Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Email: new section
Line 139: Line 139:
magnoriosflores@hotmail.com <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Magno rios|Magno rios]] ([[User talk:Magno rios|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Magno rios|contribs]]) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
magnoriosflores@hotmail.com <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Magno rios|Magno rios]] ([[User talk:Magno rios|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Magno rios|contribs]]) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It was deleted based on the consensus in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Cultural Casma|this discussion]]. I suggest that you contact [[User:NativeForeigner]], the administrator who most recently deleted the title, on their [[User talk:NativeForeigner|talk page]], if you have any further questions. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens#top|talk]]) 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:It was deleted based on the consensus in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Cultural Casma|this discussion]]. I suggest that you contact [[User:NativeForeigner]], the administrator who most recently deleted the title, on their [[User talk:NativeForeigner|talk page]], if you have any further questions. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens#top|talk]]) 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

== Email ==

As requested, instead of filing an SPI I have emailed you the evidence for suspected sockpuppetry by a banned user. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

Revision as of 02:36, 7 December 2010

Please click here to leave me a new message.
AfC submissions
Random submission
3+ months
1,760 pending submissions
Purge to update

Notes

Notes
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
July 2010
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
March 2010
PGP key 
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)

mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24
QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv
9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs
aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej
nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV
AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l
bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k
3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3
W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4
Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb
Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950
VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H
O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE
QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp
L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK
nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA
mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8
df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK
2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC
PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU
2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+
wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432
E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh
mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t
APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp
tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb
mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0
RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV
myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7
/L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM
RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc=
=oCnW
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Deletion of Roger Dupuy

The article was tagged with BLP unsourced as well as extension from the French speaking Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be better to use regular procedures rather than deleting the page? At least to give an opportunity to find out the notability of the person. It sounds like Roger Dupuy is a recognised expert in French revolution, also mentionned in scholarly articles in English [1]. --Anneyh (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article reads "Roger Dupuy (b. 1934) is a French historian and academic at the University of Rennes 2 – Upper Brittany.". If you want to create something with sources, feel free. WP:CSD is a regular procedure. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:CSD is that it is a two step procedure : nomination then deletion. I'm under the impression I had carefully checked my watchlist yesterday and did not see any such nomination. In my opinion the tag "can be improved from the French speaking Wikipedia" clearly stated that the article was incomplete and WP:CSD also states that "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved". --Anneyh (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but CSD does not require tagging. If I see a page that is entirely vandalism, for example, I'm not required to tag it and wait for someone else to delete it. T. Canens (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was clearly not a case of vandalism, but CSD states that "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way.". I don't think you considered that step, but that may happen to just anybody. I will not recreate the page, there are three red links pointing to it, proably somebody will do it later on (or not). I don't know if you're aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons, I had the page in my watchlist because I tried to help in that matter. All the best in your future admin tasks. --Anneyh (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia: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) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy-JJ case

Did you read my comment here? Gatoclass (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't when I commented, but I have read it now, and I do not think it necessary to increase the proposed sanction (3 months) even assuming arguendo that the diffs constitute sanctionable tendentious editing. JJG's history was relatively clean (a few minor sanctions, none of which lasting more than a few days), so a 3-month topic ban is a reasonable starting point barring very serious misconduct; we can deal with any continued tendentious editing after the ban expires. T. Canens (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuppiluliuma sock

The latest, I think: [2]. Same interests, same pattern of edits. Also note the WP:OWN behavior on Turkish Navy. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. T. Canens (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal

Per AE appeal procedures[3], I’m submitting my appeal directly to you, the imposing admin. First off, I accept my topic ban but I respectfully request a reduction for the following reason. The metric for imposing a sanction rests on the concept of progressive discipline. Essentially, sanctions get progressively worse based on an editor’s sanction history. Nableezy and I have been given nearly the exact same sanction despite the fact that his record is far worse than mine. I have 3 blocks in my log and have never been topic banned nor placed on any restriction. Nableezy on the other hand…well, the record below speaks for itself.

