Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009/12

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


Recent deletion discussion

Not sure if you're aware of all the details - the subject in our recent discussion is basically not at all keen about people in their family finding out about their linked activities. They have requested that we remove their real name at a wiki that I run (which concerns these activities) and we have honoured that request. They're a moderately prominent member of our community, and have been invited as a guest of honour to a major convention, so it is understandable that people would link their work. I don't foresee a need to recreate their article here anytime soon, but if it is recreated I suspect editors in the topic area would be more than happy to respect a editor-only HTML comment requesting that they not link or mention it in the future. Perhaps this could even be added to the redirect. GreenReaper (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Given how easy it is to bypass semi-protection, I doubt it would be a good idea. We are not talking about vandalism or blatant BLP violations that no person in good faith would try to do and that is easily picked up by RC patrol. Given the concerns here, I'd prefer that any significant changes be discussed first. WP:BRD is not very effective when the page is not watched by many. Tim Song (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Random joy...

You may want to pick your next edit carefully: by my count it'll be your 10000th.  :-) — Coren (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Edit picked. Tim Song (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Air Solutions

Thank you for helping keep that page open for further discussion and avoid it's deletion by someone who really has not much knowledge of the difficulty and the experience necessary to start and operate and airline. We aviation fanatics love to read and have the knowledge of articles as this one. I personally know some of these individuals and can attest to what they accomplished. I am working to have other come post and support the article. Unfortunately Chalk's Ocean Airways is out of business so it is hard to obtain the verification the moderator requested only the employees are able and willing to attest to the so many flights conducted by Air Solutions to help them stay in business. What can be done to avoid this page from being permanently deleted. Thanks for your input, I will tell the page creator that the discussion is still open and page is not deleted yet. --68.157.0.87 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the airline exists or how much effort went into establishing it but whether it is notable. If you wish to save the article, the best way to do so is by providing third-party, independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject. Tim Song (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fellow Columbia student!

Hey Tim! I go to Columbia too. Please email me at <email removed> so we can talk about something more directly and in private. I know it's asking a lot but cmon plz do it. Aliciakeyzz (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to keep discussions on-wiki if possible. If there is something that cannot be discussed here, you can use Special:EmailUser/Tim Song to send an email. Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see the need for email so I'll respond here. It's longstanding practice to relist debates, such as the one you nominated, with only one or two !votes including the nominator. See WP:RELIST. Tim Song (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from Jimmer Fredette

Hello, I removed the proposed deletion tag from this article because the author protested its deletion on the talk page. Any objection to the deletion of the page makes the deletion controversial and the prod becomes ineligible. If you still want the article deleted, there's still AFD, thanks! -- Atama頭 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for the notice :) Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Kim Eng Holdings Limited

hi

This is regarding the article on [[1]]

I don't understand why you've rejected my article..

I have the following questions: 1) What do u mean by this company is not notable. This is a more than 30 years old company, present in around 10 countries and one of the most well-known (not to mention top) stock brokers in Singapore. It is a listed company.

2) Which part of the article lacks sources? I have already given sources for mergers and acquisitions part. The whole article is just facts and figures about this company.

3) Can i have a live chat with you or something?

Also, how come you guys don't ask the following people for sources? They have jus listed down their corporate website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCBC

I have listed down sources. What's wrong with them? How did u conclude they aren't third party, reliable sources.

Please help me understand the above issues. Help me understand how I can publish this page. I want to resolve all issues you had with the article because of which you have rejected it.

Anyways, I've re-submitted the article requesting for review. Please let me know if it's fine now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamasg (talk • contribs) 09:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.248.107 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone else is reviewing it. Please note that by "reliable sources", we refer to third-party sources independent of the subject providing significant coverage. Merely listing in a directory normally does not suffice. Tim Song (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

<br\> Hi Tim,<br\> Firstly, thanks for replying. <br\> My list of sources consists of sources from Reuters, Business Times, Bloomberg, Forbes, Japan times etc. I really hope that suffices. Please let me know. Waiting for your reply. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.248.107 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Listing in a directory does not confer notability, since that counts as a "trivial mention". The new sources look good enough, though, that I'll be moving it to mainspace in a moment. Tim Song (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

<br\>

Hi Tim<br\> A million thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.248.107 (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

story (accordionist)

I do not see how this article does not meet criteria. Although story is not a birth name, it is the performers stage name, and i do not see how that relates to the authenticity of this article.

There are several reference given, all of which refer to the performer as "story", all of which are credible sources (the Coast is a Halifax Newspaper, for example.

