Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/1

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


Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of films based on Image Comics

I don't know whats going on here, but if you could take a look at it and figure which box is correct, that would be awsome. MWOAP (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically it was resubmitted after I declined it. Feel free to review it de novo, or I'll hopefully get to it in a few days. Timotheus Canens (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Kissle

While logging in, I got a popup saying unhandled exception and:


So... yeah.  fetchcomms☛ 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if I click continue or whatever, it starts but it won't load any pages and can't refill even though the queue is empty.  fetchcomms☛ 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Weird. Seems like it wasn't able to load the NPP UI. Do you have anything in the "Loaded assemblies" that starts with Kissle.NPP? Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim, could you add me to the Kissle list too? I do a bit of new page patrolling, and I'd like to use it.  5:40  23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I get an error while logging in too.


It doesn't even try to connect. As soon as I click on login it gives that error. Any idea how to solve this? Regards,  5:40  22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have .NET Framework version 3.5? If not, you might want to upgrade to it. Timotheus Canens (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Kissle

I am very interested in using kissle for newpage patrol after ironholds informed me the tool he was using. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Tim, I would also like to try out Kissle. Could you please add me to the list :-) -- Marek.69 talk 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am also interested in trying out Kissle (I'm liking the name, by the way). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oopsy, just saw the message at the top of the page. Will request another admin to do so. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, please ask someone with +sysop to add you to the list. It might be a while before I'm able to get a sufficiently secure connection. Timotheus Canens (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Kissle

Hi Tim. I've just come across Kissle and I'd like to give it a try. Would that be possible? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Snih

Hello Tim. Thank you for your recommendation, the process should be more transparent. I've noted your new tool, looks interesting. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Future RfA

When do you think you'll be ready? I see that Julian and SoWhy are also interested in nominating you. Don't freak out; I think you still have a few months until you reach full potential, but when do you think you'll be willing to run? If you'd like to answer this privately, pm me or email please. Thanks, ceranthor 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

we 've disagreed a lot, but I think it might be possible--though, as Cerenthor says, perhaps not for a while . The problem at the moment is you do about 90% of things just right, but the others are careless, and that is always noticed. The careless ones seems to be bursts of impatience (I recognize that from the same syndrome of my own). You should try to figure out whatever may be causing it, on wiki or in RL., You have done an excellent job of staying out of serious trouble, & therefore haven't made any enemies. You might want to pay some attention to entering into some of the more extended policy discussions. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ophélie Bretnacher

Hello Tim, It's a very important européen case between France an Hungary


Your tenacity and want-to is amazing Raymond. I appreciate the fact that you were so willing to go up to bat for Ophelie. It is truely a sad situation. I just want to show you the difference between Jon Benet Ramsey 1, or Natalee Hollaway, 2 now compare Ophelie she had a spike of coverage when she died that has steadily petered away. It is the notabilityy aspect we were talking about. I did have a question is there any articles that highlite this death as a treaty sticking point? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Resilient Barnstar.png The Resilient Barnstar The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover with a smile. You have done admirable Raymond. I salute you! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that the article has survived a deletion review on the French Wikipedia I don't think there should be aq problem adding it here. I can't speak french or I would offer my services. You might try rewriting the article in English and asking a editor to make sure that the spelling and context should be in English but I think it has a doubled chance of surviving here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to reed it  ? Thanks --Raymondnivet (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Post AfD question

Hello Tim, I noticed you closed the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Institute of Religious Research as Keep. This would certainly seem to be a sensible close, as every single editor that voiced a position other than the nominator commented as "Keep". However, I notice that a notability tag remains at the top of the article. Do you think this tag could be removed at this point in time? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Definitely. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Attack template

Hey, thanks for fixing that! I was just looking at that template today trying to figure out why it didn't seem to work right anymore, but since my template coding skills are zero I didn't succeed. Works great now though--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Checkmarx deletion

Hi,

I'm posting the following request to all people participating in Checkmarx speedy deletion, hoping for a reconsideration.

A couple of weeks ago, Checkmarx was deleted from Wikipedia. It was a speedy deletion, and I didn't even have an opportunity to be there to defend myself, and this value in Wikipedia. I'm including "myself" here, because there was a personal attack on me as a user, and I don't think it was naive.

