User talk:ST47/Archive17

Hi, I shall reply to your question on my talk page (as described there) but first, I shot over here, in order to find out to whom I was replying. Finding that you are an admin, I wanted to ask you if you were an admin who grants permissions for users to use rollback. If you do, then if you were to look at my application, you will see that I have run into difficuties there. Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really active there, or familiar with the procedures or current practice, but it seems that your request is at least getting some positive attention apart from one admin being confused about your contribution history. Regardless, I'm not comfortable jumping in to a process that seems to be working efficiently on its own at this time. ST47 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand. Thank you for looking. Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the newbie's page on my watchlist, and have just read your message. (I had wondered how you had noticed this matter – thought you must have Wales on yours)

Do you want me to write something encouraging there? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you; I just wasn't sure why it was reverted and didn't want the user to misunderstand your message. The individual seems to be making positive contributions and I didn't want him/her to be scared off, and also wanted to make sure he knew he could talk to the guy who reverted his edit rather than going back and getting into an edit war. ST47 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's good. I shall let him understand my intention. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POSTSCRIPT I have my permission. Now I must learn all about it, before using Rollback. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have posted the following on the user's talk page:

• Hello Onepebble, Just a line to thank you for the incredible amount of good editing since you began on May 1. With regard to my note above, what I meant to write was, " ... at Wales. Your edits here may, to others, appear to constitute ... They have been reverted by another editor." Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you approve! Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ST47, for your encouragement. Onepebble (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ST47, your STBot had no edits on it.wiki for last 12 months. If you have objections, please answer on my talk, otherwise your bot will be deflagged in 7 days. Best regards, --Gnumarcoo 17:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your change to commons.css. Until such time as an alternative is in place, the button certainly does have a very important function to those of us who have opted into recent changes. Your edit breaks the ability for those of us who want this useful feature to make use of it, purely for the aesthetics of those who do not. Function > Aesthetics. Please revert, as the same change was made and reverted just one week ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have opted in by adding something to your custom CSS, then simply do the same with the button:

.mw-special-Watchlist #mw-watchlist-resetbutton {
    display: block;
}

in the same way. If there is a gadget being used to opt in then add that code to the gadget. I like having the bolded watchlist too; but since the only way to get it is by editing your custom CSS, I'm ok with the fact that you need to add this too. Function and aesthetics! ST47 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/ST47

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address not long ago edited an article on Contact Dermatitis. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hoboken Volunteer Ambulance Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received this notice of deletion because of copyright issues. I have written permission to use Lindsey William's text (that forms the bulk of the article: http://www.lindseywilliams.org/index.htm?Articles/African-) which appeared originally in a Florida newspaper.

The 3 images I included belong to the Charlotte County historical society who offer a fair use right to reproduce. I see that Wiki Commons does not deem that permission adequate & I have contacted the historical society for express permission (but not heard back yet).

Please advise! Thank you. Paulherman (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47,

I noticed that your bot User:STBot on zh.wikipedia has been inactive for more than a year. Do you still need it?

If you wish to keep its bot flag, please let me know. If you no longer need it, or there is no reply in a month, the bot flag will be removed by local bureaucrat.

Regards, --Ben.MQ (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, I have removed the bot flag. Thank you very much for the past contribution. --Ben.MQ (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:ACE2008.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Georges Malbrunot, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Georges Malbrunot and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Georges Malbrunot during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47! I just realized that you don't have a global account for your bot STBot yet, see here. Any special reason for that? In the upcoming weeks all accounts will be unified somehow by the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, it might be more useful to unify your bot account on Special:MergeAccount yourself. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi this is dfrr. I made a article called Marion Cunningham (Happy Days character) and I need you to see what improvements it may need. that is all thank you and have a great dayDfrr (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (Talk to me:-))[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content, titled Control of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives: 1855-2017, in the history section of this article requires an edit which is beyond my access/capability.

At the bottom of "Control of the ..." is a small box with the title "Sessions of Congress". That title and the next two lines are each incorrect.

Reads: Sessions of Congress Should Read: Congresses

Reads: Each horizontal block equals 2 years (1 session of Congress) Should Read: Each horizontal block equals 2 years, or 1 Congress

Reads: On the scale, every other session of Congress is shown Should Read: On the scale, every other Congress is shown

Why in error: Each 2-year Congress consists of two, one-year sessions.

