User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/7

Deletion review for Marsel Efroimski
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marsel Efroimski. 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. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Lee (arsonist)
I have no idea what this page looked like, but think that there is an article to be written here. If there's anything of value in the deleted page, please could you e-mail it to me? Cheers. pablo hablo. 17:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ T. Canens (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Criticism of The New York Times
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Criticism of The New York Times. 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. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your decision for deletion, as there was no consensus for such a move. Would you also support deletion of Fox News Channel controversies? Drrll (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for unblocking me. I felt like I was being punished for my massive expansion of the 1950s baseball player Stan Lopata for whatever reason. There's an admin that bullied me around last year for questioning his judgment and his persistent drama mongering, so you may understand that I'm a bit paranoid about admins like him setting me up to take a fall for no good reason. There are tons of great administrators out there like you, but unfortunately the bad eggs like him stick out like a sore thumb because they're always creating a soap opera on the admin noticeboards and the like. I'm glad to know it wasn't a petty setup frame-job. Thanks again for letting me continue my work. Vodello (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Email
Hi Tim This is Theodore Ng. I just sent you an email regarding the deletion of the articles in Industrial Mixing. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. (TheodoreNg (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

MetriQ
Hi Tim, When you get into it, this wiki is quite impressive. However, visa vis MetriQ.

I read and understood many of the objection placed on the page for the original article which was then re-drafted to accommodate those objections. However I think one of the issues for me, is that we live in a world of actualities, and not everything is citable down to the nth degree. For example Enlightenment cannot be citable, because it is not characterized by a common understanding of anything beyond the metaphysical, and yet it can clearly be added as a wiki entry. In my own case, the Wiki page on the MetriQ software is about a tangible object that does actually and provably exists. Who’s to say if it’s ‘note-worthy’ or not. This is subjective perspective. The final conclusion to the page seems to be its rejection because it did not fulfill a descriptive inclusion in an article (non-peer reviewed). It doesn’t seem to matter that the person writing such an article was paid to do so to sell the magazine, not because of the ‘noteworthyness’ of what was being written, and this is what I find hard to understand when it comes to defining ‘note-worthy’ in the wiki ideal. Nile1964 (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

AfC Script
Is there a short version of User:Tim Song/afchelper4.js? Can I just paste that into my vector, or do I need to paste the whole thing? C T J F 8 3 chat 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Paste  T. Canens (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, C T J F 8 3  chat 18:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP question
Hi, Let's say Wikipedia has an article of a living person. The article has a link to Commons category, with an image in it that violates BLP, and violets it big. Is this considered a BLP violation? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the link to Commons is itself proper, it is perhaps arguably a vio, though I would not count on it for 3RR exemptions etc. Surely it's better to sort it out on Commons? T. Canens (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt Henshaw
Page re-introduced with new links, references and content ... will be overhauled in due time. Please be patient ... More references and links to be added as The Deepest Cellar and LoveBox news stories come in major national press junkets ... Ilsonowl (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP Prod js
Hiya.

If it is easy enough, could you add the "BLP Prod" stuff from User:AzaToth/twinkleprod.js to User:Tim Song/twinkleprod.js?

If it's complicated, don't bother; happy to do them manually.