Just a reminder - a month ago, a user named Xodlop requested a Speedy-Deletion of the article named "Checkmarx". The reasons were, among others: notability, the author works for the company, many references are pointed to the company web site and after all - "it's an advertisement for non notable company".

Yes, I work for Checkmarx, and I think it is only natural that a worker of a company (just like a student of a well-known philosopher for example) would write about his company. I never tried to hide this relation; actually when I tried to put some personal info in my page, so people can contact me, if needed, I was suggested by an administrator not to do so. But I am using my name and affiliation proudly, not hiding.
I did my best to make a non-promotional article. Actually I copied the article of another company (Fortify Software, which is the leading company in the area of source code analysis today), and just "translated" it for Checkmarx. I got many requests for changes, from various administrators (and a lot of help, some of which you might find in my talk page or the Checkmarx talk page), changed according to all requests, and from a certain point I got no more about the article. And it's there for a couple of months already.

Yes, some references are from the company's website (as all articles contain) or companies related to it. Some are not (OWASP, CWE and alike).
Yes, Checkmarx is an average software company, but I completely disagree it is non-notable in the area of Source Code Analysis. The company is certainly a notable company in this field (which might be non-notable as a field, but I don't think it is), and known as one for every person dealing in this area. If Checkmarx is non-notable, I guess all (most?) other companies listed in the list of tools for Source Code Analysis (in Wikipedia) should be non-notable as well.

Still, they are not, for some reason.

I wanted to ask the user Xodlop why he/she asked for deletion of this company of all Source code Analysis companies, but the user does not exist anymore, for some reason (actually there's only a "welcome" message in his/her talk page dating 2 days AFTER the deletion request. Strange. I cannot "fight" ghosts.

So what do we have here?
A non-existent user asks for fast-deletion.
The company's article was no different than others, and (like others) was more than once cleaned from what looked like advertisements.
The article was there for a long time, and approved by more than one administrator. Where were you when I got all the comments on the article, and fixed them one by one? It was a lot of work, and I got good responses.
(correct me if I'm wrong here) All the participants were not experts on the field of Source Code Analysis, so notability in this area couldn't really be decided. It is very easy (and unfair, I think) to convince people about notability in an area they do not master. I'm sure my mother will be convinced that even Oracle (for example) is not-notable if I try to convince her. I can tell her it's a small non-notable competitor of Microsoft's minor product (SQL-Server), and show her there is no coverage of it in any book she reads.
There is coverage of the company - not very large, but it appears in relevant places (Application Security sources).

I'm sorry I wasn't around for a while to "defend myself" and the article. It was very quick, you know. As Xodlop him/herself mentioned - I was easy to access.

Thanks for reading to this point. I appreciate it.

I truly hope you reconsider.

Adarw (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's rarely a good idea to cross-post lengthy material like this. Even worse, I only relisted the debate and have absolutely no opinion on the merits, so your appeal is misplaced. Moreover, the article was not speedy deleted, but rather deleted after almost 10 days of debate, 3 days more than the regular 7 day debate period for most articles.
Ad hominem accusations directed against the AfD nominator does not help your case, especially when, as here, the accusation is not even accurate. The user simply decided not to create a userpage. And aside from that, every editor (all 6 of them) who commented in the discussion recommended deletion.
Finally, on the question of notability. We do not accept "notability within the field of XXX" exactly because it is inherently subjective and arbitrary, as you noted. How do we define the field? About every company is notable within a field if that field is defined narrowly enough. And how do we decide if a company is notable? Do we ask experts or everybody? If we ask experts, how do we verify their credentials? What if experts disagree? Our definition of notability, expressed in our various notability guidelines, is objective: the general notability guideline states that

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

Our notability guidelines for companies has a similar requirement. These criteria are objective and can be easily applied by everyone.
My recommendation, if you want to recreate the article: look up some independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage of the company. Then go to WP:REFUND and ask them to give you a userspace draft. Rewrite the article to incorporate those sources, and ask at deletion review for permission to recreate. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the honest and full answer. I apologize for "speedy" (my mistake, I thought I fixed it) and for the length (I know now). And yes, I was also wrong about the user (so many things). Your answer is very helpful for me, anyway. I hope I can do it. Adarw (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

HADAS disambiguation

Thanks for your note saying that a disambiguation isn't needed for this, but what is a hatnote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.252.66 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 92.6.252.66 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC) (sorry - seem to be having trouble logging in today)

WP:HAT, like
For this user's alternate account, see User:Timotheus Canens.
Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help Timhadas (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of schools

Hi Tim,

Just a note to let you know that WP:OUTCOMES is not a policy, and that even if it were, articles about high schools are not "uniformly kept" (a claim that OUTCOMES has never made), but are evaluated individually on the basis of sources. You can read some of the history of such proposals at WP:Schools, which has collected the several failed proposals along these lines.

