User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2018/1

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Muboshgu
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg None

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news
 * The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration
 * Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban request
As you know, my appeal of my topic ban has resulted in the suggestion from Arbitrors that I appeal via AE on the grounds that it is no longer needed. Newyorkbrad specifically asked "whether he is confident that [I will] be able to edit them consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines", and Thryduulf suggested I get editing help.

I know you don't want to revisit a 5-year-old discretionary sanction, but it makes sense that I ask you for some general advice, to help prevent me from repeating the problem that persuaded you to make the ban. What could I do differently, to persuade editors of my opinion, that is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Iantresman (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request declined
At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, the Pseudoscience arbitration amendment request has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unprotecting Mass killings under Communist regimes?
Hello TC, this article has been indef protected since 2011. Any reason to keep it so? Following up on this talk page question. While you're looking, could you update the edit notice? I would do it, but want to be sure I'm not missing something. Regards, – SJ + 23:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This protection was last discussed at ARCA last September. My views haven't changed. T. Canens (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That clarifies things nicely. Thank you. – SJ +  03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the relisting work
Hi Timotheus Canens,

Just a quick thanks for your work relisting page deletion discussions. I appreciate it! Mariano Landa (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion
Hi Timotheus,

I would like to ask why you deleted my article on Candy Maaka, given you were not part of the discussion? The people who voted delete, prematurely misjudged my article as COI/vanity page/self promotion, when it was not. I also responded fairly well to their comments about my sources (one user assumed sources were only local, yet I proved that they were not). I was also very open about me being a new user, and that I'm learning/writing via trial and error. While I appreciate that the subject may not be notable in your eyes, I have followed her career for several years, and she is notable in mine. I have proven that not everything will show in a google/worldcat search, but it seems like your mind's are made up regardless of how strong my argument is; so my question is - why did you delete my article? Because no 'delete voter' had an accurate nor strong argument. Seems like it is a matter of votes, and not reason/argument. JF1982 (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussions are always closed by people not involved in them. In this case, no other editor shared your view of the sources in a reasonably well-attended discussion. Feel free to take it to deletion review. T. Canens (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)