Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009/10

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


THANKS

Do you know how long this generally takes? I see the reason the IP was blocked it turns out there were some coworkers who were impersonating. --Cjones132002 (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, if you can edit my talk page then it's gone already. :) Tim Song (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your edits on the MD Anderson page. That salary list was on there a surprising amount of time, sigh... :) - cohesion 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's actually Daedalus969 (talk · contribs) who removed the salary box. But I agree, it's surprising... Tim Song (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to be repetitive to the above but Thanks

Arguably, unlawful sexual intercourse could be a disambig, since as a legal euphemism it means something slightly different in plain speech than it is meant in legal circles, but in this particular legal context you thought a few steps ahead. Being able to see past the nose on your face is a rare quality, I've discovered, so bully for you sir! -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Tim Song (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

[1] Yes, indeed - great edit summary.  :-) Risker (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) Tim Song (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

deletion reviews

You're wrong. They are all acting MPs. -- Seelefant (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK for A7 there's no requirement that the admin go beyond the contents of the article and do his/her own research - although many do, it's not an absolute rule. Tim Song (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MSM reversions

Whoops! It took me a minute to realize that someone was changing it back. Sorry. I wasn't trying to battle you, I was just a little slow on the uptake. Can you tell me why you are reverting the page? Joshua Ingram 00:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, because you blanked the page? Anyway, sorry about that. Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Crap. Sorry. That was my first complete article creation. So, that was the only reason? I only ask because I'm expecting a revert/edit war, and I wanted to make sure it wasn't because of lack of structural integrity or something.Joshua Ingram 00:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - blanking a page is really conspicuous to Huggle users - it's hard to tell what you are trying to do when you just blanked the page. Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks man. Joshua Ingram 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FICS ' page

Tim, I don't expect anyone outside of International sport to exactly get this first try, but perhaps you could look at GAISF. This agency is second in power only to the IOC, and THEY recognize FICS as a World governing body, so does ICSSPE, and through them UNESCO See [[2]].

Check out... [[3]]

[[4]]

[[5]]

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]] Chiropractic in the WORLD GAMES !!!! FICS here.

Just google, Federation Internationale de Chiropratique du Sports

This is ALL third party...

Does this not per se make the agency "notable"?

Drsjpdc (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you are missing the "significant coverage" part. A directory entry is not "significant coverage". I can see a case being made that the final article qualifies as a WP:RS but the other entries don't count. Tim Song (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Tim & Drsjpdc, here is a reliable source that gives "significant coverage" to FICS. [9]. Perhaps this could be used to help build an article about FICS. Another reliable source (with a wikipedia consensus that it is a RS, if I recall correctly) that has a section on FICS is the book "Principles and Practice of Chiropractic" by Scott Haldeman, a noted Chiropractic historian. The relevant section can be seen here [10] DigitalC (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian twist

Hey why did you change this [11]? Did I give the wrong reason? I put nonsense because it didn't make a lick of sense to me.--Jessica Gordon (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's trying to say "[Christian twist is] tony twist[']s son", which makes sense, so A1 is a better fit. Tim Song (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I get it, I think. Where would those deletion templates be listed? Thanx.--Jessica Gordon (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:CSD lists all the speedy deletion criteria and also has links to the the templates. Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Legality of cannbis, Sweden section

There is no penal code that statues punishment of 18 years imprisonment in Sweden. There is no source that states this given. There is no limitation rulie neither. The maximum punishment in Sweden (for other crimes than Cannabis obviously) is life. The Swedish Police handbook on how to handle drug offenses is quite clear. It's been refered to on the discussion page. It goes in to detail about what degree of suspiscion is needed to apprehend someone for drugtesting and it also warns officers not to persue crimes with low punishmentvalue since it doesn't fall under the praxis of public prosecution. Anyhow it proves that it is completly forbidden for police to apprehend someone and do a drugtest on them with a mere suspicion. It makes it pretty unlikely for them to do so, and what kind of a word is "likely" to use in an encyclopedia anyway? If so please provide sources to show one case where it has been done! What I do is not some new synthesis or put in any kind of new or origional research. I just state facts as they are. Personally I'd like to have a complete re-edit of this section and article. But thanks for at least keping these outright misconceptions/lies outside Wikipedia. CS 04:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2

My apologies for leaving you out. Since you placed your "delete" vote at the end of your comment, I mistakenly skimmed over your comments as I notified the other voters. I hope there isn't any harm done since you are a DRV regular and quickly found the debate. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaizer Allen

 Done Sorry, I hit the article in question through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and assumed there was only one on the Afd page. The other pages have now all been deleted. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to AFC!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

Once again, welcome to the project. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper Deletion of article: MMA HEAT