Many internal and external links have been added to this page, and I believe that it does meet the wikipedia standards. I think that it is unfair for you to say that a person or performer who obviously exists, and has played hundreds of shows, in both Canada and the US, is not enough of a person to be included in wikipedia.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Story.pei (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAND and WP:RS. Of the sources in the article:
By the way, are Flightstar (talk · contribs) and Direwolfmedia (talk · contribs) you or people you are familiar with? Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


i don't feel like being a mainstage performer (one of three for the whole festival) is at best a mention. And they are independant, as i didn't write any of the information, nor was i interviewed for that. The info was gathered on their own behalf, and written independantly of me. and no, i am not those people, dire wolf media is a web service company that I do know, but do not work for, or with. I feel like you all might be missing the point of wikipedia. Originally it was a place where people could most true information about people, places, events, etc. Now, you all make it nearly impossible to post anything. I've read the other deletion activity above, a company that's been around for 10 years or more can't even get a page? don't you think that's a little exclusionary? I mean, they're a real company, why can't they have a page? Wikipedia never used to be like this. I think it's very elitist and I feel as though you all make it so impossible to add an enty, that you are in fact not truly reflecting society, culture, and the real world. think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Story.pei (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's one paragraph. And are you honestly arguing that an event organizer can write neutrally about someone performing at the event? Tim Song (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Empress Chun - AfD?

Hi Tim,

Could you take a look at this? Someone else has suggested it's a hoax, I just think we have a problem editor here (blocked and evading with multiple IDs) who doesn't use sources and may be making things up. I can find no sources saying she ever was given a posthumous Imperial title, although it's possible given her mausoleum. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Per s:zh:明史/卷51, it says that "于是上皇高祖考谥曰玄皇帝，庙号德祖，皇高祖妣曰裕玄皇后。皇曾祖考谥曰恒皇帝，庙号懿祖，皇曾祖妣曰恒皇后。皇祖考谥曰裕皇帝，庙号熙祖，皇祖妣曰裕皇后。皇考谥曰淳皇帝，庙号仁祖，皇妣陈氏曰淳皇后。", so it seems that she was indeed given that title. Tim Song (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't read that but assume as it's a wikisource page there's a reliable source there? Any chance you could add it to the article? And shouldn't it really be part of our Hongwu Emperor article as we don't know enough about her for a separate article? Thanks, that's a great help. I assume the source would also apply to her husband Zhu Shizhen? Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thought you know Chinese. This is from History of Ming, so it is definitely a reliable source. Basically, it says "Therefore the great-great-grandfather of the Emperor was given the posthumous name of Emperor Xuan and the temple name of Dezu, and the great-great-grandmother was given the title of Empress Yuxuan. The great-grandfather was given the posthumous name of Emperor Heng and the temple name of Yizu, and the great-grandmother was given the title of Empress Heng. The grandfather of the Emperor was given the posthumous name of Emperor Yu and the temple name of Xizu, and the grandmother was given the title of Empress Yu. The father of the Emperor was given the posthumous name of Emperor Chun and the temple name of Renzu, and the mother of the Emperor, whose maiden name was Chen, was given the title of Empress Chun." So yes, but basically all we can say is that she exists. A redirect would be appropriate. Tim Song (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that is brilliant. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Added it to main article, redirected this one to that section and then noticed what you'd done. I'll leave it for the moment as my redirect. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"test"

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/test <-- is this for a bot or something? I was gonna speedy it... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't - I'm testing a new AfC script. I'll mark it as speedy when I'm done... Tim Song (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm obviously stupid...

Okay, I'm obviously stupid... but, why did you (or someone) remove my comment from the deletion page? here - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't me... It was removed by Craftyminion (talk · contribs) with the summary "discussion has closed" in this editTim Song (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate NACs

Hi Tim. Thanks for all your hard work at AfD. I just wanted to raise a concern I had. I noticed you've been doing a lot of non-admin closures lately. Could you please try to be a little more careful about what you close? I have no objections to the actual results of any of them, and totally agree they were appropriate, but per speedy keep guidelines snowballing is not an appropriate NAC, and what you did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waldron_Mercy_Academy did in fact have an oppose comment still outstanding. Accordingly, it wasn't eligible for a speedy keep. In any case, IAR applies and I'm totally willing to assume good faith, especially considering I think the result is as would have been closed, I just didn't want to see you getting bit in the butt later during a deletion review if something like that were to come up. Thanks again for your work! --Shirik (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't think I've ever said that one was a speedy keep. It was a somewhat-early keep that (I hope I was clear enough) I closed as a semi-snowball. My standard practice is to go through the log at ~2:00 UTC +/- 2 hours, and relist all the debates that needs relisting. If I see any debate where the close is clear-cut I just close it as such. Tim Song (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for being unclear. My comment was mostly related to Atama's comment at the end regarding the outstanding oppose comments (and that there is no such thing as a WP:SNOW NAC in AfD). In any case, I think what you did was sensible, just a little unusual. Thanks again. --Shirik (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, WP:NAC is an essay. There's nothing in the policy or guidelines that prevent snowball NACs. I've closed quite a few snowballs myself, generally on the 7th day, or sometimes earlier. Not to mention that in this case it's an even larger snowball because the outcome is pretty much dictated by WP:OUTCOMES...... Tim Song (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Message