J2516white (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47. We currently show that you are the operator on file for at least one bot account that appears to be inactive. Please see the discussion and list of bots here: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Inactive bots over 5 years. If you are no longer operating your bot, no action is required - your bot will be marked as retired and have the bot flag removed. Should your bot be retired and you wish to revive it in the future, please request bot authorization at WP:BRFA. If you are still in control of your bot (including knowing its hopefully strong password) and wish to maintain the bot flag, please sign the table on the linked discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As per my conversation with wiki moderator salvidrim, I was told that i can get the content of a deleted wiki page from a number of wiki moderators. Can i get the content of 'Moglix" wiki page, which has been deleted?

Im new on wikipedia kindly help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiddharthSanger231091 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who contribute to DMOZ, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2007, you fully protected a bunch of js scripts, but you also cascade protected them, so that any template transcluded on that page would also be protected. I can't think of a reason this is needed now, especially since many of these are likely out of date. I know you're not super active these days, so would I be fine in removing cascade protection but leaving full protection? Cheers, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: can you dump a list at WP:IANB? This sounds like a backdoor past script protection may be open? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I can when I get back, sure, but I think you're thinking of issues around phab:T171563? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47,

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#Bulk_inactivity_removals regarding our new activity requirements based on the recent RFC. This will impact your BAG membership, unless you meet the activity requirements in the next 7 days. SQL^{Query me!} 00:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prior service in WP:BAG, per the inactivity policy you have been moved to the retired roster. Should you wish to participate in BAG in the future, please feel free to reapply at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The news is true, and a source has been added. Perhaps you could unprotect the page now at least so that others can expand upon it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, done. ST47 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47! I hope you're having a great day and that life is going well for you! I'm leaving you a message to let you know that I've extended the block that you placed on Catcure to a duration of two weeks due to repeated incivility and for making personal attacks toward other editors. The user's follow up comment here is what prompted me to take action. I just wanted to let you know so that you're aware. If you have any questions, concerns, objections, or issue with the change I made to the user's block duration, please let me know (ping me) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I doubt that you'll have any issue with this, but I figured I'd let you know just in case you do. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put the db request on the wrong page. Thanks for the quick response.StillWife (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ST47 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Busy revertin' vandalism --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pls upadat pasi information Adolf bijili (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting that Ron Kulpa article. I was just heading over to drop the request, but I saw you already handled it. 76.114.227.101 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Kept seeing it come across recent changes and figured blocks alone weren't going to do much good. ST47 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extremely fast response to someone vandalizing my talk page. I didn’t even report them, yet you still noticed. To be quite fair, that was extremely impressive. I guess not everybody understands that we just press a button to put them back on step one, but for those who don’t, I am glad to thank you for being there to rectify that issue. Keep up the good work- you’re an inspiration to all of us. Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 00:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm not really sure what his beef with you was, but if you vandalize AIV, you're gonna get blocked ;) ST47 (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reset or reinstall your version of Huggle, as it's leaving blank edit summaries [1] [2]. You are far from the first one to have this issue, but I don't know what causes it. Home Lander (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, I'll give it a shot. Thanks! ST47 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one of these settings was the problem. ST47 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, interesting... and those settings were apparently generated by the program itself? Strange. Home Lander (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't think of any reason why I would have blanked those settings. They were either there by default, or they got changed automatically at some point. ST47 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I genuinely do not understand what you mean by "your own point of view". I am referring to the official statistics of the Republic of Albania, as well as to another reliable resource by an international minority protection organization. The numbers I wrote in the edited version of the article are supported by various (Albanian and international) sources. --D92AL (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What various sources? I read the census you cited. I don't see how you can delete three sources that say 200,000, replace them with one source that says 24,000, and pretend there's no controversy. ST47 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think those numbers are important; you asked for the sources. Please do not edit the article by deleting my sources. --D92AL (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@D92AL: I haven't deleted your sources or your numbers, I moved them to a more appropriate place within the paragraph and slightly rephrased the sentence. Why did you revert here? ST47 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and uh, by the way, @D92AL:, you've violated WP:3RR:

1. 22:41, 4 April 2019
2. 23:04, 4 April 2019
3. 23:23, 4 April 2019
4. 02:59, 5 April 2019