Cheers,  Chzz  ► 10:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like there're quite a few changes. I'll take a look this weekend. T. Canens (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI Results
Hi, I was reading Sockpuppet_investigations/Simulation12/Archive and trying to figure out if Hidividedby5 was ever cleared as not being a sockpuppet? He himself has tagged his user page as being that of a sockpuppet. After he quietly hid a few folks entries from The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/3rd/Log, I got curious and saw the discussion, his self-tagging and it made me wonder, but the SPI didn't seem conclusion regarding him? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Blocked. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SpongeCake RevDel
I don't see any reason to restore anything about those edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So that a non-admin could have at least some idea why someone with no apparent edits is blocked? But really, I don't care much. T. Canens (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned Socks
The banned and "indeffed" SRQ is undoubtedly still at it. These "redhead" comments are slightly disturbing - "ginger-bashing" at the very best? ;P I would like to create the category "Confirmed Sockpuppets of SkagitRiverQueen", but I don't know exactly which IP's that can be proved through behavior (since the list keeps growing). I think 99% of them, but that's just me. Sabra2 and UrbanCowboy12 for sure - can I add the appropriate templates to the obvious IP's? It's all academic at this point, but it should be noted, as the socking has not stopped... Doc9871 (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! WP has been down for a long time today - major technical difficulties?  Still can't see userpages or see contributions for other editors.  Anyway, back to where I was before the crash... I have found what I am convinced is another sock of SRQ.  In a dispute involving WHL at the Claudette Colbert article, an editor appeared, responding against her argument[.  A quick look at this editor's new and short history shows edits to two little-known articles that SRQ actually created.  The odds of this being mere coincidence are simply staggering.  Do I need to file a separate SPI for this sock?  I'm thinking it's a [[WP:DUCK|duck]], and I want to tag and bag it.  A CU could determine if it is related to Sabra2 and UrbanCowboy12.  Thanks for your time on this matter! :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tagged the account. It has to be her based on behavior alone... Doc9871 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice. She quickly made me into somewhat of an expert on her behavior, and I know when it's her (after the "lectures" I endured).  I'd like to think she'll stop, but she won't.  I would never go after a legit editor like this, but I'll never quite forget SRQ, I suppose.  Cheers, Tim... Doc9871 (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I too have been trying to stop the harrassment by SRQ. Moonriddengirl protected WHL talk page due to harrassing edits made to WHL who has a retirement notice up for now.  I've also received some of the same kind of comments that Doc has received as have others.  Does an ISP have to be set up to see if she has other accounts active or sleeper accounts?  I am real concerned with the outing that SRQ isn't hesitant to do, also she seems to like to add her nasty comments where it looks like another editor made it which is so uncool.  I'm not asking at this time for my page to be protected.  I have enough editors watching my page for it not to be a concern, at least not yet.  I appreciate your help.  Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the looks of this "editor" at all (or this one, for that matter). "Sleeper-sock city"?  Mike Bickle we know about: but Todd Bentley too?  Huh?  Again, the odds of this not being a certain someone are so remote as to be absurd.  Who else would edit these articles? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Heartofdavid is her; Sabra2, her sock, reverted one of Hod's edits. And I'm not sure I've seen enough for FusionJedi, either, esp. since that account is more than a year older than SRQ's. T. Canens (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspected socks of Mac
Hi, Tim. You blocked user:Nopetro, user:Nudecline, and user:Nukeless as socks of user:Mac. Based on the edit patterns and style I have a suspicion that also user:HybridBoy and User:GGByte may be socks of Mac. Both accounts are inactive. Beagel (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much need to do anything unless they start editing again. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephano Barberis
The Stephano Barberis article was deleted on June 26, 2010. I've recently received a copy of University of Toronto Press Canadian Who's Who 2010 100th Anniversary Edition. Barberis is listed in this text. This was not available at the time when the "request for deletion" talk occurred. With the addition of this source, as well as a cleaning up of the tone of the text, could this article be undeleted? Kanis103 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Gilabrand
Hello, I would like to talk about the crime and the punishment please. Yes, user:Gilabrand vandalized an article that looked rather as a vandalism to begin with anyway, and was topic banned for three months for doing that. I agree what Gilabrand done was not the right way to proceed. Did she deserve a topic ban for that? IMO, no, she did not. What she's done was wrong, but it was one time deal, of a very, very, very rightly upset editor. She should have been blocked for few days to calm her down, but instead she was topic banned. Yes, after she was topic banned, she did violate the topic ban 5 times, but none of so called violation was disruptive. For the last few months user:Gilabrand has been blocked for at lest two months with the latest block still ongoing. Am I the only one, who sees that her punishment, is absolutely disproportional? I re-read an arbitration case from a year ago that resulted in indefinite topic ban for few editors. It clearly states that the first 5 violations should be enforced only with a block up to one week, not a month, and not three months like you blocked Gilabrand. I strongly believe that user:Gilabrand has been punished more than enough already. I strongly believe that not only block but the topic ban should be lifted. I am asking to lift the topic ban because it is no longer needed. It served it purpose. I am sure Gilabrand learned her lesson, and will never again make any disrupting edits. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with MBZ1 that the punishment do seem too excessive. I remember the case of Gilabrand and that I was one of her advocates on this AE. I do not dispute there was a breach from her topic ban, however my question is whether similar cases were treated the same way? --Gilisa (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once a topic ban is imposed, it stays in force until successfully appealed. At this time, the question whether Sandstein's original topic ban was appropriate is irrelevant.Further, topic ban violations that are also disruptive in other manners are treated more harshly - the disruption is an aggravating factor. That the violations were not otherwise disruptive was already fully taken into account in not enhancing the sanction.The length of the block is subject to the discretion of the enforcing admin, provided only that they comply with the discretionary sanctions provisions of WP:ARBPIA, i.e., that they be no more than one year in length. Whatever the enforcement provisions of WP:ARBPIA2 is (I assume that's what you are referring to?), they do not apply here. It is apparent that the last 1-month block has failed to stop the problem of topic ban violations, so a longer block is necessary.I'm open to shortening and/or lifting the ban after a reasonable period of trouble-free editing, which includes the lack of topic ban violations. If Gilabrand can convince me that she understands that the edits did violate her topic ban, and will not do it again, I'm open to reducing the block as well. The only emails I received from her, however, claimed that the edits do not fall within the ban. T. Canens (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support that reduction as well, Tim. Having this past week spent time on a string where a six-time-blocked editor, subsequently warned seven times within a month (and three or four within the day of his most recent violation), was just (after much sysop-heavy discussion) deemed only worthy of a 3-day block, I'm concerned with some wildly inconsistent results of late on wp.  (And as to the editor having to evidence that he/she understood the gravity of the violation, in that case the editor during the discussion said his violation (for which he was originally indef banned) was "so minor it was laughable" ... so apparently our admin community is slightly inconsistent in terms of looking at the importance of that factor as well).  And that case involved highly disruptive and combative editing -- removing other editors' comments from article talk pages; not a situation where reasonable editors could possibly have different views, as here.  It would be nice to bring things closer to a common norm, as the dramatic inconsistency IMHO serves to undercut the project.  It's not enough IMHO to have a consistent rule of law.  There must be consistent application (or, at least, the best that one can do in that regard; individuals will always have a standard deviation or so of difference in application, but when we are talking about 7 standard deviations, something is amiss).  So yes, I support your relaxation of the punishment, if that is possible.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gila informed me that she sent the required email. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...which was filled with sarcasm as far as I can tell, and does not make me any more confident that she would refrain from violating the topic ban if unblocked. I'm not looking for magic words, but evidence that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Sending me emails dripping with sarcasm has the opposite effect. She is, of course, free to appeal to either the community or arbcom. T. Canens (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I read her email. I would not called it "sarcasm", but I admit I was laughing over it. It is Gila. Yet in the end she promised to behave, and that's all what matters. Okay, how about that: could you please unblock her under my responsibility. If she violates her topic ban again, we both should get blocked for the same time. IMO this measure will force her to think twice before violating her ban ever again because the violation will bring a punishment not only on her, but also on me. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And people would start howling for my head for blocking someone for something they have no control over, not to mention that it would turn the blocking policy upside down...no thanks. T. Canens (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody will howl your head over that because I myself asked for it, you could add the record of this to anywhere you'd like, and I will never, no under any circumstances allow somebody to bother you, if I am blocked because of Gila. So this is not a problem. Blocking policy is only a policy. If I am asking to unblock somebody under my responsibility, and this somebody violates editing restrictions once again, I am as guilty as she is. It is probably not a very good example, but sometimes parents are punished, for what their kids did. Please let's try it! BTW thank you for your time and responding to me!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While wp is of course not the real world, or a court of law, this suggestion clearly has firm footing in both, across the western world. It's of course quite common for people to put up bail money for others who are incarcerated, which they lose if the person skips bail.  Putting "skin in the game" is not a novel concept ITRW, though it is uncommonly generous to see on wp (and dangerous, given the lack of clarity -- unlike "skipping bail", the violation here is such that different sysops could reach starkly contrasting conclusions as to whether the future violation took place or not).  One is really then not putting one's faith in the person currently being punished, but in the individual sysops who make up the system as well, believing that the most wayward (in terms of what they construe as a violation) of them would not find a future action by the currently incarcerated to constitute a violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Money is one thing. If we are using that analogy, this is more like executing someone who put up bail for a murderer because the murderer skipped bail (or maybe committed another murder is the more apt analogue?)- something that, as far as I am aware of, does not exist in civilized world. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh Tim, a violation of a topic ban is not a murder, and a block is not an execution. My example with the parents getting punished for their children misbehavior is a batter example. But if you do not like to go for this, that is fine. Here's another possible solution: You give Gila an exam, in which you ask her 10 questions (could be more or less as you wish) to see if she understands what is covered under her topic ban. The questions should be tricky. Just to give you an idea what I mean, here's a real life question from my own hard earned experience: Would be this edit made in Rothschild family article a violation of your topic ban? If Gila is to pass the exam, she should be allowed to edit. I would like to bring her back, she is a valued contributor. That's why I am trying to come up with not so standard solutions. BTW I saw at least two admins, who came up with not standard solutions in different cases. For example one admin topic banned a user for a month, but said that if the user is to write a 1,000 words letter to him,  in which he explains why it is important to assume good faith, the topic ban will be lifted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, of course it's not; but I'm just making the point that the system you propose is a bad idea. And the problem with the "exam" system you suggest is that (1) I don't have time hunting for diffs and (2) if there is any doubt on whether an edit falls within a ban, it should be avoided. The "exam" system encourages gaming behavior. What about this, I'll unblock her, subject to a voluntary agreement to stay away from the topics of Israel and Palestine altogether for the time remaining on her block. This is, I suspect, a brighter line that would be less likely to be violated. If she does not violate the agreement, and shows the ability to edit constructively in other topic areas without disruption, at the end of the restriction I'll lift the topic ban from the P-I conflict topic as well. T. Canens (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(intended) Thank you for continuing talking to me and coming up with the proposal. The thing is that Gila's area of expertise is the culture, art, music and tourism of Israel. It will be incredibly hard on her to stay away off those topics altogether for such a long time. Could we please make her punishment a little bit easier on her:

