminstration who offers an opinion not backed by any evidence. Assorg (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above user, created less than a month ago, seems to know his way around. He also filed an unblock request at the White Trillium user page, but under his own name. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop being a busy body. The only reason Jews are alive is because Gentiles (Americans and Brits with some others) were outraged at Hitler's gas chambers.  However, I've withdrawn the ANI comment and unblock consideration.  Do whatever you want with that White guy.


 * Also note that Baseball Bugs has been guilty of being a busybody. There was an ANI proposal to punish him for being a busy body only a week or two ago. Assorg (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which went nowhere. And what does the Jew comment have to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hitler killed Jews. The Allies demanded an explanation and then put the guilty on trial in Nuremberg.  I am in the role of the Allies because I made an inquiry.  However, under threats by you, I capitulate.  Peace, man, at least Peace for our time. Assorg (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusing wikipedians of being Nazis. Wow, how original. Read Godwin's law for further details. Meanwhile, your decision to distance yourself from White Trillium is a wise one. You're new, but you're learning. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He seems to have disappeared. It occurs to me that if the Nazis had been merely "busybodies", maybe they wouldn't have felt the full military might of the Allies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

AFC on-hold for renamed user account
When I placed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adelaida Cellars on hold with the script, it notified me on my talk instead of the creator - possibly because the creators account was renamed?  Chzz  ►  06:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really; because you subst'd the template, it recorded you as the submitter, which is why it notified you. Tim Song (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

please undelete my grandpas birthcertificate
hello Fred the Oyster had marked my files for begin deleted now he gets blocked for being an worthy of blocking http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_the_Oyster&action=edit&section=new now, i have a question who will undelete my file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdupont#File_source_and_copyright_licensing_problem_with_File:BirthCertificate_JamesMaximeDuPont.jpg James Michael DuPont 08:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The block has nothing to do with the file. Tim Song (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Tzvi Berkowitz
In Articles for deletion/Tzvi Berkowitz you made an improper close. By saying "even with a few keep !votes discounted" you admit that you are counting votes. The keep votes were not based in guideline or policy. Please change the result to "no consensus" or reopen. Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually considered calling it no consensus but ultimately decided against it; I'm not sure where you get the idea I was merely counting votes - perhaps I should have used "disregard"? If you disagree, WP:DRV is that way. Tim Song (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Homeless Heart
Please userify the content of that article. I suppose since something being covered three times is not notable I may not ever find sources to make recreation plausible but who knows, I might get bored. - BalthCat (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. It's at User:BalthCat/Homeless Heart. Tim Song (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for working so quickly on Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. I did not know it was even possible to create another Wikipedia account while logged in. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews and "Ari& Friends"
I have run into some serious problems. When I try to edit, everything I write is deleted. Today I was shut down after only 3 minutes. Please have a look at the Gospel of the Hebrews. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have run into serious problems. You insist on placing POV content and let fringe sources dominate an article. Your rogue attempts at having the article reflect the idiosyncracies of your personal opinion has been disrupted by multiple editors. They have stated their reasons, and requested you discuss them on the talk page. Maybe backup things with why we are to let a fringe theory dominate the article, or why you personally get to rate a bibliography of what is best.
 * This has been explained to you on talk pages and my own talk page. Crying wolf because your personal opinion isn't allowed to dominate doesn't seem to be the best cause of action. Maybe semi-protection of the article is in order? --Ari (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim for the action taken. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Userification of the deleted article eFront (elearning software))
Since the deletion review is only responsible for an administrator's mal-practice (and not the debate itself) I would like to ask for a userfication of the following deleted article eFront (eLearning software) so I can improve it regarding notability and neutrality. Is there an established process on how a previously deleted article can be restored?

