Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sccasey (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 16 December 2009 (→‎Kudos for restoring Talend). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please click here to leave me a new message.
AfC submissions
Random submission
4+ months
2,912 pending submissions
Purge to update

Notes to self

Notes

Articles to work on (eventually): High School Affiliated to Renmin University of China, Affinity chromatography, bunch of ConceptDraw articles in my userspace.

October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
July 2010
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
March 2010

Yo ho ho

CSDs on Sockpuppet Redirects

Please stop removing the CSD tags from this redirects. They are not "useful" as they never existed before, and only one is an even somewhat plausible search term, and admins have already chosen to delete it three times for the same reason. Further, policy on this is clear. Let an admin review them rather than continuing to encourage an inappropriate editors actions by sanctioning them in such a fashion. It is really not appropriate for you to remove this kind of CSD tag. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN is clear that an established editor in good standing can take responsibility for the contributions by a banned editor. If you have questions about the redirects' usefulness, WP:RFD is that way. A character's name is certainly a plausible search term. Tim Song (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A character name with a disambig is not a plausible search term. It is also clear that new pages should be deleted. Ban says you can, at your own risk, not that it means you can remove CSDs from articles (which is the next paragraph). If you want to take responsibility and ownership, either let them get deleted and recreate in their useless status, or tag with a hang on. But let an actual administrator review it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well observed

Indeed your right. I was distracted by food and the phone so i made a number of mistakes on the close. I shall have to be more careful in future. Many Thanks for the heads up. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Many thanks, Timotheus Canens! Your work at AfC has not been ignored (at least, not by me). You should take a (short) coffee break after all that hard work—see, I even brought you the coffee!
If you feel that this message was received in error, you may want to consider taking a short wikibreak before becoming wikibonked.  fetchcomms 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for restoring Talend

I wonder if you could do the same for Expressor? Looks like a couple of editors agreed with my comments about Talend and notability -- but I was not able to generate a more rigorous discussion to arrive at consensus before the expressor page was deleted. Btw, it's highly likely that Talend was marked AfD because I noted that my last edits to the expressor page after it was tagged AfD were modeled after the Talend page, a company that competes with expressor and had not then been tagged AfD, so I assumed its model was successful. Of course I also read up extensively on the notability before editing the expressor page in response to the AfD tag. You can see my comments on the expressor AfD page, my own talk page and on the talk page for secret. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (Sccasey (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]