  • 23 March 2009 12hr block
  • 13 July 2009 24hr block
  • 3 November 2009 Topic banned 2 months
  • 1 January 2010 Topic banned 2 months (lifted on 6 Jan, after appeal)
  • 1 January 2010 Indefinite block for making legal threats (later lifted after threat was withdrawn)
  • 4 January 2010 24hr block
  • 26 March 2010 48hr block with 1rr restriction in topic area for 3 months
  • 16 April 2010 Topic banned 2 months
  • 15 August 2010 Topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles for six week
  • 15 September 2010 Restricted to 1rr thru 12/31 on articles relating to Israeli towns in the WB and Golan
  • 9 October 2010 24hr block
  • 12 October 2010 72hr block (later reduced to time served)
  • 18 October 2010 24hr block
  • 21 October 2010 Restricted to 1rr for entire topic area until 31 December 2010[4](I couldn't find this sanction in the log that's why I've linked it. Perhaps PK forgot to log it or I just overlooked it)
  • 5 November 2010 3hr block
  • 29 November 2010 Interaction ban with Cptnono, Jaakobou and Gilabrand

I also call your attention to this interaction between Nableezy and myself where I engaged him in conciliatory gestures, even to the extent that I was willing to voluntarily restrict myself to 1rr so as not to gain a tactical advantage over him after a similar sanction was imposed on him.

I only point this out because in the AE, some had accused me of engaging in gaming. I submit that my actions as demonstrated by the diff show that not only do I not engage in gaming, I actually engage in anti-gaming by voluntarily leveling the playing field, something that I was under no obligation to do. I further point out that during the instant AE I did not make a single edit to any article because I didn’t want to ruffle feathers while an action was pending. Regrettably, the same can not be said for my colleague.[5]

I also call your attention to the fact that in the aforementioned thread, I offered to self revert an edit that he found objectionable in the hope that it would foster better cooperation and goodwill in other related articles.[6] He never acted on my offer.

In sum, I am asking for a reduction of my topic ban from 3 months to 2 months which is consistent with the first, second and third topic bans issued to Nableezy on 3 November 2009, 1 January 2010 and 16 April 2010 respectively.

I recognize that I am despised (that's probably an understatement) by many editors here who do not share my views on very emotive matters and that this appeal will undoubtedly trigger a flurry of naysayers. However, I ask only that you review your decision and consider my arguments in a neutral dispassionate manner.

Respectfully submitted--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note that I have seen this and will get back to it later today. T. Canens (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the matter--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about the delay - was busy catching up with some RL work.

I have considered this appeal, and for the following reasons, I am declining it, but without prejudice to a renewed appeal after two months, if good work in other areas can be demonstrated, and, of course, without prejudice to any appeal to the community or ArbCom.