(here is the deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#eFront_.28eLearning_software.29)

Papagel (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, userfied to User:Papagel/EFront (eLearning software) Tim Song (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CU?
What's the deal with checkuser? You declined my request, which is cool, but I didn't really understand what twinkle was asking me. I did two SOCK noms today, one with and one without the option. Can you explain to me when I should use what? Thanks. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 17:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The general rule is to ask for checkuser iff (1) there's some evidence of sockpuppetry (or it would be a fishing expedition), but (2) not enough to block outright (otherwise it's a waste of the checkuser's time). Don't worry too much about it, though, since with the clerks and everything, the time cost of an improper checkuser request is quite small. Tim Song (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, one more thing (as I'm sure it's bound to happen). Let's say tomorrow another puppet of these users comes to life. Under which name(s) do I report it? Thanks again. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The master, so in this case Kellymichael. Tim Song (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Can you please tell me why you removed my AN/I complaint? Malke 2010  23:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Double forumshopping? Starting a new thread at ANI with exactly the same content after a previous one has been closed is forumshopping. Posting to ANI when the situation was already being dealt with by admins is also forum shopping. Tim Song (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not forum shopping. I was collecting diffs for the AN/I when Gwen Gale blocked me.  I should not have been blocked.  She claimed I made a 'wanton personal attack' but then retracted that and unblocked me.  I then went to the AN/I but it was closed for forum shopping.  This is a legitimate AN/I.  I did not go to multiple admins.  I asked Jimbo Wales to delete the improper block from my record.  I did not ask him to deal with RepublicanJacobite.   He should be blocked for this behavior. Malke  2010  13:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you were. You posted to ANI (and AN - that is forumshopping by itself) apparently because you did not like what did w/r/t RJ and wanted someone to block him for it; moreover, when an ANI thread is closed, you don't just start a new thread with exactly the same matter. Honestly, have a cup of tea, drop the stick, stop beating the carcass, and move on, please. Tim Song (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not know Gwen Gale had made a comment on RJ's page. It was not my intention to forum shop. Malke  2010  13:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll grant you that. Can we all move on now? Tim Song (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take your snark to mean to that you condone RJ's behavior. Malke 2010  14:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, and if he continues now that he's been warned I'll block him myself. The point is that nothing productive is coming out of this, and it's best to move on now and do something productive. Tim Song (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page advice
Hi I was unblocked today after being blocked for being suspected of sock puppeting, and I was wondering if I am allowed to remove the messages on my talk page about the block because I like to have my talk page rather empty so it's easier to find new messages. Please could you tell me if I am allowed to delete the messages about being blocked? Thanks Tomdresser27 (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can, though archiving is normally preferred. Tim Song (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI clerk
Hello, Tim Song. I am interested in becoming an SPI clerk. Would you please coach me? Thanks, ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there NerdyScienceDude. After discussing this with some other clerks we have decided that, at this time, it would probably be best if you were not to take up clerking at SPI. We've recently had an influx of new trainee clerks, meaning that we haven't got a lot of full clerks who are able to train new clerks, and we have plenty of hands around (although your continued assistance at SPI is greatly appreciated). In addition to this, there are some concerns over whether you can fit into the machismo atmosphere at SPI, can you really stand the hazing you will be subjected to by Nathan? Are you willing to polish Tiptoety's boots everyday till he can see his face shining in them? I think that you will really struggle to come up to standard in these regards, and for that reason, I'm out. Tim Song (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim Song. Thanks for the thoughts. On the other hand, Elockid stated on my talk page that I would a fine clerk. Could you link me the discussion you had with some other clerks? Thanks, ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 19:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was on . Tim Song (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't do IRC. Is it possible you could copy the discussion and paste it here? ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not posting the logs; suffices it to say that I discussed this with two other full clerks and they agree. We are rather short on full clerks right now. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. I don't think I can polish Tiptoety's boots yet, but I might be able to in the future. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 20:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews
Tim, could you have yourself or some other admin deal with the edit warring at the Gospel of the Hebrews 96.22.215.70 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim thanks for protecting the page. Why did you restore all of Ari's edits and delete all of mine? Were my edits that bad? I am a little shaken. I has hoped you would restore the version at the beginning of May before the edit war began. A Humbled editor. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * m:The Wrong Version. Tim Song (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But I feel like I have been kicked in the stomach. 96.22.215.70 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Britney Spears doll
Hi, Tim. Articles for deletion/Britney Spears doll was closed as redirect by despite there being a lack of consensus to do so. I have since undone the redirect, expanded the article, and added references. Should the AfD closure be undone and relisted, or should it be left as is? Cunard (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since redirects can be undone editorially anyway I don't see a problem leaving it as is for now; not much point forcing an AfD. I agree that Mono should not have closed that discussion. Tim Song (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll leave the AfD as is, but this is a recurring incident. This user has inappropriately closed/relisted discussions on multiple occasions. We each gave him a note at User talk:Mono/Archive 8. This week, I asked him to undo the close at User talk:Mono but he seemed not to notice it. At the end of last month, Mono's relists/closures were brought up at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive610, but he hasn't seem to have changed. Of his recent relists, several (1, 2, 3, and 4) are questionable. Other users and I can't seem to convey to him that his inactions are inappropriate, so would an RfC be appropriate? Cunard (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these four should have been done by a non-admin; ANI or RFC/U is your choice. I'm willing to certify an RFC, but IMO this might be simple enough for ANI. Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What should I ask for in the ANI report? Perhaps editing restrictions so that the user is restricted from relisting/closing AfDs? Cunard (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've invited Mono to this page to see if he will agree to a voluntary restriction on relisting/closing AfDs. I hope this issue can be resolved without the need to bring it to the drama board. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