You lift the block. For the next 30 days she stays off any Israel-related and Palestinian-related topics altogether. Then for the next 30 days she is allowed to edit art, music, tourism related articles about Israel without touching I/P conflict articles and/or section of the articles related to those conflicts. If there no more topic ban violations, her topic ban is lifted at the end of those two months of editing restrictions. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm willing to try this once, and I'll unblock as soon as she indicates to me (by email or on her talk page) that she accepts these terms. It should go without saying that any further violations of the restrictions will not be looked upon kindly. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tim! It was kind of you. I would only like to add that although Gila did violate her topic ban she did not do it with a malice. She simply was not mindful enough, but it was not because she did not want to comply with the sanctions, but because... well, it just happened, if you understand what I mean. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Nopetro
Hi Tim Song, I think the block of User:Nopetro is wrong as 90% of his edits are correct, just a minor of his edits are wrong, plz make a second review of your decision, Thanks. Mion (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

SRQ Still Blatantly Socking...
Hi again, Tim! You were definitely right about the last two "socks" I suspected of being SRQ, but she's 100% back at the Mike Bickle article, yet again. Have a look at the last two IP edit summaries - she basically admits it's her in not so many words in the first one ("no matter what" after I reverted her as banned), but insists on what is good for WP. Same exact IP signature on all three IP's doing the reverting; not to mention the "POV" argument, which SRQ has used since her earliest days; it's a "signature", if you will. I firmly believe it's time for semi-protection on this (again, very little-known) page, where SRQ has an obvious interest. I'll wait for your answer before reverting her a third time, but I'm going to tag the third IP as her (like it matters - she knows we can't block the IPs, which is why she uses them). She just won't stop editing here for some reason: but I know when it's her, and this is so her. Cheers, Tim :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Tim. I wish she would stop this, but she will not get away with it on articles like this where it is too obvious.  The big ones are all on my watchlist... :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

reverted last NPOV edit By Smackbot?, who is Rich? Why would it be edited to the vandal version? Is there some connection? What am I missing? Will cc this to Doc#1 ;-) Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at any old version of the article, it is clear that what you call the "NPOV" edit was almost certainly vandalism/POV-pushing; you can't NPOV-ize an article by, um, faking the sourcing and the quotes from the refs. Note how the IP changed the quote from "apprehension" to "praise"? I've obtained a copy of the article cited, and it says "cult-watching" and "apprehension". T. Canens (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I forgot to refer to the note to my self: "No editing after 4AM!" I see SRQ, and my brain goes into overdrive. I plead PTSD after 2 years years of being stalked by the aforementioned. Forgiven? Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me list my sockpuppet case?
Hi,

