User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/7

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question.
I am well aware of the nature of the ARPBIA but I was unsure if commenting here would be a contradiction to it. My comment says nothing of his/her specific edits but rather his/her status as a blocked editor. Here is my comment:

Statement by Wikifan12345
I will say nothing of his/her IP-related edits to honor my on-going topic ban. However, sock-puppetry is simply unacceptable behavior. 10 years of positive contributions wouldn't change the sociopathic trait to engage in full-blown sock-puppetry. From what I understand she/he feigned ignorance when questioned, so this wasn't just a blocked user trying to re-edit under an anonymous name. If this block were to be removed, which I personally believe to be quite harsh, it should not be blanket amnesty. I don't find these sorts of defenses convincing: "But this certainly is not the case with Gilabrand. Her interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a whole is genuine, and if her passion led her astray in the past, I am confident that this ban has put enough of a scare in her that she won't do it again."

Her passion led her astray? I personally have no ill will towards Gilabrand but I fear these sorts of amnesty requests will set a dangerous precedent.

If this comment is in violation of my TB, I will remove/strike it here. I did not want to risk posting it at the original thread because I know how sensitive admins can be about bans. Let me know thanks. Wikifan Be nice 12:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay in reply. I'm not sure I'm the right person to deal with this, though, since I placed the block at issue in the request. As a general rule, however, topic bans have exceptions only for necessary dispute resolution involving yourself, although AE is generally very reluctant to take any action based on edits on arbcom's own pages. T. Canens (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Yeah I was concerned I would be in violation of my TB. I'll remove my arbitration comments here just to be safe. Thanks for the response. Wikifan Be nice  20:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi
Chesdovi seems to continue with edits like and. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And this edit "one of Debressers “pro-Israel faction” mates". Chesdovi is unable to view things from anything but a conflict situation. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read my new article "I'll Be Sweeter Tomorrow (Than I Was Today)" to see what you think of it and how important it is. It only has 2 references. - Celeste6566 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.42.15 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Liberty (2nd nomination)
Was delete the right choice? It looks to me like a straight up split, which should mean no consensus - plus the fact that this particular discussion had already been closed *twice* (and reopened improperly, IMHO) as keep should have taken into account. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the reopenings, but it has always been the closer's prerogative to reopen a debate they closed, if they so choose.
 * Looking at the current state of the discussion, the keeps boil down to "he published a lot of introductory books (which have a lot of citations)". This argument, in my judgment, has been successfully rebutted by the nominator and OrangeMike. Moreover, the trend of the discussion after the last relist is clearly tending towards deletion. T. Canens (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Janes
(Moved from T. Canens (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)) How can you explain your reason for deleting the page for artist Nathan Janes? You clearly know nothing about the art scene? How can you ignore his association with celebrities, the most prominent art magazine noting Nathan as an emerging artists, been featured on the most popular alternative news site, been shown at one of the top galleries in the US (Jack Gallery), been published, and his notable work with animal charities around the country. Do you have something against his political views? There is no reason this page should have been removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Janes Please reinstate this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.0.49 (talk • contribs)
 * You can seek review of the deletion at WP:Deletion review. T. Canens (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the limit of the topic ban
Are articles such as those that deal with Israel but not related directly to the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as cities, elections, internal affairs, etc, included in the topic ban?-- RM ( Be my friend ) 00:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If your edits do not relate to the conflict in any way, then no; otherwise yes. T. Canens (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

About a deleted page
Dear
 * You have achieved the deletion of a page. If I have new arguments against your decision, may I discuss that with you, or should I proceed in an other way?

thanks --Amintib (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Communikat
It appears Comminukat is continuing his copy-pasting problem. His third sentence - "Editors on both sides of politically charged subjects can rationally discuss their positions, find common ground, and unemotionally document their differences" is lifted directly from another source without attribution. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for following up on the arbitration enforcement requests regarding this editor - it's much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)