User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/11

On 12 September 2011, you deleted Ice core brittle zone but left at least 7 pages linked to it. I do not know what was in the original. How should I proceed? It seems that the redlinks should have been removed with the article so that people monitoring those articles would know what happened.

I am aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter_Incident_Article_Fix-up_Coordination_Page. Should I post something there, or is that just for administrators?

BTW, your deletion of Greenland ice cores (same creator) is currently being discussed at WUWT. Perhaps you could explain the problems before they jump to the wrong conclusions. Q Science (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If the topic is worthy of an article (I've absolutely no idea if it is) I'd leave the redlink as is. If it's not, then feel free to remove it. As to the other one, well, I'm rather amused that they managed to spell my username totally wrong. T. Canens (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

...I just got eaten by the rest of my life. I have not forgotten the bot idea, I promise! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I allowed to comment on the discussion at the AE enforcement request re collect? I am afraid that PS has made an error in the sequence of events. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless we are contemplating sanctions against you - and I don't think we are - the answer is no. T. Canens (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I like the new block functionality you added into the script. One thing I noticed, though, is that if a userpage doesn't exist and the script has to create it for a tag, the page ends up on my watchlist. Can you turn that off or make it an option or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You probably have the "watch pages I created" turned on in your preferences. Regardless, now the tags won't affect your watchlist. T. Canens (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweet - thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to copy over Commons:Template:Valid SVG to enwiki {{Valid SVG}} for a user - I thought it'd be straight-forward, but it wasn't, due to the commons /en language thingies. So I made a right mess of it. The URL thingy doesn't work. Can you possibly take a look? Ta.  Chzz  ►  21:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago you were kind enough to lay down a rangeblock for me; 166.216.130.0/24 was blocked 1 year in March. In all of this time I still have not become any more proficient in calculating or performing rangeblocks, so I am setting myself at your feet once again. The same type of disruptive WP:BLPCAT/WP:EGRS edits are now being made within the 166.137 range. Examples include 166.137.139.73, 166.137.139.205, 166.137.139.134, 166.137.139.95, and 166.137.139.73. I've been playing whack-a-mole, but it's become tiresome. Is a rangeblock feasible in this case? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's another /24 - 166.137.139.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Blocked for one year. You can use this tool to calculate the range. Technically, the largest range that can be directly blocked is a /16. Simple rules for eyeballing:

• If the first number of two IP addresses are the same, they are in the same /8:
  • 1.2.3.4 and 1.135.6.7 are in the same /8.
• If the first two numbers of two IP addresses are the same, they are in the same /16:
  • 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.135.6 are in the same /16 (and the same /8).
• If the first three numbers in the IP addresses are the same, they are in the same /24:
  • 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.3.135 are in the same /24 (and the same /16 and /8).

It's harder to figure out the smallest range that includes both addresses just from looking at them, but you can get a good sense of whether a rangeblock is feasible from just looking at the IP addresses and deciding if all of them are in the same /16. T. Canens (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're a star. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ugh - they're back under 166.137.136.140 and 166.137.136.227. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

166.137.136.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one year. T. Canens (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweet relief :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop by the requests page please? My request has sat there for a little over a week --Guerillero | My Talk 04:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Apologies for missing it. T. Canens (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this your post, could you please explain me what is the mechanism that would allow me to request the last stable version (the version before the violation has occurred) to be restored? Note, if this mechanism implies the usage of the editprotect template, then the last illegitimate additions acquire a status of legitimately added content, therefore, this admins' decision is de facto an endorsement of the illegitimately added content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You can ask exactly one uninvolved admin, point them to the AE thread, and ask for a PREFER revert. Any decision made by that admin is final. T. Canens (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Should I chose an admin by myself, or I need to go to some noticeboard?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your choice. T. Canens (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleeckie Streetie was originally uploaded and then deleted and then re-uploaded under Bleeckie once the sources were correctly cited. The page was visible and then deemed "promotional". It's not promotional but vey valid and in fact correctly cited. How can this be appealed with additional sources added?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.125.12 (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeckie. For appeals, see WP:DRV. T. Canens (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

