| Revision as of 19:47, 31 December 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 3d) to User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/12.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 23:31, 31 December 2011 edit undoT. Canens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,585 edits clearNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{cquote|Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(3d) |
|
|
|archive = User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/%(year)d/%(month)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{mbox|text=If you are interested in trying ], please ask another admin to modify the permissions page, as I'm on an admin tools break. Please leave bug reports and feature requests on this page. Thanks.}} |
|
|
{{/talkheader}} |
|
|
{{/Persistent}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Doncram verbatim quotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
At ], you said that {{user|Doncram}}'s "excessive use of verbatim quotes...is unacceptable". Would you consider {{diff|Liederkranz Club|467942293|467940366|this diff today}} to be a violation of that finding? How about {{diff|William H. Allen (architect)|prev|466753123|this one from last week}}? Thanks. --] 17:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, these are rather excessive. ] (]) 07:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tps}} The Liederkranz Club thing is just a blatant and unambiguous, straight-up copyvio - quotes don't make up for laziness. It should be immediately removed as such: we can't just copy-and-paste text from sources, slap barely noticeable quotes around it and present it as the body of the article. This could be a serious problem, with an editor as prolific as this committing such an egregious move after being here for so long. 6 months for edit warring was far too kind. ] ] 07:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Your comments at the uninvolved admin section at AE == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Timotheus, You are not currently an administrator, so you should not be commenting in the Uninvolved ''Administrator'' section at AE. Please move your comments to a correct section. Thank you. Also, your proposal to topic ban MN who has an impeccable block log for six months while suggesting that Nableezy who has ban and blocks logs to the yahooz should be topic banned for 3-6 months is a joke. Best. --'']] ]'' 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I will put my comment where I see fit. ] (]) 22:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::see --'']] ]'' 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== AE abortion case == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Esoglou case was closed on a similar basis by WGFinley where there was also clear evidence of blatant edit-warring and where the filing party was well aware of the discretionary sanctions. Could that case be reopened for the same reasons as the Netzer case?--] (]) 16:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:If it were up to me I'd rather reopen the Cptnono case. ] (]) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I didn't see what else to do with it. I suggested indef and people complained, I suggested warnings to both and people complained and then Nableezy withdrew it. I left that for a couple days and decided to close, if you really want it reopened I'm not opposed to it I just have no clue where it would go. Cptnono is aware he's on thin ice, if he slips the indef is coming. As far as TDA I think he should preface with his remarks that he's been blocked and banned by me, might explain his unusual interest in my decisions and while I did say he should ask Tim in response to a question on my talk page I didn't mean he should be looking for someone to wheel war with me. --] (]) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, that close was good. Looking at the filing party's conduct is entirely ''discretionary'', and usually it's either because we have to look at it anyway to arrive at a fully informed disposition of the case, or because there's something wrong with the filing itself (frivolous report, etc.). In this case neither applies because the case as it was presented can be dealt with through a warning without a detailed review of the incidents. If anyone wants to file a case against Roscelese, they are free to do so. ] (]) 22:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just to be clear, I also was asking about the fact that there was pretty clear-cut evidence of edit-warring in that case, which, as you said with the Netzer case, could have easily been dealt with on its own without consideration of arbitration policy requirements for a warning.--] (]) 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Talkback == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{talkback|WT:AFC|Severe Backlog!|ts=19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
<small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">]</font></small> 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ''']''' == |
|
|
|
|
|
{|style="border: 3px solid #6881b9; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{border-radius|8px}}" cellpadding="5" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|You are invited to the ''']''', taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my ] at the National Archives with one last success! |
|
|
|
|
|
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—''currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships''—for use on Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions<sup>1</sup> as possible can come. ]! ]·] 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<small><sup>1</sup> Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.</small> |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|} |
|