User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timotheus Canens. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Interview: The Gardner interview

News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with your early close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 31. You have effectively curtailed a reasonable debate on the rules of speedy keep, where an argument is that an administrator has inappropriately curtailed a reasonable discussion at AfD. Yes, the nominator made a personal attack, but does this really mean we should start a fresh DRV due to you preventing a close on the merits on substantive matters? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about the delay in reply. I'm traveling and my internet access is a little sporadic.

I think you do have a point, although I looked at the discussion before I closed it and can't really see it being closed as overturn. Reopened. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. No worries about the delay. Nothing is burning. Apologies for sharing sentiments of unhappiness out of proportion to the problem. I agree that a straight overturn is not the current reading, and I usually agree with closing discussions nominations that perpetuate attack. I was and am hoping for further comment on how "Speedy Keep" should be applied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate you giving me advice on my talk page. I was simply following the lead by One Night in Hackney however who redacted my posts without discussing it with me or an admin at []. When I undid the comments I was warned by User:Elen of the Roads that doing so in future would get me sanctioned. At [] it was clearly stated by User:Bwilkins that all editors should stop referring to each other by suspected sockpuppet names. I took that as an authority to redact incidences where I have been unjustly accused of being a sockpuppet. By undoing my redactions you have left all the accusations against me on the page but you have not undone the redactions made by One Night in Hackney. Could I ask you to clarify where I stand on this please and/or re-edit the pages in an even handed way so that either ALL accusations stand on NONE. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been told you are the evil doer that created the AFC script :)

When I see a new biography that its talk page was created by somebody at AFC, {{WikiProject Biography}} is not the first banner listed. The AFC banner is first. On living people, the biography banner should always be the first banner because of the blp warning. Bgwhite (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1040 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tim, would you happen to know why this edit did not change the script at all? Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If it worked at all after the change, it's because you didn't clear your browser cache. As to why it didn't work, . T. Canens (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I actually did that. Thanks, again! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Ex-Nazis" is precisely the term used by Zeev Schiff and in order not to veer from the source, I used precisely that term. If you do not believe me, please provide me with your email and I will gladly send you a scanned attachment. Please also note that I included Yugoslavs as well (500 volunteered) Also note that standard Wikipedia email does not allow me to send email attachments.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Zeev Schiff: "Other Volunteers came from among Yugoslavian Moslems, deserters from the British Army and ex-Nazis."
Leslie Stein: "The Jews were not alone in mobilizing foreign volunteers. Some five-hundred Yugoslavs plus a number of Germans, Poles and over 50 Britons fought on the Palestinian behalf."
Chaim Herzog also notes that the Arab side employed Germans, Yugoslavs, British deserters and Poles to drive vehicles loaded with bombs into Jewish populated areas. (page 25)
Morris notes on page 85 that the Germans were drawn from ex-intel, Wehrmacht and SS officers and the Yugoslavs were drawn from Bosnian Muslim ranks and former pro-Axis militia. I used Morris only to note the composition of Germans and Yugoslavs.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Schiff was used to note that volunteers came from the ranks of ex-Nazis and Yugoslavs. Morris was used to note their specific composition, and sub-types. I noted Stein and Herzog at the discussion page. If other notable scholarly texts include these facts, should this content not be added to Wikipedia?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed this and was curious; is there a guideline on this someplace? I see sometimes rights are removed when an editor is indeffed, sometimes they're not, sometimes there's a great deal of back-and-forth, and was just curious what the general guidance on this was, if any. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent participation at the Arbitration Enforcement requests board. I see you commented there in your administrative capacity recently, concerning a request that I just discovered yesterday. I finally had time to complete a very careful analysis of the matter earlier today, and was wondering whether you'd please take a look at that (link/permalink) before you post any final opinion there? I'd be grateful for the favor. This same message is being posted to the talk page of every admin who expressed an opinion there, btw. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)