My Son was killed in combat in Iraq and after researching companies that help veterans I found this one; The Police Bodyguard Group and www.PoliceBodyguard.com please help me fix and improve my new page before it gets deleted. Thanks You Very Much, Dr. Richard Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRichardDavis (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, the article was deleted, and from what I see was beyond repair. I recommend using the articles for creation process or WP:Requested articles. Tim Song (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

Before you continue to advocate my pages deletion please consider the following:

The fact is it is a very noteworthy page for 3 simple reasons:

1. There is no other web site or business like it in the world.

2. The web site is #1 in the world on Google and Yahoo search engines. (Please search Google and Yahoo yourself for Police Bodyguards or Celebrity Police Bodyguards or on Yahoo just search Celebrity Bodyguard)

3. No business of it's type is currently covered on Wikipedia, I have searched Wikipedia for hours and this is the only company of it's type on Wikipedia.

Either you support the Troops or you do not, either you support the groups like this one, who support the Troops or you do not, there is no grey area here, so please stop advocating my pages delation and help me get it approved in some form, again either help me, help them support the Troops with this page or at least stop trying to get it deleted.

I hold a Masters, a MD and PHD, I think I can safely say I understand the rules and regulations of this web site and have not violated them in any way, neither me or my son are mentioned on or appear on its pages, I have never had any contact with this business or web site, nor do I know anyone who has.

I have read and tried to follow the rules, please help me, if you feel my page needs to be deleted, at least show me and my late son the respect of explaining why. Thank You,

Dr. Richard Davis Father of a United States Army Combat Veteran Killed in Action in Iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRichardDavis (talk • contribs) 06:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use lengthy headers like that. I've replied on your talk page. Tim Song (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

CSDs on Sockpuppet Redirects

Please stop removing the CSD tags from this redirects. They are not "useful" as they never existed before, and only one is an even somewhat plausible search term, and admins have already chosen to delete it three times for the same reason. Further, policy on this is clear. Let an admin review them rather than continuing to encourage an inappropriate editors actions by sanctioning them in such a fashion. It is really not appropriate for you to remove this kind of CSD tag. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN is clear that an established editor in good standing can take responsibility for the contributions by a banned editor. If you have questions about the redirects' usefulness, WP:RFD is that way. A character's name is certainly a plausible search term. Tim Song (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A character name with a disambig is not a plausible search term. It is also clear that new pages should be deleted. Ban says you can, at your own risk, not that it means you can remove CSDs from articles (which is the next paragraph). If you want to take responsibility and ownership, either let them get deleted and recreate in their useless status, or tag with a hang on. But let an actual administrator review it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well observed

Indeed your right. I was distracted by food and the phone so i made a number of mistakes on the close. I shall have to be more careful in future. Many Thanks for the heads up. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks, Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009! Your work at AfC has not been ignored (at least, not by me). You should take a (short) coffee break after all that hard work—see, I even brought you the coffee!
If you feel that this message was received in error, you may want to consider taking a short wikibreak before becoming wikibonked.  fetchcomms☛ 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for restoring Talend

I wonder if you could do the same for Expressor? Looks like a couple of editors agreed with my comments about Talend and notability -- but I was not able to generate a more rigorous discussion to arrive at consensus before the expressor page was deleted. Btw, it's highly likely that Talend was marked AfD because I noted that my last edits to the expressor page after it was tagged AfD were modeled after the Talend page, a company that competes with expressor and had not then been tagged AfD, so I assumed its model was successful. Of course I also read up extensively on the notability before editing the expressor page in response to the AfD tag. You can see my comments on the expressor AfD page, my own talk page and on the talk page for secret. Thanks in advance for your consideration. (Sccasey (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

I did not restore it. I relisted the discussion to generate a more thorough discussion. Tim Song (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penn State University Police

Hi, could you reword this close to point the merge towards Penn State University instead of University Park, Pennsylvania? I'm pretty familiar with the school, and its police department is separate than the police department of the local town. ThemFromSpace 12:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. On reflection, it probably makes more sense to merge a university's police department to the university rather than the local town. Tim Song (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Beginning with Wikipedia

Hey, by the way, I just made my first edits on the lipoamide page. I visited the page, noticed a grammatical mistake first, and then went into fixing the article up a bit (poor wording and an important mistake in the distinction between oxidation and reduction). Let's see what else I can do...

