Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/6

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


Sockpuppet investigation

I am still a relatively "young" editor, so I am a bit confused about how to proceed regarding the investigation. I'm also not certain what I can do to prove the negative, namely that I am not Soosim nor do I know who he is, other than to restate it. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you blocked Special:Contributions/Events_manager7 and Special:Contributions/Micro_mortgage after (although not necessarily as a result of) me posting about them at the Soosim/Scarletfire2112 SPI. Were those two found to be sock-puppets of Soosim too or just each other? Thanks, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Each other. T. Canens (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bleeckie

The Bleeckie page is finally ready to be resubmitted. The text is attached below. How do we go about doing this?

Thanks!

Extended content





Bleeckie Streetie (or Bleeckie) is a rod puppet created by children's media professional and puppeteer, Leslie Madeline Fleming. Bleeckie, an inquisitive and energetic 5-year-old female journalist, was originally created in May 2010 for the purpose of starring in a series of educational and entertaining web videos.

Bleeckie has been described as a bubbly, inquisitive plush friend who acts like a 5-year-old. She is known for asking her guests every kind of question imaginable. She doesn't believe any question is too personal allowing her innocence and enthusiasm to take her a long way. Bleeckie’s original videos focused heavily on song parodies and short comedic scenes, but even these videos contained explicit educational components such as building self-acceptance, individuality, and creativity.

Bleeckie has developed videos in conjunction with the Dallas Summer Musicals, Bass Performance Hall, The Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Booker T. Washington High School, Dallas Observer, and has performed with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. For her series, ‘Backstage with Bleeckie,’ Bleeckie was nominated for a Lone Star Emmy. Her series, ‘Backstage with Bleeckie,’ also ran in the Children’s Museum at The Cincinnati Art Museum on continuous loop from June to September 2012

CATCHPHRASES

Bleeckie exclaims her catchphrase, "Hearts and Stars!", which she uses as a greeting or as a good luck symbol to her guests.

FACTS
Bleeckie is named after Bleecker Street in New York City, after the location of Leslie Madeline Fleming's first apartment in the area.
Bleeckie's puppeteer earned her Master's degree in Children's Media from the Gallatin School of Individualized Study at New York University, and worked for Sesame Workshop at one point.
Although Fleming has designed dozens of puppets and characters in the past, Bleeckie was initially created at The Muppet Whatnot Workshop. After only a few videos, Fleming completely re-designed the character currently brought to life by Luna's Custom Puppets.

NOTEABLE INTERVIEWS
Big Tex - State Fair of Texas icon
Dallas Symphony Orchestra musicians Erin Hannigan, Chris Oliver, Dwight Shambley, and Doug Howard
Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing Arts dancers
Local Texas bands
Texas Rangers Employees
Violinist Chloe Trevor
The Addams Family star, Patrick Kennedy
Peter Pan stars Hadley Belle Miller and Sophie Sooter
Mary Poppins stars  Alexa Shae Niziak and Lucas Shultz
Two-time US National Yo-yo Champion Miguel Correa

FEATURED • Dallas Morning News feature story on Bleeckie’s impact – May 2011
• Dallas Observer feature stories on Bleeckie – January and April 2011
•Dallas Observer uses Bleeckie to interview local bands for their videos – April 2011
•NBC 5 feature video on Bleeckie’s impact – May 2011           
•Bleeckie performs onstage alongside The Dallas Symphony for their children’s concert series – Fall 2011
•Bleeckie was nominated for a Lonestar Emmy for ‘Backstage with Bleeckie’ in the ‘CHILDREN/YOUTH/TEEN – PROGRAM SPECIAL’ category – Fall 2012

Please follow the instructions at WP:DRV. T. Canens (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bleeckie

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bleeckie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Producerarose (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Kevin R. Guidry is Mangoeater1000?