I just created Sockpuppet_investigations/EvanFinney08 this afternoon, but I am not seeing it on the listing of active cases. Could you add it in the proper place please? Thanks, RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved
just granted me IPBE, so I can edit again. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 19:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Check your email. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied; I've also scrambled the account's password. T. Canens (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Arsenal Squad Numbers page deleted?
I found it immensely useful. Aabidi86 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted based upon the consensus of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. squad numbers. See also WP:ITSUSEFUL. T. Canens (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please
User:Spartaz recently closed Articles for deletion/Pul Sayad Compound. On their talk page they said they were taking a month of vacation, and encouraged those with questions about deletion or userification to contact other administrators, including you.

I would appreciate userification to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Pul Sayad Compound, as per the proposal I made several months ago at WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo/What to do with Afghan training camps?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ T. Canens (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response. Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kissle
I just downloaded Kissle, ans I have discovered it won't work on Mac OS X. Could you create a Mac version or add Mac compatibility? Thanks. ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, there's no magic "support Mac" switch that I could turn on at will. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're not looking hard enough. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yattum CU sweep
I think the CU sweep missed this user who is most likely a sockpuppet for Yattum. His contributions fit the MO (first edits are to add a . or signature to one's userspace followed by Yattum's standard POV-push. Vedant (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked. That account was which is why CU didn't pick it up. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Health of Dick Cheney
You left the article there- it was moved during the AFD. I'm far, far, far too involved to zap this as G6 right now. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. T. Canens (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Rehab (album)
As I can tell there were three votes and only two for incubate. Did I miss something? Red Flag on the Right Side 01:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention the deletes, but regardless, AfD is not a vote. I find the keep arguments to be generally weak. T. Canens (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a reliable sourced release date and quite a bit of coverage in reliable sources such as "Thisis50.com", MTV and HipHopDX. Red Flag on the Right Side 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedistan 21/07/10
Dear Tim,

without any previous discussion you deleted a subpage from my user page that did NOT contain any "attack" or other reason to remove it. Do not do that again. We can do without such brutal and disruptive behaviour. Mind that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Dutch one. We are civilized users here, aren't we? Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Inre Deletion review/Log/2010 July 19
I opined a "keep" at Articles for deletion/Stephano Barberis with the comment that that the article "needs cleanup for style and tone, and the addition of proper (and available) sourcing" as a surmountable issue... but had never stepped up and put actions to my words. So, since the DRV, I've been working the last couple days on a rewrite that would address concerns brought up at the AFD... in order to show that what I believed was possible, could in fact be done. Please compare THIS to my work at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Stephano Barberis and offer an opinion. And yes... I think the "Select videography" section will need massive trimming. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. T. Canens (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Always nice to get a "thumbs up" from a closer. Thanks right back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

Valeri Lilov
Many thanks for dealing with all the socks in AFD Valeri Lilov in such a clear way; great stuff.

I feel slightly silly, because I accepted the AFC - but not too bad, because I do think it scrapes by notability. It thus becomes a tricky decision, because one wishes to 'step back' and look at the potential article on its own merits, in which case my own predisposition is to lean toward GNG and in this case I personally think it scrapes by, but on the other hand one must surely take into account the horrible sock invasion and clear attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies. A tough call; it appears the consensus will delete anyway, so I will not worry too much.

