User talk:ST47: Difference between revisions

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.

Congratulations, your request for adminship was successful and you are now a sysop. You may wish to add yourself to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Once again, congratulations. --Deskana (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap that was fast - we really should be paying you! Thanks! --ST47Talk 12:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Viridae^Talk 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --ST47Talk 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I'm sorry I didnt !vote, I sometimes miss good candidates. Congrats! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats from me too, hadn't even seen you were running, what a shame! Welcome to the club... Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Though, I'm afraid I won't be coming up with any poetry as you did :( --ST47Talk 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, poetry? Well, that was just the opening line from a 15th-century song I like... Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm not sure if I !voted either, but you seem to be doing a good job so far. Congratulations. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Politics rule 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations! Giggy _U^CP 22:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats ST! :) Sebi _[talk] 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone! --ST47Talk·Desk 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to do say earlier, but belatedly congrats and all the best. ^Khukri 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, uh, I mean congrats. :) -- S ^up? 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --ST47Talk·Desk 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=145475186&oldid=145474986

That's the whole point, mkil will reply with 10 arguments and most of it makes no sense, just watch over this guy you and bart, but on a private level... he needs to go. Do you want accurate wikipedia?>

I understand that, and I understand that you believe that user is malicious, but we can't leave it there. I'll bring it up with some other admins and see what they want to do. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are new? The above user has connections to some administrators who are helping him, watch out for his edits and reverts! I can send you directly lots of evidence.

Well, I am new, and I've looked at the user's edits, and don't see anything particularly bad, perhaps a particular edit would help? --ST47Talk·Desk 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i appreciate your nice reply, this is something i never get, can i have your email, since some things may be against wiki privacy rules. (if there is such a thing)

The problem is not a simple one and there is a lot i want to tell you, all i want is neutrality and not to be influenced by other administrators who back this guy. As I am sure by now you have been told. I am also on a public computer and different people edit, i was accused of some vandalism and it was not me, one of the reasons to find good administrator. The reason I am writing you is because you replied to my query, first.

I should have my email posted somewhere...It's STWiki@gmail.com. And yes, I see that you're editing from a library, and I wouldn't hold any childish vandalism from that range against you. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've now finished - I hope! - sub-dividing the pages listed at User:ST47/UKLC. Please will you re-run the query, so that I can see if I've missed anything? If you want to overwrite the last results with the new ones, that will be fine. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now, since I don't have access to a computer with perl. I'll be able to do it in two days once I'm back home. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I could do with a break from them! Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, list updated. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looks like I need to do a couple more :-( Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, please? And if you could easily give a grand total, that would be handy. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Total is 42235. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid service! Thank you.. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! --ST47Talk·Desk 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem! You seem to have a couple of zero totals (apart from those expected, for disambiguation pages) - the first one, for instance. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they were redirects. Fixed. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your decission to protect Anonimu's talkpage, combined with User:Sceptre removing userboxes from several users, including one admin, has lead to a controversial discussion. The discussion can be found here. This is what Sceptre said about your action: "No, ST47 protected it because Anonimu was disruptively removing comments because I'm a "blind supporter." He seems to suggest that he is a "blind supporter," but I guess that was an error from his part. I think he meant to imply that Anonimu removed his comments because he believed that Sceptre was a blind supporter, which would in turn constitute as a personal attack, and which made you protect the talkpage. I would like to know if that is how you reasoned when you protected the talkpage. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a reply there. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it should be tagged as resolved? It's becoming a shitstorm right now. Will ^(talk) 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator's noticeboard as a whole tends to do that. Sure, I'll do so. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you reprotected his talk page to the original 7 days, not 2 days. Will ^(talk) 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again... Will ^(talk) 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I changed it! I even checked it! Let's try this again... --ST47Talk·Desk 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again! You might want to get another admin to do it for you, seeing as you're having so much trouble. Will ^(talk) 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. There is something wrong with this. I know I typed the right thing in... --ST47Talk·Desk 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting information about other editors, regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not. If you persist, you will be blocked. Crum375 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I was informing a user of an article that referenced him, much the same way as people inform me when there is a discussion that involves me on the administrator's noticeboard. In no way did I endorse or oppose the opinion given in the article, I just think it's important to know when you're linked to on the front page of slashdot. My edit certainly wasn't as inflammatory as, say, Hexrei's. --ST47Talk·Desk 21:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not appointed as a news provider of attempted outings of WP editors. Rest assured that we all have google and we all know how to use it. By your posting this information here, you are furthering the aims of the original harassers. Please stop, or you will be blocked. Crum375 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have you been appointed a 'reverter', or what you will. We're volunteers, and we discuss. Further, you've already threatened to block me for editing slim's page, surely this threat isn't for me editing your talk page? His new message bar was activated, so I have no need to edit again, he can decide whether to revert or not. As a final note, perhaps we should protect slim's talk? --ST47Talk·Desk 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all appointed as protectors of each other's privacy and well being. If I see an attack or harassment against anyone, I will revert it, warn the offender, and block if necessary. An attempted outing, or information about it, are harassment. If a user sincerely wanted to alert another about a personal matter, s/he would use email. Crum375 22:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV is female... Will ^(talk) 22:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. --ST47Talk·Desk 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a dyktalk template on Talk:British Army - did you mean to put it on Talk:Johnny Ramensky, because I haven't been able to find a DYK factoid for the British Army, though you posted two user ones for Johnny Ramensky. Just noticed it on my watchlist. RHB - Talk 11:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Thanks, fixed :) --ST47Talk·Desk 11:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ST47!

I just reverted several hundred bot edits on Wikimedia Commons when I saw, that OsamaK uses the bot here for the same purpose. Look at some examples:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAcura_Integra.jpg&diff=6734692&oldid=5518797 No source, no author given. Suddenly “own work”
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Açude_de_Heliópolis.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=6781868 author: Gilberto Jacob uploader: Larissa batista. We’d ask for a permission instead of adding “own work”.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Aérien_panacée.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=6734904 obviously copyvio, maybe Google Earth.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:119A65B284882ACBE4C41F4D2970.jpg&action=history another obvious copyvio.

This bot task is dangerous for our project. On Commons users explicitly have to express that their uploads are “own work”. We often have to delete files as copyvios transfered via CommonsHelper because we can’t find a source on en.wikipedia.org (again and again: actors, musicians, often uploaded by users with a few edits, no source, no permission). :-( --Polarlys 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the approval and it seems as though the bot only tags articles that are marked {{GFDL-self}}. Regardless, I've asked him to comment. Thanks, ----ST47Talk·Desk 20:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons the bot exacly does what you asked him. But that’s the problem. On every project people upload files without information on author and license, but choose one of the -self licenses (they are at the top of every drop down list). Often there is no correlation between authorship and -self license. Without this bot function everything remains as it is (no advanced state BTW), with this bot we get pictures including a lie. A work is likely “self-made” when the author typed these words. --Polarlys 00:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]