You claim on ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alarming_sockpuppet to have identified User:Kevin R. Guidry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as a sock of Mangoeater1000, yet this is not reflected in the block reasoning, nor in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive. Please explain.--Auric talk 22:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice

This is to notify you of this discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Soliciting advise on editing the Falun Gong wiki

Sorry to bother you, but seem I'm not allowed to add this news report to the Falun Gong wiki:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

Can you give me some advise? Is there anything wrong with this news report from SF Chronicle? Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bobby fletcher has also filed this at WP:ANI, and asked on my talk page: User talk:EdJohnston#How to best add/not add this news report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Though I'm not requesting any action, or planning to do anything myself, you might be interested to see WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bobby fletcher and Talk:Falun Gong#Proposal to add news report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Discussing proposals at Workshop

The first sentence at "Proposed Decisions" has the following note ("After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop"). Am I to assume that discussions at the workshop are to be skipped? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether the PD is posted in the workshop is up to the drafter. You are free to discuss the PD on its talk page, as I see you are already doing. T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I mainly wonder why you have decided to ignore the points raised by Cambalachero and me. My points are particularly easy to read, specific, listed, and easy to verify (with exact diffs). In the evidence page, two users (Dentren and Wee Curry Monster) even defended my honor as an editor. Yet, all of that is ignored?
I am not playing the victim here, because I understand that my pushy behavior in Paraguayan War was not the best approach I could have taken (although accusing me of battleground actions is a stretch); I am also the only one out of all editors involved that has admitted to making mistakes. My behavior since February 2012 has been courteous, refraining from any insult or accusation (contrary to what the other party continues to do). All evidence presented by Lecen focuses on Cambalachero (check the diffs), and only has me included in the section title to confuse you into thinking otherwise.
I write this knowing that this will probably be erased or risking being told to go cry on the talk page (or both), but I honestly hope some of this matters to you. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Your points were not ignored; they were considered and found unpersuasive. There's a difference. T. Canens (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Persuasion was never my intention. You are free to think what you want, and that is great. Regardless of how you and other arbitrators interpret the facts, they still stand as evidence of a crude behavior history that will only be bolstered by the current case. Just please don't expect me to agree that an editor who apotheosizes the Brazilian monarchy is an expert in Latin American history, or that frustration is a valid excuse for xenophobia. I will abide to the ArbComm's ruling solely for the respect I have for several of its members (including you, Brad, Roger, and others). My only request is that, when time shows the error of your decision, you show an equal respect toward me and rectify this misguided insult against my status. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 13:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Thanks

for fixing the copy-edit,  Roger Davies talk 06:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Dear Tim,
Please note that among the recent edits done by Lecen on the Juan Manuel de Rosas article, he again includes the controversial image (see [1]) featured in the unreliable Pacho O'Donnell source (see [2]) which was discussed in the ArbComm case & the Rosas article talk page (see [3]). He also removed Rosas' military career.
Please keep an eye on the article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Directing your attention

I'd be very grateful if you could just examine the calm collegiate atmosphere at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#New_Edits

You might be forgiven for wondering how this has happened but I'd like to draw your attention to the conspicuous absence of several editors. If necessary I will name them for you.

My point in doing this is to make you aware that those missing were by and large involved in every edit war and dispute on the article in question making it one of the most fought over on the wiki. Through lack of experience I allowed myself to become one of the casualties of this WP:BATTLE.

Editors are sometimes very quick to complain when something is going wrong but for once I'd like to be the person who draws your attention to a success story, and long may it continue. It does go to prove that moderation and sanctions do have an effect, even if it takes a long time to get to the bottom of an issue.

BTW, at least one person is still on a ban because of the actions of the "disappeared". SonofSetanta (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Violations of existing arbitration decision

Timotheus Canens, I'm having problems again with User:MarshalN20. Is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement the correct place to go? --Lecen (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoping TC won't mind if I answer this: If a user has violated the arbitration decision, as your header seems to indicate, yes, the page you linked is the right one. You will need to explain clearly how the decision has been violated. Hope this helps. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Heimstern Läufer. That's what I wanted to know. --Lecen (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20

I received a "notification" of Lecen using my username in this discussion.
Dear Tim, the matter is currently being dealt by User:NuclearWarfare (Please see [4]).
I haven't done anything other than work on football articles and comment on NW's talk page.
I warned you that the ArbComm ruling was only going to bolster Lecen's egregious behavior...--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2013/6&oldid=1168309060"