Anyway - I digress...I wasn't actually coming here to start chattering about that difficulty, I just wanted to say thanks, for your exemplary sock-management. Top stuff, as always.  Chzz  ► 04:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering.... "who the hell accepted the article? They're in deep trouble now...." Now I know. Mwahahahahahahahhahaaaa..... ;) ( X! ·  talk )  · @353  · 07:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be a corollary to WP:PERFECT re. Wikipedians  Chzz  ► 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Open SPI cases
Is there any reason to have that category when the SPI case is closed? I think it is misleading/incorrect then. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 17:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's "open" as in "not archived". T. Canens (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kissle uses old WikiFunctions.dll
Version 4.9.0.3 of WikiFunctions was considered to be very bug and result to page blanking on some (rare?) cases. Is it possible to update to 5.0.3.0 in the version you distribute from sourceforge? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This will save us with problems like old bug reports like Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_17. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do it soon. T. Canens (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be nice if you could some kind of check similar to AWB to automatically update to the latest WikiFunctions.dll by using AWB's check page. I 'll ask Reedy how is this possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Veracitycounts
Having closed the SPI, can I ask why you haven't blocked or warned this user? You seem to have acknowledged that he is a puppet master and it appears (from his own remarks) that he is utilising further accounts. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought NativeForeigner dealt with this. My bad. Warned. T. Canens (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Hi, no more "awaiting administration" section? Cheers, Amalthea  21:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I personally think they are pointless - all cases not awaiting a CU is awaiting administration... but more importantly, I'm too lazy to write a script that parses every open SPI case to categorize it, so API category members will have to do... T. Canens (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. It was somewhat helpful for me since it split out a number of cases I didn't want to look at, but with the new SPI template at the top it should be quick enough to scan the whole lot anyway. Cheers, Amalthea  21:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's the collapsed "case status summary" section with finer categorization, updated every 15 minutes by SoxBot (nice name, btw...) T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Closure of IDF incident
Hello just to inform you that I reverted your closure of the AfD because the discussion is very much still on-going therefore it seems incorrect to simply close it just like that especially since comments and votes were made recently. I'm unsure of whether I was allowed to revert your closure or if there was some sort of procedure to go through so I'm sorry if I did something wrong. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no, you don't revert an admin closing an AfD. Period. Take the discussion to the article's talk page or the user's talk page, or take it to DRV if you disagree with the closure. T. Canens (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kissle and AWB
Hi again. As of rev the bug reports will include the host, so we can easier identify if the bug is related to AWB or Kissle. Moreover, since I noticed that you disabled Orphan tagger I would like to comment that in version 4903 the auto-tagger was buggy. As soon as you update to latest version it won't be a problem anymore. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt Henshaw
Why has this page been deleted numerous times? Coverage is growing in the UK on the BBC and in music magazines. Matt Henshaw should exist if only even in the form of a stub. Locking the page seems very wrong. Ilsonowl (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Bwilkins page ... Apologies for posting this on your talk page, I am fairly new to wikipedia (early 2010) as you will note and trying to read all the internal workings is difficult. It is easy to take umbridge and pages your are trying to create or modify being deleted. It seems that everything that has been questionable that I have contributed is due to the the coverage being in the Uk and considered minor over the Atlantic. I will post the Matt Henshaw article and links up on the Help Desk. I'm sure you will also note, that due to my pre-occupation with the deletion of certain articles I haven't contributed to much else through fear of deletion. I hope you appreciate my time in writing this and will look further into it, along with other administrators. Ilsonowl (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can write a draft article at, say, User:Ilsonowl/Matt Henshaw. Make sure to use reliable sources independent of the subject to support notability. Once you are done, you can take it to WP:DRV for review; if the draft passes review, it can be restored to mainspace. T. Canens (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Veil Brides
Hi there. I'm taking this to you because I think you're the most recent admin to deal with the Black Veil Brides. On new page patrol, I came across an article for Andy Six, which is a single-sentence referenced stub on the lead singer of the band. I tagged for speedy, because there was no credible claim to notability mentioned in the article itself; but it was declined because billboard.com has written about the band and the singer. Per WP:BAND (members of notable bands are redirected to band articles), I attempted to rewrite and move the article to Black Veil Brides, but found it was protected. Could you take a look at the situation and possibly come up with a solution? Thanks for your attention. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That billboard source looks good. I've unprotected since it's due to expire in 2 weeks anyway. T. Canens (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Article Incubator/Black Veil Brides you can add more source here, thanks you UltraHeadShot (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI trainee clerk
Hi, sometime back I applied to be a trainee clerk and you told me to gain more experience in the different projects, especially in SPI-related ones. I've become actively involved in various projects and have read up WP:SOCK, WP:SOSP, and other related documents. I want to re-appeal to become a trainee clerk. Can you please tell me what other areas I have to work on first? Thanks, Bejinhan   talks   04:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm afraid that we have a reasonable number of non-admin clerks at the moment, and what we really need now is admin clerks to bring down the backlog. Besides, I'm going on vacation soon, and my internet access will be more irregular, so now is not a good time for me to take a trainee. But feel free to ask one of the other full clerks to take you on. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww, ok. I'll try to ask one of the clerks. If they say the same thing, then maybe I'll try again later. Thanks, Bejinhan   talks   11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)