So, I think you should consider undoing your last revert. I'm certainly open to my text being corrected or to additional sources being added, but I think you believe I was removing your figure here, and I really wasn't. ST47 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your comment on the Feckner SPI and thought that I should clarify how CUs use the various templates. Basically, since CUs are bound by the privacy policy and, so, cannot reveal too much, we have started using those standard responses, which go from unlikely to technically indistinguishable, to communicate the results of our analysis. Most of those simply mean what it says on the tin: "unlikely" means that it is unlikely that the accounts are operated by the same person; "possible" means that it is possible that the accounts are operated by the same person, but the CU is not strong enough for us to say whether it is likely or not and, so, it is necessary to rely mainly on behavioural evidence; then you have "possilikely" (which is a bit more than possible, but still less than likely) and "likely", where the evidence is getting stronger; and, finally, "confirmed" and "technically indistinguishable", where the evidence is the strongest (although this still does not mean that sock puppetry is certain, because CU is a flawed tool). "Inconclusive" is used when CU is useless, for instance because the user is using a proxy. I hope this was useful; best, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is, thanks! ST47 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That IP editor is really messing up that article. Just a heads up that I will try and return it to the previous state before they came along. No doubt they are connected to the previous coatrack issues. Thank you for your recent reverts of their handiwork.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: No problem! I was checking to see if the block of text they had added was a copyvio, but it doesn't appear to be. It is remarkably similar to the deleted content of Draft:Russell Surasky, the contributors to which have generally been blocked for either undisclosed paid editing, or for socking. While I was typing, I saw him remove the template again, so I've blocked the IP for the remainder of the AfD discussion. If we get more IP socks, we can semi-protect, and we should probably salt if the AfD closes as delete. ST47 (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that... but they are back!!! Check the page. Hilarious. Thank you for your efforts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and a sleeper too! Wonder how many more they've got waiting. ST47 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit shocked at how professional they are. The edit comments are scarily professional, but usually false. It is obviously part of some kind of business, as they seem to know the rules to a degree. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

Sorry for mistakenly believing that the troll's accounts were sockpuppets of the user I reported to. I knew that something was up when I saw the damage done in the history, but thought that the damagers were of the SPI master. It appears that I was wrong, however.

With that in mind, what are some "warning signs" of trolls like that so that I can avoid getting fooled by them in the future? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were right that they were sockpuppets. If anything, remember that when going to WP:SPI, you need to already have evidence that they are the same person. Since those accounts had all edited multiple different SPI cases, and some at AIV as well, there's really no evidence linking them to that particular SPI case. As for the guys at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglaseivindhallgerber who you had reported under the IP, there's a search box at WP:SPI (at the bottom of the infobox) that you can use to search for relevant search terms or accounts that are relevant to the accounts you're looking at.