T Cannes, I just read the note on my talk. I just want to mention that I have been open to change, been always contributing with quality academic material, and western press, and had been attempting to even extend a hand of friendship to editors on the other side, am not sure why the ban on me comes at this moment of time. Please let me know what the concerns are and if I may be given a process in which I can defend myself, or the accussations made against me on which apprently the ban has been made. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I take a very different view on the nature of your editing. WP:DSN#Appeal. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am just notifying you that there is a discussion over at the Blocks/Protections noticeboard at Commons regarding User:Jo0doe. As his blocking admin here on en-wiki, I figured that it would be proper to let you know. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tim, I have sent you an email regarding a sockpuppet. Thanks, nableezy - 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw your comment and noticed that it came just moments after mine. I hope that you were not referring to me. I made one edit, a new edit that was never done bebore at Banias and one revert nearly 35 hours later! I sincerely hope you weren't referring to me.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you find these hateful views espoused by Nableezy where he calls Israelis European colonizers and European invaders acceptable? Do you think that someone who espouses such hateful, xenophobic and hurtful views on Wikipedia should continue to be allowed to edit in I-P? Or do you simply not care.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like an answer to this too. If people like Jiujitsuguy are able to arbitrary make up what constitutes "hate" speech, then I think the idea of Wikipedia being an open and free encyclopedia should be reevaluated. -asad (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia demands that we edit in an NPOV manner. We are all human and sometimes we stray and this sometimes filters its way into our editing. So a term might be changed to "community" rather than "settlement" or the term "occupied" may be substituted for "administered." But the comments uttered by Nableezy, not merely once but twice, are way over the top and go beyond what is expected from editors. But Nableezy has gotten so many free passes that I guess he thought he could say any hurtful thing he wanted and get away with it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so do you now propose implementing a NPOV policy on user talk spaces? Because I don't think Nableezy is advocating for inserting that terms into any article. Where is the policy violation? I would classify many Israeli's who came to Palestine in the early 20th century as European Invaders for the simple fact of the matter that most of them were from Europe and I feel that they invaded and colonized Palestinian. But that is the is the beauty of the concept of free speech, that I am able to say whatever I want without it being overly racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. I guess Nableezy's comment could possibly, slightly, somewhat, be deemed as offensive to Europeans, but that's about it. -asad (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Free speech applies in other forums. If you want to blather about how much you hate Jews or Arabs in the street, that's your perogative and your speech is protected. In Wikipedia, there is a set of rules that one must abide by if one wants to edit. Central to that theme is editing in an NPOV manner and avoid tendentious editing. You are not protected by free speech here and if you violate the rules, which nableezy has by espousing hateful and hurtful comments, you get the boot. So if you want free speech, start your own blog and blog to your hearts desire but if you want to edit here, avoid hate speech.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I had a feeling that it would be attacked after NBA negotiations went into a tailspin yesterday. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I immediately self reverted within seconds once I was provided with the link above. Look, if your looking to ban me just let me know so I won't waste any more time with this. I self-reverted almost immediately once I was provided with the link. Forgive me if I'm not completely up to speed with every nuance of IPCOLLAB. In addition I haven't edited in I-P for over eight months. And again, the minute I was provided with the link and read it, I self reverted. What more do you want for Christ sake?!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If I had wanted to ban you for that you'd be banned already now. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for the tone. I self-reverted with a promise not to repeat. You have me groveling here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Responded--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion you closed before is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs, in case you don't have every post you've ever made memorized. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I still have reservations about the blanket blocks, particularly of HappyInGeneral, as per some of my comments at the AE thread. I was wondering what, if any, action you might deem appropriate for me to possibly have the ban on that editor lifted. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I also expressed some misgivings at AE. I still feel that the case against his particular user is totally different from Olaf, Dilip and PCPP, who very much had it coming to them. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My biggest concern is how this user popped out of nowhere to participate in an ongoing editing dispute. Maybe I'm being cynical, but that just screams "off-wiki coordination" to me. T. Canens (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the back-channelling may have been overestimated. The volume of traffic on AE or ANI might make effective watchlisting of these pages difficult. After all, if Falun Gong-related articles are the only ones of interest to a given editor, it's not hard to imagine them all being on such an editor's watchlist. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm, so you are saying that someone just popped up after a nine-month hiatus all by happenstance? I really don't buy this. (If they were regularly logging in to check their watchlist, why didn't they respond to John Carter's August message sooner?) T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • You may well have a point regarding the above, actually. However, I cannot myself be sure, based on my own limited access to FG related material, that the subject might not have come up in some sort of FG related publication. If it had, that might have been a bit of a prompt for returning. But, even acknowledging the possibility of coordination of some sort, I still might, personally, think that maybe, in the interests of having easier access to all related materials, includin FG related media like The Epoch Times, which are often among the few sources presenting new information from the FG "structure," it might be a good idea to at least shorten the block of this particular editor. I know I myself have very limited access to FG related media, and very much believe that it can be very useful in probably quite a few articles. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I understand your point, but I'm fairly sure that most FG sources (including the Epoch Times) are available out there for all Chinese speakers to see and use. I don't see what's so unique about HIG. T. Canens (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Actually, I think that they are available for speakers of multiple languages, as I think it is available in multiple languages. The "unique" point, if any, might be that HIG is one of the comparatively few FG practitioners that has taken a shot at editing wikipedia, and has at least some familiarity with our way of doing things. It does seem that a lot of people today are kind of afraid of all of our policies and guidelines and possibly not acting in accord with them. Maybe HIG was the only one who may have seen the comment, either at the Epoch Times, a message board, or eleewhere, who actually felt up to addressing the matter directly? John Carter (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--I was checking into the odd edit summary at User:Kross to find that this editor already got hisself blocked. "LCV is back"--if this editor weren't so, well, you know, I'd be thinking of socking. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see here: [1]. The disruptive user whose IP was blocked has switched IPs.Faustian (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, should the article be semi-protected?Faustian (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

