Jump to content

User talk:ST47

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buggie111 (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 1 December 2019 (→‎You've got mail! (Again): respond). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tuesday
10
September
2024
18:27 UTC
Archives
0x00
0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7
8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F
0x10
0|1|2|3|4



Thanks

Thanks for the speedy service on the AFD for A. Sims! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

204.38.32.173 ‎

user:204.38.32.173 ‎ is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, revoked talk page access. ST47 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I reference something that is within an app/has image evidence that is not posted on the internet, but rather on an app.

Hi, I am the editor of the edit on the KingYC instagram scandal that you recently reverted. I have sources that are within the instagram app. Is that referenceable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realazee (talk • contribs) 03:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Realazee: Simply put, you find a reliable source that provides neutral and verifiable coverage of that material and you reference that. If there are no news media or scholarly journals that cover the topic, it probably isn't sufficiently notable or verifiable to be included in an encyclopedia - we write biographies, we don't care about minor bits of IG drama that don't have any lasting impact - see WP:10YT. By the way, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place for general questions about editing, and you should sign your messages on "talk" pages by typing ~~~~ after your message - it will be converted to your signature, like this: ST47 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Thanks for undoing the AfD tag deletion at Nicholas Alahverdian. I am trying to re-list the deletion discussion. Can you help? Many thanks SVUKnight (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SVUKnight:, it is listed correctly at [1]. ST47 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now; for some reason I was on the wrong date. Apologies. Not to bother you yet again, but can you provide appropriate guidance on how to request that editors give their input? For an article with over 70 sources and a senior editor's review User:MB, perhaps it may be that the consensus has been reached. Is there a way to ask for people to vote (without persuading them one way or another) that doesn't violate WP:CANVASS? Thanks again for your guidance. SVUKnight (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SVUKnight: to put it simply, you shouldn't contact any specific editors to request input. This would give the appearance of canvassing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting is a good place to list AfD debates by category, which allows people to watchlist debates that match their interests. This AfD is already categories under "Authors", "Politicians", and "Rhode Island", but if you can find any other relevant categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat, you can add this debate to them. I'm not sure about the specific procedure, but User:Enterprisey/delsort might be something to look at. ST47 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again much gratitude to you for that. I will do as advised. SVUKnight (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 27723

Hi ST47,

Extending a block

Hello! What would you say to extending the block you previously gave here? As we know, they have abused multiple accounts, and since then they are just here to promote the Aschenborn articles. I wasn't sure why someone participating in sockpuppeting would not get an indef, although I do respect your admin decisions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: here is the SPI for reference. I'm just getting a bit tired of their promotional additions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: Are they socking again? Or is this the edit warring at Special:Contributions/Daarkomdie? ST47 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not socking again... I guess I am just complaining that their edits always have to be checked for promotion, and wishing they had gotten the axe. They have smartened up a bit but are still just bloating up Uli Aschenborn to be a Van Gogh of artists. There's obvious COI going on so I have asked them about that at their talk. Of course, I understand blocks are not punitive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: I guess I don't see anything that's currently blockable? I have left a more detailed COI warning on their talk page. If they hop accounts again, or fail to disclose their COI before making further edits, we can block. If they do start to communicate, we can help them abide by WP:COI. ST47 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Btw, thanks for taking care of the histmerge business at Mawsua, the related SPI, and with keeping the related AfD in order... this article is the irksome gift that keeps on giving. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of those days that you wish you could just ban everyone, eh? I'm pretty sure these accounts are socks of the Upwork user who originally started the draft...guess they decided that following policy was just too difficult. ST47 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated G11 Abuse by David Gerard and RHaworth

I moved it per your suggestion. Thank you --Nixie9✉ 00:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dieselducy.0

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dieselducy.0 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional linker

I was about to take this to COIN, but it's so egregious that I wondered what you would do. User Jambonec has been adding promotional links to an online store to Emek for what seems like ages. This first happened with the addition of this to the lede "New release gig posters, prints and merchandise are available for purchase through his online store at: https://www.emekstudios.com" back in 2014. I discovered them and took them out today, but they added them back today. I warned them today, but he says I am incorrect and "Providing links to his direct website is a service to the public"... Let me know if I should go to COIN or if you prefer to take care of it! Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I posted at COIN!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: (ec) Wow that is one heck of a COI issue. I'll drop them a line and throw the article on my watchlist, up to you whether a COIN report would be useful as well. I don't think a block will discourage them much, the way they've been going on for years, might be worth getting some more eyes on it. ST47 (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revdelled something?

Hey there,

Just out of curiosity, what was this about?