To get a separate article, all schools must provide sources that demonstrate they are notable, not merely they exist. The most relevant notability guideline is at WP:ORG. Cardamon has found a six-sentence article that indicates that the school received some notice for a chem lab accident in 2001. This on its own is insufficient to meet WP:ORG (and if it were, then WP:DUE would then require the Wikipedia article to be primarily about the explosion, since that event would amount to 100% of the coverage that reliable sources have given to the subject), but if we can find more news articles, then the article might be justifiable. I don't mind keeping it if we can show that it's notable; conversely, I do mind keeping it if we can't show that it meets our minimum requirements for having an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that WP:OUTCOMES is policy, nor am I unaware of the status of the proposals listed in WP:SCHOOLS, and I'm certainly familiar with the policies and guidelines you cited. Nonetheless, I have never seen an verifiable high school deleted at AfD, and AFAIK there is none. It is certainly not uncontroversial, which is what prod is reserved for, and indeed far from it. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Imogen Mary Smallwood

Hello, I am Alvaro95, and I think you put me a proposition to delete the page that I made, "Imogen Mary Smallwood", in Wikipedia. Well, if the problem is that you think the page haven't got reliable resources, I have put a new head in the summary of the page, called "References and notes", and there I've put the sources.

Bye, Alvaro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaro95 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That section contained a single link to a Wikipedia mirror. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Game Show Congress DRV

What about this source? That might help too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented. Timotheus Canens (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BrandManager NB/astonishresults

Thanks for cleaning up User:BrandManager NB/astonishresults after closing the MfD. I visited the page to remove the excessive external links and was pleasantly surprised to discover it was already done. :) Cheers, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome :) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your interest in being an SPI clerk. You've been added to the list of active trainee clerks and, barring any objection from you, you'll be working with me. Look me up next time you're on IRC and we'll get the ball rolling. Thanks again, Nathan T 23:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looking forward to working with you. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI on Rollosmokes

How is this stale? This was just made today and moved to a new location (from here). These were created within the past two hours, if that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The report is not stale, but the accounts are. The CU data are kept for a limited period of time, and here all of the accounts have been blocked for way more than a year. Checkuser is not going to tell you anything here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
So even though the account, User:Station Agent 836 is active, you can't compare it to the Rollosmokes accounts? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct. Checkuser can tell what IPs, etc., Station Agent used, but they can't establish a connection unless they also know what Rollosmokes (or their socks) used, and that data is not in the CU database, having expired long ago. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Now I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnegat Fund Management

Unresolved

I commented at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_14#Barnegat_Fund_Management. I'm not sure whether the company is notable, although the New York Post article suggests that it might be. - Eastmain (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion

You may wish to follow along here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

CU outcome?

Hi! What was the outcome on that CU request I posted for Bambifan101? Please tell me you blocked the range. Please? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the case was archived prematurely. It's still awaiting checkuser. And that aside, it's kinda difficult for me to block a range... Tim Song (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. I'll take whatever I can get. Thanks for the help.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

CU on Marc, WP:DUCK

Hi Tim- I saw your comment on my sockpuppet investigation request. You're the second person to say that regarding this, and I've looked twice at WP:Call a spade a spade, and I guess I'm still too daffy to get it. What does that mean? Is my request out of line, or are you saying it is so apparently a case of sockpuppetry that no CU is needed? I'm new at this procedure, and have spent way more time trying to cope with this issue than I want to or than the topic warrants. Thanks in advance for spelling it out to me. Eric talk 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The latter, i.e., the accounts are clearly the same user based on behavioral evidence, so there's no need to run a check. Tim Song (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, light dawns on Marblehead. Thanks. Eric talk 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tim- Um, I just caught something I missed before: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marc#Evidence_submitted_by_Eric. Any advice on how to proceed? I don't want to impede investigation of the other three usernames, but User:Marc may not be involved after all. Eric talk 16:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Kissle bug