Please reconsider the deletion of the MMA_HEAT article. MMA H.E.A.T. has appeared in independent and reliable newspapers: i.e. Sports Illustrated's Joss Gross has cited MMA H.E.A.T. and Karyn Bryant as an authority on the female perspective of MMA on radio interviews. MMA H.E.A.T. has been on HDNet's television program "MMA Worldwide," epsidode "Nor Cal MMA" originally airing 9/25/2009. MMA H.E.A.T.'s video news updates appear throughout the highly respected MMA site, http://www.promma.info. In addition, Pro MMA's Cage Divas recently approached MMA H.E.A.T. to have it's co-founder, Karyn Bryant, as a guest on their show: http://prommainfo.podbean.com/2009/09/15/cagedivas-episode-2-featuring-keri-anne-taylor-and-karyn-bryant. MMA H.E.A.T. has also provided video content to M-1 Global, MMA Payout, MMA Jacked and Frank Shamrock. To address the concerns posted by user 82.7.40.7, iBN Sports is an independent corporation and entity. They provide coverage for a large number of sports and approached MMA H.E.A.T. to provide coverage of mixed martial arts. Despite iBN Sports and MMA H.E.A.T.'s joint efforts, the two are independent of each other. http://www.ibnsports.com/inthenews.aspx?article=xml/pressrel/bryant.xml and http://www.ibnsports.com/prArticle.aspx?article=14 should be considered as third party, reliable sources discussing MMA H.E.A.T. Eckinc (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the quick reply. I hadn't seen the reliable sources noticeboard before. Perfect! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

But , ideally, yes, if that were possible for clarity Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! - Lol, I'm claiming WP:Ignore; so really hope it isn't MoS reverted!! Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Final point - Hope you can see the irony on This Wikipage. Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tim, just FYI, I made Template:Blue pencil.  Chzz  ►  22:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan
Next: Saturday October 10


This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets

FOR UPDATES

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Helpme help

That was quick and short, thanks. Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham Caesars

Hi, I have had some messages about editing the page for the Nottingham Caesars. I'm Will Hobbs (a youth player) and have been editing new information for the team and didn't know about the 3 edit rule. I'm not sure what an edit war is but I've been tryign to get the information on the page and for some reason it kept disapearing after I'd put it on. Thanks,Will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.209.208 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Tim Song (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Time

Help me to understand why admin abuse is more or less meaningful depending upon calendar.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that Juliancolton (talk · contribs) has already responded to your comment on his talk page. I'll merely note my agreement. Tim Song (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please enlighten me!

Tim

When I traced the reason for deletion of my profile bio under "Janet K. Brennan" on Wik, I found both yours and Dragonflies comments as to why this article was deleted. Citing that I was a self published author with trivial credentials. I took issue with this as I am and have been a published author all of my life, major contributions to some very well-known publications as well as having had five of my own books published. See the article on Spartatz' page, second to last, just before this one. Wik has published so many authors, some of them I know, some I do not who have far fewer writing contributions to the literary world than I do, so I am a bit confused about this.

To us it is obvious that my bio was tossed before it was even researched and then I was insulted by you saying that at best I was published in Amazon. My books are literally all over the world. And that is not too difficult to verify. Yes, CDS published my last two books, but that is my choice! I have been published by many other companies over the years, but at age 62, I have chosen to have my husbnad's publishing company (which is a traditioal publishing company, that means he does not charge for the publishing, pays in royalties and gets paid by percentage in book sales. He is very, very careful about which projects he gets behind.)

Yes, some of my books are sold on Amazon, as are all authors, because it is the number one bookseller in the world right now. You will even find Stephan King on Amazon. However, my books are also in Barnes and Noble, Borders and Hastings (which I am doing another signing at in two weeks for Harriet Murphy) and if you check, in every major bookstore around the world. Yes, some authors who sell only in Amazon are self published authors because that is about the only place they can sell their books. They can not use the major distribution companies as we do (Ingram Dist) and therefore can not get their books into the brick and mortar bookstores or online stores.

I have checked the criteria section in Wik and can not for the life of me see where I failed to meet this, other than what I suspect is that my profile was not researched. Because of this, when you google my name, "Janet K. Brennan" the first article up there is from WIK and it is completely insulting not only to me but anyone else who reads it.

Now, I would ask, if forty years of publication, articles, magazines (Rodale Books, Prevention Magazine,Chicken Soup for the Soul, Nisqualley Delta Review, SP Quill Magazine, Richard Schiff's "The Greenwich Village Gazette, ect, novels, etc. does not qualify me for an article on Wik, then what the heck does?

