User talk:ST47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
13:44 UTC


Hello, this is what I wrote to, 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)

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)
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)
@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)

J. Mahendran[edit]

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)

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

User Catcure[edit]

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)


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

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

this is going in my humor page[edit]

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

Ron Kulpa[edit]

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

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)

Misdirected about paasi caste on wikipidia[edit]

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

Article Greeks in Albania[edit]

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)

A pie of thanks[edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg 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)
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)

My Mistake[edit]

Sorry about that, that wasn't my intent. I was trying to get rid of that second Teen Titans Box in the Justice League Page, if you give a good look. User Talk:StickFigure1993 12:21pm, 5 April 2019


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)

Good to know, I'll give it a shot. Thanks! ST47 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like one of these settings was the problem. ST47 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
ST47, interesting... and those settings were apparently generated by the program itself? Strange. Home Lander (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
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)

The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball[edit]

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)

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

Bridge Back to Life[edit]

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)

@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)
I saw that... but they are back!!! Check the page. Hilarious. Thank you for your efforts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, and a sleeper too! Wonder how many more they've got waiting. ST47 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
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)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

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

Technical news



  • 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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The "known troll" whom I had reported to SPI by mistake[edit]

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)

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)

Apology and explaination[edit]

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)

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

Your activity[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Tim Hinely[edit]

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

French city[edit]

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)

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)

User and IP[edit]

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)


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. Face-smile.svg --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@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)

Recent Revert[edit]

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)

@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)
@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)

Revert on Thailand's Got Talent Article[edit]

Hello, I edited the page because the judges were changed on Season 7 and the article hasn't been updated yet. I don't want it to be outdated. Thanks.

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

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)

Sock tagging[edit]


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)

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)

My page was deleted[edit]


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

  • @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)

Thank you[edit]

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)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

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)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

RationalWiki AFD[edit]

Please review the rather lengthy AFD rational I added to the page. I was typing up the rational when you posted the comment. I did not expect anyone to comment on the page within 10-15 minutes, and merely used "Fails GNG" as placeholder text. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Mosey is sexy[edit]

Hello ST47. I created a sockpuppet investigation before you blocked Mosey the sexy. Can you take a look at this? Sincerely, Masum Reza 04:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi ST47,
on 4th May, you temporarily banned IP for disruptive edits to Kevin Kühnert. The IP is back now and continuing to make similar edits without engaging in discussions on the article's or their own talk page. I've already reverted the most recent change but would like to avoid an edit war. Can you give some advice on what the proper procedure is?
Thanks, Destruktor5000 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RfCs started by sockpuppets[edit]

Thanks for your swift action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freeboy200. As you seem to have noticed, Johansweden27, the sock of Freeboy200, has recently initiated several RfCs at Talk:English people, Talk:Germanic peoples and Talk:Swedes. These RfCs were poorly framed, possibly for trolling purposes, and have resulted in endless fruitless discussions. As pert WP:BANREVERT, edits by socks may be reverted by anyone. Does any similar principle apply to the closure of RfCs initiated by socks? Krakkos (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)