Hi Tim. I think I've isolated a bug in Kissle. I ran across it on the page Valera & Natasha Cherkashin. Based on other behavior of the program, I think the program does not appropriately handle articles with an & in their name. Without looking at the code, I see two possible reasons for this. The & character is a special character in Windows GUI (and thus the name is also displayed wrong when reviewing the article). Additionally, the URL needs to be appropriately formed such that & becomes &. Anyway, good luck in tracking this down! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, depending on how it's done, it may also need to become %26. Anyway, I'm sure you can figure it out! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting...I see that the title does not display correctly. Is there anything else? Did an edit fail? Tim Song (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there was a crash (null reference) that occurred, though what's strange is it seemed to still get my maintenance tags added when I checked back later, so the uncaught exception must have occurred late. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WPAFC templates

Hi Tim, I notice that you put {{WPAFC}} on some AfC project pages last month (example). This is fine except for one detail. This template is specifically for pages which are created through the AfC process rather than pages for the project. The correct banner template for these pages is {{WPAFC-admin}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Earwig told me that on IRC while I was doing it, but we decided against making another bunch of edits to correct it. If you want me to fix it, let me know and I'll do it. Tim Song (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed them myself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I might have made an error in filing a sockpuppet case

I recently filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valkyrie Red. It's only my second involvement with SI, so I made the mistake of listing the entry myself. Today I see a header which says that since the bot is down, listing by the filer is okay. I hope my procedural confusion won't unduly affect the outcome of this case. Sorry if my inexperience cost anyone time. BusterD (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you actually saved us time Tim Song (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My intention was not to influence the process unduly, so if clerks are happy, I'm happy. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Vote by sockpuppet in AfD you closed

Hi there. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Littman (historian), a now banned sockpuppet of User:NoCal100 editing under the name User:Los Admiralos voted and commented. I was wondering if that would a) alter the outcome of your closure or b) if his status as a now banned sockpuppet should be added to the archive of that discussion, per WP:BAN. Your thoughts? Tiamuttalk 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It would not have affected the close. I don't see why we need to modify the archives here.Tim Song (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In the past, I have seen editors strike the comments of banned sockpuppets, even in archived AfD debates, and leave a note of why that was done. Would you object to my doing that? Tiamuttalk 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care either way, though the striking is normally done in open AfDs, not closed ones. Tim Song (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen it done after closure as well. As such, I've gone ahead and done it. Thanks for your comments. Tiamuttalk 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help!

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For your seemingly unending dedication and contributions to the Articles for Creation process, I, Thisisborin9, hereby award you this barnstar (interesting design!). Congrats! Thisisborin9 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DrV

No clue honestly. Now you've got me wondering if I'm the only person that writes it that way. (Goes away mumbling to self...) :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive invitation

British Royalty Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/1, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles, created by 17,500 editors, through sourcing.

These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome <<
For now, participation on this userpage is by invitation only.

Ikip 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lawton (2nd nomination)

Hi Tim, Could you please tell me your reasons for relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lawton (2nd nomination). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The "keep" side are mostly SPAs making weak arguments, therefore I believed that a relist may be beneficial. Tim Song (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Cool Kat

Sorry, i haven't edited Wikipedia in weeks. The account you're talking about is not mine. It's an old vandal who has a vendetta against me, User:Simulation12. She was obsessed with me, and couldn't tell fiction from reality. So when she was banned, she blamed me for reporting her. And now she's trying to frame me. TCK| chat 16:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it has been blocked. Tim Song (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Banaticus' request to use Kissle

Hi there, I'd like to be able to use Kissle. Banaticus (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Patel

It's also copyvio from here: http://kadvapatelsamaj.blogspot.com/2009/08/kadva-patel-history.html

Seventh paragraph onward. HalfShadow 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Defteri

I believe that you are quite wrong for dismissing the user:Esoglou case, since there are clearly more undiscovered sockpuppets out there that you do not want to investigate, such as user:Defteri for example. I think this account is an illicit sockpuppet of user:Platia, which was banned as a clone of user:Lima and user:Soidi. Since there is a maxuimum luimit of altenrate accounts, this account should probably be banned. ADM (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2010/1&oldid=1188397418"