  • First, the sanction at issue was one that was supported by three uninvolved administrators. Therefore, while I am technically the "imposing administrator" under WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions, the situation is substantially different from a case where I imposed the sanction solely on my own discretion, and without any other discussion. While this is not fatal to the appeal, as I do have the power to lift or reduce the sanction, both prudence and common sense suggest that the party seeking a reduction would have a greater burden when multiple uninvolved administrators agreed upon the sanction rather than just one.
  • Second, the ground of the appeal appears to be that the three-month ban is disproportionate to the offense, in that it creates an unwarranted disparity with Nableezy's previous topic bans, and is insufficiently lenient when one compare your history to that of Nableezy. Appeals based on disparities between the sanctions received by the appellant and another party are generally disfavored. Sanctioning is not an exact science, and unless there is a binding sanctioning formula that every administrator follows (highly unlikely to ever happen), some disparity is unavoidable. While hopefully unwarranted dramatic disparities should not exist and should indeed be remedied, it is difficult to judge whether minor disparities are warranted or not, because it is difficult to compare two entirely different set of circumstances, for instance, the circumstances that led to Nableezy's first topic ban and the present circumstances.
  • Regardless, I have reconsidered the sanction imposed, and am satisfied that there is no unwarranted disparity with Nableezy's first, two month, topic ban. The imposition of the topic-wide 1RR restriction by recent community consensus is an indication that the community is quite displeased with the situation, and such a drastic measure has rarely be employed previously. It is a clear signal that future disruption will be treated harshly, and that signal has been reinforced by administrator comments on several recent AE requests related to this topic area. Under those circumstances, I believe that a one-month difference is not an unwarranted disparity.
  • An analogous situation is the climate change case. In that case, two first violations of topic bans were sanctioned with two-week blocks, something virtually unprecedented but justified due to the exhaustion of the community's patience with that topic area.
  • The only remaining argument is that the ban was insufficiently lenient in that Nableezy with a substantially more problematic history received a ban that is only a month longer. This argument suffers from the defect that Nableezy's misconduct is different from yours. Reverting during an ongoing discussion has long been established as unacceptable, while Nableezy's "self-revert a revert to regain a revert" tactic is, as far as I know, unprecedented. This is not to distract from the unacceptability of that tactic, but the novelty is certainly an argument in mitigation (though not a strong one at that, and is certainly partially offset by the apparent attempt to game the 1RR system, but given we allow self-reverts as a method of curing 1RR violations, there could arguably be a confusion element, and as usual, figure out whether it was an innocent mistake or bad faith attempt is hard). In short, in Nableezy's case there is a number of factors that are simply absent from your case. The two cases are not sufficiently comparable to warrant the conclusion that the sanction imposed on you was insufficiently lenient.
Once again, if good work in other areas can be demonstrated, you are welcome to appeal again in two months' time. If that appeal is successful, then your effective topic ban length would still be two months. At present, however, I'm not convinced that the sanction imposed should be reduced at this time, so I have to decline the appeal. T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy

Since I said I'd rescue this article, can you userfy it for me? Chris Neville-Smith (talk)

 Done at User:Chris Neville-Smith/EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy. Sorry for making you come and ask, the problem is that whenever you close something as "keep and cleanup", all too often it just never get cleaned up... T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your unfair deletion of In Praise of Talmud

What convinced you to [prefer to] take the weak argument for deletion of that page by the objective promoter of the deletion.???Xcff ggre233 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV, one of WP:5P, is simply non-negotiable. T. Canens (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You work to fast

You did not ask me what happen. You also have wrong assumption. Those who request my blocks, just deleted my editions, with arguments provided in history. They did not used any arguments just they deleted my editions. This is my arguments after all:

The fundamental legal codes written by nationally elected set of people are named Constitutions. The idea: "by people for people" was developed during the Enlightenment, by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. The name 'Constitution' originates from Constituante - the French people assembly 1789 to constitute a democratic nation.[1]

Firts who start talking instead deleting was: Professor Storyteller on 1st December. Rest just deleted my edition. Thus I request on you to talk with me before you announce me to be guilty and block me. More, I need not to have consensus, this is not obligatory. It is "invention" of such people who want push an editor away. That is all. Scientific work is simple: I give argument and provided support, somebody wants delete he should give counterargument. No contra argument edition stays. Simple, please do not bounce around editors! If somebody does not have arguments as BilCat and Dayewalker do not have can ask for "dispute" resolution. Please look for the individuals activities on History List, article 'Constitution' since 26 Nov. This are arguments?

ClueBot Reverting possible vandalism
BilCat Reverted apparent incorrect

Please be serious. Best regards,--Cleaghyre (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, announcements such as "I need not cooperate with anybody" and that "Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts" is entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the model of this project. You may wish to read WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:TRUTH. You may, if you wish to question the block, start a thread at the appropriate noticeboard, though I seriously doubt anything good would come from it. Moreover, if you continue to act as you did now, then in all likelihood you will soon be blocked indefinitely for disruption. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Dent FBC

Please, i want to know; why the article about my soccer team was deleted... How can it be restored? Thanks. Magno Enrique Rios Flores magnoriosflores@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magno rios (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted based on the consensus in this discussion. I suggest that you contact User:NativeForeigner, the administrator who most recently deleted the title, on their talk page, if you have any further questions. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

As requested, instead of filing an SPI I have emailed you the evidence for suspected sockpuppetry by a banned user. nableezy - 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/134169/constitution
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens&oldid=400979744"