←There is absolutely no need for this to escalate. I am willing to do training for closing AfDs.-- m o ɳ o 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it: there's no training for NACs because it's not something for which training is worth it (I certainly got zero training back when I was NAC'ing stuff). The whole point of NACs is that it saves admins time by getting the noncontroversial stuff out of the way; if that time is spent training people instead there's not much purpose to NACs in the first place. If you can't close AfDs appropriately, then don't do it. Otherwise you generate even more work for admins who have to review all of your closes. Tim Song (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see.-- m o ɳ o 18:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you understand now, will you refrain from closing/relisting AfDs? Cunard (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will excersise extreme caution when closing AfDs, closing only AfDs with clear consensus. If I close an AfD (I won't for a while), I will ask an admin to review, open to any kind of revert.-- m o ɳ o  16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the closure must be reviewed by an admin, no time is saved by you closing it. As Tim said above, "The whole point of NACs is that it saves admins time by getting the noncontroversial stuff out of the way; if that time is spent training people instead there's not much purpose to NACs in the first place. If you can't close AfDs appropriately, then don't do it. Otherwise you generate even more work for admins who have to review all of your closes."Because you have demonstrated that you cannot distinguish between clear and unclear AfD closes (as evinced by your close of Articles for deletion/Britney Spears doll), and because you have inappropriately relisted articles despite being asked not to, you should not be closing/relisting any more AfDs. Cunard (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mono has undid his/her Articles for deletion/Britney Spears doll. Tim, would you reclose or relist the AfD? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Inre Nuclear program of Iran
Just to clarify, are you including me in the 3RR violators? I (think) I have made every attempt to compromise/meet Nutrieg's concerns, but have been blind reverted several times [i.e. from multiple different versions]. The same was true about the others. Yes, we each did a couple reverts, but for the most part we attempted to satisfy Nutrieg whereas he just reverted indiscriminately. As far as I know, that means Nutrieg is the only one edit warring. However, if you think I did something wrong (or am otherwise mistaken), please let me know so that I can handle the situation better next time something like this happens. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A revert, for 3RR purposes, is defined as any edit...that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. In this case at a minimum, , , and are four reverts within a 24 hour period; that it was not blind reverting, and that he user seems to be edit warring against consensus, are factors in mitigation (so if I did block, that might make it, say, 12 hours for you and 72 hours for them), but there's no consensus-enforcement exemption to 3RR, and IMO it would be best to simply request protection early and avoid the prospects of a block altogether. Tim Song (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. This is not an area I have much experience in, so I guess I was simply mistaken about the definition of edit warring.  I certainly would have brought it to attention sooner, but was unaware of the extent of reverts until I made the report (my bad for not checking that sooner).  I'll seek PP next time, as per your suggestion.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutrieg has flat-out refused to discuss the matter any further: "I won't discuss ongoing news or keep explaining how bad is your interpretation." and implied he will continue the edit war as soon as the protection ends: "See you on Monday." (See talk)). Assuming he doesn't mellow between now and Monday, what would you suggest as a next course of action? --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If they do continue, I'll block them myself, and it won't be short. Tim Song (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again... I happened to notice an article that needed some improvement while looking at Nutrieg's recent edits. I made what was clearly a productive edit and was promptly reverted by him. Would you mind giving him a stiff warning about his behavior, or should I take it to ANI? (Incidentally, it looks like he gets into edit wars because of OWNership issues on a regular basis.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now threatening to escalate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have made one final attempt to disengage. I doubt he'll pay any attention, but maybe a note from a third party can get through to him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg choose to take it to ANI, despite my attempt to disengage, so reply here is probably not necessary. The thread, in case you care to comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I support ThaddeusB to the hilt. If you see the history or the talk page (and the RS noticeboard) it is quite clear that Nutv... 1. lied about was said on the on te noticeboard, and then 2. violated 3RR TWICE. We tried to engage and discuss it he seem to think only his opinion is right. I engaged him first on his talkpage and then in the discussion yet he demands his way be met even though the noticeboard discussion has NOT come to a conclusion on either of the 3 controversial we still altered our edits.
 * Consider the history, talkpage and noticeboard to see who was in the wrong. It is on the verge of vandalism.
 * At any rate, instead of removing the sources he could improve on it or tag it. isn't there wikipedia's recommendation?Lihaas (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2
Hi, Tim Song. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented. Thanks for the notice! Tim Song (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI
Hi and sorry for bothering you. I see you're a clerk here; I've never reported any sock, so I don't want to foul up. Anyway, I bumped into a self-confessed sock on thisa page: Dr. Roots. Thanks. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a fairly chronic sockpuppeteer who apparently enjoys the attention. The best to do would be WP:DENY. Tim Song (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Dorianquest/Hoodywood Records/old version
Hi. You closed this MfD as delete, but missed this other page which was included. As I added it, I'd probably best leave you to zap it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tim Song (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve and his dog Blue
Hi Tim, I saw that you blocked an anonymous IP after I AVPed him/her after vandalizing either Blue's Clues or Steven Burns, I forget which. See, the reason I forget which is because in the past few days, I've reverted those two articles so much, I can't keep them straight. I mean, it is the start of summer break, so the kiddies are coming out full force to attack poor Steve and Blue. I was wondering, then, if you wouldn't mind protecting these articles, at least temporarily. Personally, I'd like to see them protected permanently, but I understand the hesitation. Most of the time, they're pretty stable, but the kiddies like to mess with them when they have time on their hands, and eventually, it always dies down when they find more productive ways to spend their school vacations. I'd just like the temporary protection to make my busy life easier, and to forestall the kiddies. Thanks so much for your consideration in this matter! --Christine (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tim, my man! I see that you have done this!  Thanks, you rock.  I'm sure that Blue would give you a big, slobbery kiss. ;) --Christine (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia history (WP:Usability)
I think WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Screenshots is a valid part of the history of WikiProject Usability, even though the images themselves are gone. It gives some idea of what was being done back then. Would you mind if I undeleted it, tidied it up, and marked it as historical? I'll leave the same note with the nominator. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Tim Song (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive Socks

 * FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Swamilive
 * 216.26.2xx.xxx
 * User talk:216.26.202.110 contributions
 * User talk:216.26.202.187 contributions blocked on 16 & 21 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.211.12 contributions
 * User talk:216.26.213.34 contributions Blocked 15 April 2010
 * User talk:216.26.213.69 contributions blocked on 26 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.214.39 contributions Blocked 12, 14 & 28 April 2010
 * User talk:216.26.219.104 contributions Blocked 10 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.222.47 contributions blocked on 16 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.223.38 contributions
 * User talk:216.26.223.175 contributions
 * 216.211.xx.xxx
 * User talk:216.211.52.170 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
 * User talk:216.211.52.232 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
 * User talk:216.211.53.205 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
 * User talk:216.211.72.66 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.73.24 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.93.108 contributions blocked on 29 April 2010
 * User talk:216.211.95.252 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.97.11 contributions Blocked 7 & 9 April 2010
 * 216.211.xxx.xxx
 * User talk:216.211.102.216 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.117.165 contributions
 * Pages vandalised
 * Brigadier
 * Brigadier General
 * Charles Edward Merriam
 * Extra time
 * Garrison
 * Garrison Sergeant Major
 * Rear admiral
 * FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted. I've got 216.26.2xx.xxx for 2 weeks. It seems Tim Song also blocked 216.211.xx.xxx for 1 year. We should be seeing less of them.  E lockid   ( Talk ) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear. But I don't like that word "should".
 * Perhaps you might like to block both 216.26.2xx.xxx and 216.211.xxX.xxx for a year too?
 * Then ALL of us WILL (not "should") see less of them for a while. Cheers & thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What Elockid said. If he comes back, we can always block the range again. No need to argue about 2 weeks v. 1 year now. Tim Song (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * a) I'm not arguing anything - this is/was FYI.
 * b) Oh, he'll be back.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking a look at the SPI and finally putting an end to it. I had a feeling it had crossed into tl;dr long ago, so that's why I reorganized the evidence. Athenean (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (the sequel)
Howdy. Thank you for this. I must have had a brain fart when I initially edited that page.--Rockfang (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Please take notice of this and please don't take offense at the second appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry forgot to sign yesterday. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please restore Larry Wardlow Jr
(Trelan (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC))'''Mr Wardlow is on wiki unders maryland state election, I had a page for him which was deleted His administrtation notifies the media and I as a intern into the political would like a black republican doing something positive get recognize. I would like his page restored because there updating me each step up the way. He's the only black republican from Baltimore City to run for office'''
 * . This is not Mr. Wardlow's campaign site. Tim Song (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protection
Good morning.... can you please protect the article Demographic history of Bačka until the conflict me + Wladthemlat vs Hobartimus + Outesticide is solved?