Really though, if you have a group of sockpuppets that are still active, but don't know what the master is, then just submit them under the oldest account. If someone else knows, they'll move it. I don't think anyone has all the archives of WP:LTA and WP:SPI memorized, you'll learn to recognize certain users over time. ST47 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ST47, I do apologize for thinking that you where a bot, I misread your bio and because of the nature of your name I said those things. Also wait like a day. There are a lot more sources than what the last guys covered and the song does certainly meet notability criteria with the media attention both Felix and the diss track have gotten loads of attention over the last couple of months and are worthy of their own article.BMO4744 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but let's keep the discussion in one place on your talk. ST47 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47, it was suggested that I write an article on Tim Hinely, by the nominator of the deletion for Dagger; "perhaps a sensible solution would be to write an article about that person, cut down the article on the zine to reasonable proportions, and make that a section in the article on Hinely." Until then, a redirect to Blurt (magazine)#Tim Hinely suffices links from articles that use Dagger and Tim Hinely. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, I don't believe we've ever met. I see that after being mostly absent for the last years, you've come back with a vengeance. Mostly I see you at SPI (my home away from home) and at ANEW (a board I look at occasionally). So, welcome back and I'd like to particularly thank you for your work at SPI. We can always use patrolling administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, I finally gathered up enough interest to start getting involved again. Trying to get the hang of all of the new processes and other changes ;) ST47 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you close an SPI, as you did on a couple, it's better to put a comment in the body of the SPI itself, not in the edit summary, and you're not really "recommending" closure - you are closing. The closures themselves were fine, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, will do! I thought I was "recommending" in the sense that a Clerk would eventually come along and confirm that everything was handled, though? Just trying to get some of the cases that are finished off of the dashboard ;) ST47 (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A clerk will come along and make sure everything's good before archiving. On a related matter, when you take action and you're done, you can then close. I just closed two you had dealt with, but you could/should have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ST47, I have no affiliation whatsoever with VirnetX and I am not being paid to promote a topic. I am an engineer understands patents, technology and that there are folks in the media portraying people as "patent trolls" when in fact most are not. I spend a few hours of my time cleaning up Wikipedia articles that contain these subjective opinions and removing them. In the case of VirnetX, the company actually produces a product, it is available for download in the App store and google play store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patent Facts (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal in French, according to my understanding, to include an apostrophe between a contracted L and the rest of the word (i.e. "l'artiste", "l'arc"), etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:132:B08A:0:C816:8AF1:87EA:A788 (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding Lannoy, Nord. The two links on the page call it "lannoy", so we would need you to provide a source (not your opinion) of why the change should be made. ST47 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey to follow up on this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikbenu. The user has edited from the IP and the user account since your message. Recently their edits to Dean Ambrose, Goldust and List of WWE personnel really annoyed me, as they are their own speculation (at best), but more accurately would be calling it a deliberate factual errors. I googled the subjects and no such signings has been announced. Yet they insist in the edit summary that they are adding a fact. StaticVapor message me! 23:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is what I wrote to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Onel5969, but since I did not get any reply and you followed their recommendations, I write the same thing to you: "In the article Algae DNA barcoding, you have removed certain parts claiming that they are plagiarizing an article in PLoS ONE. PLoS ONE is the world's largest scientific journal and all publications in PLoS ONE are licensed under creative commons. In the publication of concern for this Wikipedia article it is described as: 'This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.'. If the article is cited (as in this entry), would it still be impossible to 'closely paraphrase' the material, as you claim was done and was your reason for removing the text and ask for deletion of the revision?" Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Did you see my reply on the article talk page? To summarize: I think it would be possible if the source is properly attributed. This requires more than just a citation but rather a proper attribution, probably using Template:OA-attribution - though given that you only want to use a couple of sentences, fully rephrasing the information in your own words might be better? ST47 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for slow responding. I'm not the one making the edit, but question whether the removal of all revisions by Vedu888 who started the page is justified if it is only the mode of attribution of a couple of sentences that is different from how you view it. Now the attribution to Vedu888 for all the work put into creating the article is removed. Reading the template you refer to, it seems that all Wikipedia articles that are referring to articles in PLoS ONE and other open access journals should have this template. Or? Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Olle Terenius (UU): Well, there's a difference between a reference and an attribution. If we read a PLoS ONE article and use that knowledge to write, in our own words, some part of a Wikipedia article, then citing the source as a typical reference is enough. There's no copyright concern if we don't copy anything. But if we're using verbatim text from a PLoS ONE article, then we need to use the attribution template, which goes one step further than a reference, it says not only did we refer to this article, but we actually are using text copied from it. I'd imagine that most articles citing PLoS ONE are only using it as a source, not using verbatim text. ST47 (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47, I noticed that there was a response to your question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdelkader123456 as of 4 days ago. Just wanted to drop you a line in case you missed it and didn't want to use the talk back template. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Indeed, thanks for the heads up. Not much I can do to action that, though, since I'm not an SPI clerk - at some point, a clerk will come along and merge the two cases. The specific IP reported there hasn't edited in a week, so I'm not likely to block it, and there isn't much from the /48 range either. I will leave a comment on the SPI to that effect, though, thanks! ST47 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little confused by your recent revert on this page. Not in any way trying to re-write history. I'm attempting to hide the personal information contained on that page and, given that the last incident listed there was from several years ago, I don't see any reason to keep it up. I'm trying to remove any reference to my old account name so that I can leave the site entirely without someone being able to connect it to my personal life. User:Renamed user 2423tgiuowf 00:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Renamed user 2423tgiuowf: I've reverted your MfDs on both the SPI and the archive. Don't put them there again. If you want to eliminate them, I suggest you e-mail the functionaries list and make your case there.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I was told to add the MfDs to those pages by another user. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. User:Renamed user 2423tgiuowf 00:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

With this edit, I assume you meant to tag User:Comieurt, but got caught by the redirect? Adam9007 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that must have been it. I'm guessing that Twinkle actually followed the redirect, but I can't be sure. Thanks for the quick fix! ST47 (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Yesterday you deleted my page "More Facts about Music Therapy" and I was trying to move my sandbox live into Wikipedia. I was trying to move it to the article "Music Therapy" because I was adding to it, but I don't know how to add my article to that. Can you please help me? That was all of my work for this semester and it's due by monday.

Kmr104 (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Kmr104[reply]

• @Kmr104: I didn't delete it, I moved it back to your sandbox at User:Kmr104/sandbox. You can't create an article named "Music Therapy--Kmr104". That's not the proper name for an article. There already is an article called Music therapy, I know that you know that because you've already edited it. If you have any new information to add on the topic, you should edit that article. But make sure you aren't duplicating anything that already exists in the article, and make sure you're following the WP:MOS. ST47 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got scared that all of my stuff was deleted so thank you for clearing that up! Kmr104 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]