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: It was an attempt at outing, so it was oversighted. ST47 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colemihaljevich

Hi, you left a question on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colemihaljevich/Archive about prior cases. One of the REDIRs which was G5d in the cleanup has been recreated (with no prior interest in the topic) by Josstiyn (talk · contribs) who, from the posts on their talk page, has come from fandom. I've asked for an explanation on their talk page... Cabayi (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Hough

With no participation and a previous prod shouldn't this have been a relist or a soft delete? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the previous prod, but if anything, that would be an argument against a "soft delete", since a soft delete is supposedly pretending that it was prodded and no one removed the prod notice. If you like (and believe it would be successful), I'll revert and relist, but in general, I think that deletion with WP:DRV as the avenue for restoration is a perfectly fine outcome for unopposed AfD nominations. ST47 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please relist it so it has a chance of a clearer result, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ST47 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, ST47. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Philip Cross (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I did receive this and will need to consult with others before replying. ST47 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaomi Mi Pad Deletion of Xiaomi Mi Pad

Why was the page deleted? Original argument -> lack of references to external sources -> was satisfied by updating the article with legitimate sources. The delete discussion, last proof provided, was NOT refuted by anyone. 0xSkyy (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@0xSkyy: The consensus was clearly to delete, you were the only person arguing in favor of keeping the article. Further, when I saw that you had added additional sources, I relisted the discussion for an extra week, to give the maximum opportunity to take your added sources into account. No one changed their opinion from delete to keep, and no new users participated in the discussion. ST47 (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ST47: The "voting" (which deletion process is NOT) happened on 15 November 2019, I proposed not to delete on 22 November 2019 (Improving the article after that), by that time other "voters" had ignored the article, as there are no comments/refusal on the matter from other editors.
The delete proposer User:Graywalls had started to contribute to the article itself (via Talk Page) (And Article changes).
I believe the delete was made in error.
0xSkyy (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the delete proposer changed their mind, they could have indicated this on the deletion discussion, they did not. WP:DRV is a venue to discuss re-creating an article that was deleted after a deletion discussion, if you think you can make a policy-based argument for notability, you may do so there. However, the deletion discussion was properly closed. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@0xSkyy: I forgot to ping you. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ST47:Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Deletion,_moving_and_featuring clearly states
Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus.
Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is much better for editors to explain their reasoning, discuss civilly with other editors, and possibly compromise than it is to sign a one-word opinion. "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus.
Which I believe was not done.
As the most important argument: lack of mainstream coverage: was refuted objectively, by citing sources from reliable sources for example Washington Post & The Verge; as can be clearly seen in the delete discussion.
3 out of 4 editors never came back to discussion (after 15 November 2019) & delete proposer was not ably to refute my last claim on the discussion.
0xSkyy (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@0xSkyy: The editors who proposed the article for deletion or commented in support of deleting it aren't required to respond to every comment that you make - the assumption is that they haven't changed their mind unless they specifically state that they have. Wikipedia operates on rough consensus, and while you're right that the strength of arguments are taken into account, it would take a fairly convincing argument to overturn a 4-to-1 ratio in favor of deletion. More, Graywalls did reply to your 21 November comment, and again to your 22 November comment, refuting your arguments. The fact that you got the "last word" does not override all the other users who commented. ST47 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ST47: Again Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Deletion,_moving_and_featuring,
me having the last word would directly imply my reasoning to keep was accurate.
Original Claim:
1.) Device Not Notable (i.e. Notable = False )
2.) Content only mirrors phonearena = True


Reason: No Valid Sources/References added to article (15 November 2019)


1.) References to Reliable Sources such as The Washington Post, The Verge, Ars Technica & several others added (around 22 November 2019).
2.) Content updated from reliable reference.
As per Notability_in_the_English_Wikipedia#Sourcing :
Notability is demonstrated using reliable sources according to the corresponding Wikipedia guideline. Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that credible sources "exercise some form of editorial control."


Updated Article:
1.) Notable = True,
2.) Content only mirrors phonearena = False
0xSkyy (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@0xSkyy: I don't really know why you keep linking me to policies that you must know that I've already read. You having the last word only implies that your threshold for exhaustion with a given debate is higher than the other participants'. I noted that you had added additional sources to the article, and I also noted that none of the other participants at the AfD argued to keep the article, even after relisting the discussion for an extra week. Your request for me to overturn my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaomi Mi Pad is declined. WP:DRV is your appeal avenue. ST47 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ST47:,
1.) I'm referencing policies to explain where I am coming from, not to make you read them. I'm linking to them because I find wiki markup linking convenient & I like to link.
2.) Actually none of the editors besides the original article proposer (User:Graywalls) argued anything, as visible in deletion discussion.
3.) User:Graywalls Stopped replying after 23 November 2019 as I added reliable sources for the article and updated article content accordingly since 22, 23, 24 November .... and discussion shifted to Article Talk Page.
0xSkyy (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail! (Again)

Hello, ST47. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Buggie111 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buggie111: Since there wasn't any private information associated with your message, I'll reply here. You're welcome, and I will keep an eye on it, however I expect that the semi-protection on the AfD will help to limit the amount of sockpuppetry that will go on. ST47 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ST47&oldid=928828840"