Linguistic256 (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, welcome! BTW, your edit summary is way too long :) Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hand Hug

Do you think it's time to throw in the Towel on the Hand Hug page? There has been no activity for a while. --P Carn (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no harm in letting it run the full 7 days. The weather is cold but it's not quite snowing yet. Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists. Cirt (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Tim Song (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kristian Alexander article, category "Canadian conductors"

Hi Tim, in the category "Canadian conductors", this article appears under "K" whereas is should appear under "A" since the list is alphabetical by last name.--Renial1 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. It's missing a DEFAULTSORT. Tim Song (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kissle

If you're serious, then yes, I'm willing to try it out.  IShadowed  ✰  20:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your scripts for logging PROD/CSD

I think that your scripts for logging PROD and Speedy Deletion nominations to a user subpage are a really good idea...any objection if I bring them up on the Twinkle talk page and advocate for the inclusion of that feature in the base code? — ækTalk 07:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, go ahead. Tim Song (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Henry Blomberg

In the past I've been backed up by WikiProject Military history, where they have found that Distinguished Service Cross recipients are notable enough to receive an article. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 18 December 2009

Interesting...I see that someone's AFD'ing it, so let's see how that plays out. Tim Song (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The wikiproject has never decided that in the past, in fact quite the opposite from my investigations. They clearly say that receiving a second level award is not a claim for notability on it's own. If they win multiple ones then yes, single, no. Looks likely there'll be a lot of speedy deletions after the AfD is concluded. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD removed from War of Legends

A user has removed the PROD from War of Legends. I'm letting you know since you added it, but I agree with your reasoning, and it's gone to AFD. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice :) Tim Song (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Krempin

Tx for looking at it, and your thoughtful analysis at the review of the close of the Odette Krempin AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome :) Tim Song (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kissle

Can I try it out, please? Ta, Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Just download it and it should be working. Tim Song (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A10

Tim, you put a A-10 tag on Snail mail with email address, but the material is not discussed at all in the article indicated, United States Postal Service. Probably it ought to be, and a merge might be appropriate, but at present it is not. I notice you then did a redirect. If you do a redirect, then there has to be material there to redirect to. If you think the material simply wrong, or unsourceable, the course would be prod or AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

On reflection you're right. Probably something to do with lack of sleep during finals...I'm AfD'ing it because I don't feel it should be deleted w/o a discussion. I've done my WP:BEFORE work, but maybe others can find something that I missed. Tim Song (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ConceptDraw Articles

Hello Tim, Thank you for your support with ConceptDraw articles. Do you need trial version, serial number or any materials, which may help in making one good articles for ConceptDraw products? 91.90.15.52 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) DanilSomsikov

re: SDPatrolBot 4

Sure thing, just drop me an email, and I'll send you a library. Also, Kissle looks like a fairly interesting project, I have a similar thing going with WikiAlerter. If you'd like some help writing a certain part of it again in the future, please don't hesitate to ask me :). Also, could you add me to User:Tim Song/Kissle/kisslepermissions.css? I'd be interested in seeing it :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon Murphy