There is an old conflict that transfers from a page to another:

I will try to sum it all up :
 * The problem is about inserting in the article the sourced data sbout the censuses from 1715 and 1720 which present an overwhelming majority of the Serbs over Hungarians
 * The Hungarian users refuse to add these data to he article, claiming that they are not reliable (personal opinion unsupported by a source) and organized in september 2007 a vote about the reliability of these census data, even if the data are confirmed by academic sources User:Fcsaba (Hungarian editor), User:Hobartimus (Hungarian editor), UseR:PaxEquilibrium (Montenegro editor), User:Rjecina (Croatian editor) (so not even an user from Serbia, the country the area belongs to)
 * In present Me, User:Wladthemlat, User:PANONIAN contest this vote and the argument of the supportees of not inserting data from these censuses is that themselves consider History declared them unreliable (without showing a source, so it is just a personal POV)
 * In conclusion, does an opinion of a certain user from WP override an academic source? (MarekSS (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Seems to have stopped for now. Tim Song (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

XpanD 3D
"XpanD 3D – Recreation permitted. Ask me on my talk page if you want the original article userfied/incubated. – Tim Song (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)"

Could you please put the article on my user page? thx --Bothary (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, userfied to User:Bothary/XpanD 3D. Tim Song (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Debra Medina
I knew that would fit G6, but since I had stuck my nose in the middle of it by protecting the main article, I didn't want to do it of my own initiative. (Of course, since you've done it, that's perfectly fine!) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Song (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sleeper
, and is he actually banned? wiooiw (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked; he's banned as no sane admin will be willing to unblock him. Tim Song (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma sock
Another one (or two rather), SPI here. He creates two or three new ones a day. Athenean (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it...
?? what did I miss? -- This is a copy-paste. See Articles for deletion/European immigration to Brazil. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really a good idea to A10 something like that that soon after creation, especially when the author is an established user; at minimum, the title is a plausible redirect. Tim Song (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But it's now clearly heading for a POV=fork. He uses this copy-pasted intro to argue that European immigration was instrumental in the abolition of slavery. Thus far, only one source. From talkpage: "it is necessary to discuss these people in this article, disentangling them from White Brazilian and avoiding the self-contradictory notion of "European Brazilian"." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but POV forks are properly deleted by AfD, not CSD. Tim Song (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be instistent, but you do know that such large parts of copy-pasted material constitutes a copyvio since it breaks our licenses and attribution? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure there's a template for providing the necessary attribution. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)