User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2018/1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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. |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
Administrator changes
Muboshgu
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
None
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Technical news
- The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
- The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.
Arbitration
- Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.
Topic ban request
As you know, my appeal of my topic ban has resulted in the suggestion from Arbitrors that I appeal via AE on the grounds that it is no longer needed. Newyorkbrad specifically asked "whether he is confident that [I will] be able to edit them consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines"[1], and Thryduulf suggested I get editing help.[2]
I know you don't want to revisit a 5-year-old discretionary sanction[3], but it makes sense that I ask you for some general advice, to help prevent me from repeating the problem that persuaded you to make the ban. What could I do differently, to persuade editors of my opinion, that is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Iantresman (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration amendment request declined
At the direction of the Arbitration Committee, the Pseudoscience arbitration amendment request has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This Sunday! Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference (updated speakers + schedule)
| Sunday January 14: Wikipedia Day NYC 2018 | |
|---|---|
  Part of Wikipedia's global 17th birthday celebration, Wikipedia Day NYC 2018 at Ace Hotel will include a mini-conference of scheduled panels as well as unconference style talks and discussions proposed by attendees on the day of the event. We are very excited to announce speakers such as Jason Scott (Internet Archive), Jackie Koerner (Visiting Scholar, Wiki Ed), and Andrew Lih (Wikimedia DC), as well as a fantastic line-up of panels that highlight projects and issues of relevance to the Wikimedia NYC community. See Wikipedia Day NYC 2018 speakers + schedule And there will be cake. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Megs (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC) | |
The Signpost: 16 January 2018
- News and notes: Communication is key
- In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media
- Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics
- Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count
- Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers
- Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018
- Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017
Unprotecting Mass killings under Communist regimes?
Hello TC, this article has been indef protected since 2011. Any reason to keep it so? Following up on this talk page question. While you're looking, could you update the edit notice? I would do it, but want to be sure I'm not missing something. Regards, – SJ + 23:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- This protection was last discussed at ARCA last September. My views haven't changed. T. Canens (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- That clarifies things nicely. Thank you. – SJ + 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the relisting work
Hi Timotheus Canens,
Just a quick thanks for your work relisting page deletion discussions. I appreciate it! Mariano Landa (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Article deletion
Hi Timotheus,
I would like to ask why you deleted my article on Candy Maaka, given you were not part of the discussion? The people who voted delete, prematurely misjudged my article as COI/vanity page/self promotion, when it was not. I also responded fairly well to their comments about my sources (one user assumed sources were only local, yet I proved that they were not). I was also very open about me being a new user, and that I'm learning/writing via trial and error. While I appreciate that the subject may not be notable in your eyes, I have followed her career for several years, and she is notable in mine. I have proven that not everything will show in a google/worldcat search, but it seems like your mind's are made up regardless of how strong my argument is; so my question is - why did you delete my article? Because no 'delete voter' had an accurate nor strong argument. Seems like it is a matter of votes, and not reason/argument. JF1982 (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Discussions are always closed by people not involved in them. In this case, no other editor shared your view of the sources in a reasonably well-attended discussion. Feel free to take it to deletion review. T. Canens (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)