Would love some input on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbstillwater (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Among the rationale for deleting Janet K. Brennan's article, you reference pages on Amazon that list her books and, one assumes, used that as the reason for stating that she was, therefore self-published. If that is so, you will need to recommend deletion of many other authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_king) who is listed on Amazon. Amazon happens to be the world's leading retailer of books (http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=8161 or http://www.fonerbooks.com/booksale.htm ) The links that you cited have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a book is self-published.

Art Brennan, Managing Editor, Casa de Snapdragon.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.12.8 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The links to Amazon were obviously intended to provide evidence as to the books' publisher (i.e., your family's company). Please do not use those straw-man arguments.

As to the question of notability, I'll refer you to WP:ENN. The mess with Google's results is unfortunate, but there is nothing we can do about it. Tim Song (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is not for the truth

i am not referring to the truth, the source for alfred nobel's will is alfred nobel's will.. if you'd read a bit further you would see that is the source i am referring to.

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

This is the case here, obviously.. Sorry, anybody who masters Swedish and English as native languages ofcourse. There is nothing complicated about this text at all..

Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

And this designates the right place to discuss it, as i see it.

Itsameno (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

regards paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsameno (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We say what the reliable source (the Nobel Foundation's translation, here) says. It is blatant OR to "correct" "errors" in the translation based on an editor's belief how it should be translated. Tim Song (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Barnstar moved to userpage. Tim Song (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tim Song (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A7

What would be the definition of "web content" then? I was reading it as if it would only exclude things that have been published through a printing press, hence online comics and such would be able to be deleted as A7. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A7 does cover webcomics - but problem with that article is that it never said anything about it being a webcomic. Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense, thanks. I'll let the article be for now ... I imagine he'll remove the PROD once he realizes it's there, and then I'll start an AfD. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WPAFC

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

Oh ok. Could you courtesy blank Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Ruttle Martinez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane ruttle as well then? Senatrix (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Tim Song (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Slater Bakhtavar

Submission revised with several third party reputable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.62.131 (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hook for United States v. Georgia at dyk

Could you take a look at the alt hook for United States v. Georgia at dyk and see if it is ok now? (I realize that I may not get the nuances of many legal issues.) Many thanks for commenting. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Tim Song (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you's

Thanks for the copy edits! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing help

Dear Tim, thank you for your edit on the wikipedia page re: Jonathan Fisher (lawyer) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Fisher_(lawyer)). I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to the problem with the content of the page as it currently stands, please could you help me edit the page so that it satisfies the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your help, Hannah (Hannah.rachel0801 (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC))

Improper Close on Joe Halderman AfD

You brought the Joe Halderman AfD to a close one day early. You are not an Admin. You implemented the close incorrectly, leaving the AfD notice on the article page. As a supporter of the article, i was looking forward to a "keep" consensus close on the 7th day (October 18) and now i find that because of your improper close on October 17, you have caused another editor to want to relist the article for AfD a second time. Please be aware that your meddling had caused unpleasantness among those editing the article and may force us to waste our time on a second AfD. Please do not do this again. cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The AfD tag was not removed because of an inexplicable failure of my AfD closure script. I fail to see any other way that AfD could have been closed. You can tell the second editor to contact me directly if he disagrees. Tim Song (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that the AfD notice is now gone from the article page. Here is the complaint that was lodged:
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 02:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
PS Hold on, I've just read through that AfD. That was an inappropriate non-admin close. [...] How do I go about getting this one relisted?
I will tell Peace and Passion to contact you if he has further issues. cat yronwode (still not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
At the time it was closed, there were no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and a "sitting on the fence" !vote from DragonflySixtyseven. It was a proper reading of consensus and waiting an additional 15 hours would not likely have affected the outcome. If this were to go to DRV I would endorse the close. However, I would advise Tim to be more careful when closing AFDs where the magic letters BLP are invoked. I usually let the clock tick the full 168 hours on those or leave them for an admin to close. --Ron Ritzman(talk) 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Trouted

To join the secret cabal follow me!

Whack!