What did I add that was defamatory. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, let's see. Allegations that someone committed a crime with zero sources? Insinuations that he did not graduate based on nothing more than pure OR? Tim Song (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I think you will find the video is pretty compelling evidence. If you had bothered to check the references you would see that they claim he "studied for" a degree but no where did it say he got one. So not OR at all. It seems you are not actually looking at the evidence.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that someone did not graduate from college, find a source that says so, unambiguously; if you are suggesting that he committed a crime, find a reliable source that unambiguously said so. As it stood, those statements are based on (1) your speculations from a benign statement, which, by the way, is OR, and (2) your personal impressions upon viewing a video of unknown origin. No, this is BLP violation plain and simple. Tim Song (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No I am am stating that he studied for a Degree, which is better than him having not studied for anything, you removed that sourced statement as well as the bit you object to. You also removed information regarding his Cambridge Diploma, together with the reference to the course from Cambridge itself which backed up what was said. The Video is not of unknown origin, the video was taken at Merseyside Police Authority and sourced from the Northwest Development Agency under the Data Protection act. I think perhaps you are having problems with comprehension and are not looking at the meaning of statements but are expecting basically plagiarism rather the analysis. There is no OR and there was no OR.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
A video purported to be released by the government. Something from a website where everyone can upload willy-nilly is not a reliable source upon which a negative statement can be based. There is no way to verify that the video has not been tampered with, or indeed that it was made and released by the government. And unsourced and poorly sourced negative statements must be removed immediately. There is even a WP:3RR exemption for BLP vios. Now, maybe I removed too much material, including some sourced statements, for which I apologize and see that you have fixed; but I maintain that suggestions that he did not graduate and committed a crime is OR and a BLP vio. Tim Song (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There are very few ways of proving a video has not been tampered with, regardless of the source, however this video was also released on YouTube and several of the police officers involved attested, inadvertently, to the contents wondering why there bosses had removed the audio. They also backed up the statements regarding tampering with the time scales in auxiliary doc and in a statement made by an employee of the authority. the NWDA is a Quango and MPA is in theory part of local government not HMG. I will leave it as is until such time as the IPCC comments on the recoding.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but if it has been published by a reliable source (say, the AP or Reuters, etc.) we can assume that it is reliable. YouTube videos & comments are about as unreliable as it can get. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
It was published by Merseyside Police AUthroity and the Northwest Development agnect.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps - though I can make up a video and upload it claiming it is from the government. There's nothing there to verify the video's integrity. Regardless of that issue, linking the video they way you did violates WP:BLP. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Timotheus Canens && User:Tim Song

You seem to be violating some Wikipedia rules by using two accounts to avoid something or other. That I believe breach WikiPedia rules. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Timotheus Canens's userpage is a soft redirect to this account; its talk page redirects to this page directly. It therefore is clearly marked as an alternate account. You are looking for WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you used {{User Alternate Acct|main account}}. The main accounts may be marked with {{User Alt Acct Master}}. It requires more than a soft redirect. It requires clear marking.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
OMG - you are the first person I encountered who thinks that a redirect is not enough. You are welcome to start a discussion at the appropriate venue if you really believes that it is not clearly marked. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Kitchen Knife, you need to reread WP:SOCK. He is clearly NOT using the other account "to avoid something or other" (which is no reason whatsoever). The userpage clearly shows that they are linked. I could raise the same question about your userbox being misleading because your account was created just less than 2 and a half years ago. But I'm not going to, because that's technically allowed per this thread  fetchcomms☛ 01:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I assume you mean the length of time I've been on Wikipedia box. Well I wish I could change it so that it was right but I do not enter the numbers. In fact I have no idea where it gets the numbers from. If you can tell me what I have to do to make it correct I will. So it is not my entry which is wrong but the bit of code driving it. Do you know how to get it to work correctly?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it doesn't matter because there's no policy forbidding it. (Why not just go look on the template's page?). However, your initial concerns regarding the other account are unwarranted. I'm also leaving a note on your talk page about another matter. fetchcomms☛ 01:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Harmon Bal

Hello Timotheus Canens. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Harmon Bal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your AfD close of Kenneth Dickson. Much appreciated, Cirt (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome :) Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kissle

Not sure if you like this?  fetchcomms☛ 02:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: So if someone makes a page, and I load it, and someone speedies it and it is deleted while it is still open on Kissle, if I tag it after it has been deleted, will it make a new blank page with only that tag? It's happened to me before with manual NPP.  fetchcomms☛ 19:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No. Its API edit call for the article page has the "nocreate=1" flag, so it will never create a page. Also, the notification does not happen until and unless the article edit is successful. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A.K. Patnaik

Just as a heads up, I took the liberty of finishing the clean-up you started on the article, and went ahead and moved it to mainspace. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 07:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smidge

Why did you relist this AfD instead of closing it as "delete"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, because (1) I can't, (2) it's a stretch to call two editors a "consensus" and (3) there's no harm in keeping it open a bit longer in the hopes of getting other editors to comment? Actually, I'm !voting now; one of the admins patroling relisted AfDs will probably close it in a couple days or so. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not realize you were not an admin (which I should have checked on before asking why you didn't delete the article). Also, thanks for recommending "delete" which will help build the consensus on this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kissle

Hey Tim, would you mind letting me get access to the Alpha? I do some WP:NPP work and am a Software Engineer by profession, so that should be a pretty good combination. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done by killiondude (talk · contribs). Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2009/12&oldid=1035471841"