SharedIPArchiveBot (talk · contribs) has edited about 5000 IP talk pages; I need to know which of those were recently blocked.

Is it possible to list contribs from SharedIPArchiveBot (talk · contribs) in order of the block-date of the IP user page that it edited?  Chzz  ►  06:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now answered, elsewhere. Ta.  Chzz  ►  21:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For ref, User:The_Earwig/Sandbox/SharedIPArchiveBot.  Chzz  ►  11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am confused by your decision as closing admin. I have no problem with the ones you said to keep (except for Doug Anderson who wasn't put up for AfD). There was clearly no consensus that I could see to keep any of the other fighters. In fact, I'd say there was clear consensus to delete them. Most of them received zero support, except for a couple of IPs who gave no good reasons why everyone should be kept. If you want to say I put up too many names, I wouldn't argue that. However, a lot of editors spent the time to go through those articles and now you want them to do it again. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me how you could look at those statements and claim there was no consensus on most of those fighters. Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

D.A. was mentioned by I, Jethrobot; I just deleted from the close. I'll be frank: this discussion is a complete mess. You have a lot people saying "keep X and Y" without saying anything about Z, because someone has already found sources about X and Y but not Z. That does not necessarily mean that no source exists about Z. When you bundle two dozen dissimilar articles together the search done for each article is quite likely to be not nearly exhaustive as it could have been were the articles nominated separately. Any apparent "consensus" to delete would be entirely unsafe. T. Canens (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I got carried away because I had a large group (though not quite this large) that I put up previously without problems. I think making individual AfDs for all of them is a bit much, but I think I'll break them into groups of 5 or 6 (as some editors recommended). Papaursa (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend not rushing to do that too soon as many will argue "speedy keep" if they are from a nomination that just happened. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do renominate them, do it individually. These people are not similarly situated at all. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please unrestrict my IP addresss 76.118.227.161 due to the fact that my delition of material on the Bule Army (Poland) page was confirmed by administrator Volunteer Marek yet when the other user did not like the outcome they reverted the page, and went to you to get me restricted. This is highly bias and unethical. So, again I ask that my IP address be un-restricted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.211.76 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

1. VM is not an administrator (which is irrelevent anyways). 2. VM discussed info I presented in the discussion, NOT the referenced info that this IP is removing. Note he has avoided the block by using another IP and doing the same thing.Faustian (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, further disruptions by this guy: [2].Faustian (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comment here [3]. Volunteer Marek  16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have filed a request to approve the NPP automated program. Thanks --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Care to add yourself as a party commenting as one of the AE patrollers? --Peter cohen (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - could you email me a copy please. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sent. As usual, please do not post or quote them on wiki. T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood - Ta. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Timotheus,

I noticed you've permanently banned Epeefleche. Given that he's a longstanding editor with almost 90,000 edits, I am concerned. Can you help me understand why you've taken this action? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Request for block of Epeefleche. T. Canens (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that ANI discussion. Thanks for the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please give Fut.Perf. ☼ a shout. Thanks. [4] — A. Kupicki (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)