You have been trouted for: Placing a number of AfC's on hold that have no reliable sources. They should've been quick-failed! ^_^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Proof that I really shouldn't be reviewing stuff at 5am. Tim Song (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Lol, yeah I've been there! Thanks for putting the button up there! It's always good to have a little fun slapping people with wet trout! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viking Quest

Can you elaborate on your close? Two merges, one delete (my nom), a weak keep, and a keep is not "Unanimous or nearly unanimous" (per WP:NAC) as a 'Keep', especially considering that neither of the keeps responded to attempts at discussion regarding the weak sources they produced. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge (or redirect, for that matter) is a form of "keep" (See WP:GD#Recommendations and outcomes). None of the other editors suggested deletion; all suggested either merge or keep, which boils down to keep. Tim Song (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
If you were an admin then your rationale might be valid close. However, under non-admin closure, it's strongly suggested to close only when consensus is abundantly clear. In this case, it would be quite easy to see how 'merge' might be a realistic outcome. I ask that you re-list and allow an actual administrator to close, or I will take it to DRV. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus to keep the content in some way seems abundantly clear to me. You do realize that AfD is not for merging, right? If an AfD nom started with an recommendation to merge it can be speedy closed under WP:SK. If you want a merge, the proper venue is the article's talk page, as I said in the close. I fail to see any problem here. Of course, if you wish, you can take this to DRV. Tim Song (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please (re)read the link you provided to me above. Merge is a different outcome than keep. There is even a chart to illustrate those differences. My personal opinion of the article is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that you, as a non-admin, closed an AFD as "keep" when only 2 of the 5 participants supported a keep. That is clearly not overwhelming consensus for keep, especially considering one !voted with a weak qualifier and neither responded to concerns about the faults of the new source provided. Do you see the nature of my objection? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I know what your objection is, and I disagree. Feel free to take this to DRV - although I personally think your time would be better spent trying to get a merge consensus on the article's talk page, as I said several times already. Tim Song (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but you don't appear to have reviewed the full situation as most admins would have before closing. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Tim Song (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A large discussion about the article already exists on its talk page. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. I'm going to DRV because your close is inappropriate per the guidelines for non-admin closure and, even if you had followed those guidelines, you misinterpreted the consensus of the debate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There was not any recent substantive discussion. The lengthy discussion you referred to is mostly about your redirecting rather than whether merging is appropriate. But whatever. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You don't consider discussions from October recent? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Recent? Yes. Substantative? No. Tim Song (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. The DRV is up. With all due respect, perhaps you should refrain closing any AFDs that aren't completely overwhelming, virtually snow closes in the future to avoid disputes like this. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whacked

Damn, that's a big fish. Thank you for closing and cleaning up that afd (sorry, I have a problem with such promotion). Personal opinion here, If you ever come across and close such a mass nomination again, close it and tell the nominator to do the clean up. I started the afd, I should clean up after it. I was involved in the afd so I will not close it but I am willing to take responsibility for resulting conseqeunces. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Closers are generally expected to do the clean up, in part because a dangling AfD tag on articles when the discussion is closed may be misleading. In the future, if you withdraw an AfD nomination, and there is no outstanding delete !votes, you can simply close the AfD yourself. Tim Song (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken Reversion

I'm sure it was a mistake, but earlier you seem to have reverted my nomination of Maryland Senate for DYK (diff). Geraldk (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. Geraldk (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Burton

Please put back the information about Burton's operation - the real reason he left the 1981 reprise of "Camelot" was to have major spinal surgery. Read the biographies by Penny Junor or Graham Jenkins (his own brother). (LouisWalshFan (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I find it extremely unlikely that alcohol can somehow crystalize in the human body. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009 ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

..And thanks for the Sepcial WP:100 support :) -- Tinu Cherian - 06:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And I see another typo up there. :) Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Q

Did you mean to type "overturn" instead of "endorse" in the DRv? [Edited]: Oops, OK, I get an F today in reading comprehension. (Sorry!) :^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL :) Next time please tell me which DRV you are talking about, though. Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Removal of Ted Andrews -again???

I am very confused at this point. Restored earlier today, many of us had hoped to revise the less-than-sparkling information about this important, beloved author. Now it's gone and we can't. ??

The original evaluation that led to the decision to remove Ted Andrews was grossly inaccurate. He was no self-published hack. His books are perennial bestsellers and his body of work is vast, and widely respected among his peers.

So here are some additional relevant links: His many books published by Llewellyn Worldwide: http://www.llewellyn.com/author.php?author_id=2605

A reference to his book, Animal Speak, being a "classic" in New Age circles: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art26421.asp

Another review, by one of his peers in the alternative spirituality community, Janet Boyer: http://www.janetboyer.com/Animal_Speak.html

His bibliography on Amazon.com is FOUR PAGES LONG: http://www.amazon.com/Ted-Andrews/e/B000APER2W/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

He is a household name in many, many groups. With all due respect, it is a terrible injustice to this wise and gentle soul to have removed him from Wikipedia. I beg you to restore his page and at least give us a chance to have it meet your standards.

Owlsdaughter (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been relisted. Please make your argument at AFD; arguing to me has probably little or no effect. Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Can you re-review? I've put up some counts, and they show a pretty decent consensus for deletion, which the out-of-policy votes make into a definite delete. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2009/10&oldid=549037367"