User talk:ST47/Archive10

[edit] Another article wrongly tagged as France-related

You have been tagging Talk:Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria twice with {{wikiproject|France}}, but this is a Spanish bank. I have changed it to {{wikiproject|Spain}} for the first bot edit and another editor removed your second addition of this template. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 18:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tags: Please stop

You have tagged a number of talk page archive redirects with {{db-r1}} which is not accurate: the pages exist. Please stop, and in the future be more careful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are they needed? I think I meant to use R3, but why do we need a redirect to an archive? ST47Talk 18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The archives were created with parenthesis in the name, then moved to a name without parens. The redirect is needed because people very, very frequently refer to older discussions when an editor who is new to an article brings up something which was previously discussed. See WP:RTA. The redirects need to be left in place, or referral links made prior to the move will simply go to No page found. For example, I might refer you to Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Definition_of_abortion if you bring up the definition, so you are familiar with all the reasoning involved in the current definition. If that sub-page is moved to an archive name, say Talk:Abortion/Archive_99, a redirect would be necessary for you to find the referenced discussion. For that reason, don't add a speedy tag to any redirect unless it points to a page which does not exist - unless it is a double redirect, in which case fix rather than tag for speedy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Otogi Zoshi characters

Since your initial comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6#Category:Otogi Zoshi characters articles have been placed in the category. Do you still think it should be deleted? (Please can you reply at the category discussion if you want to change your vote.) Timrollpickering 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Data-mining please....

Thank you much. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hows it going? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We lost power yesterday :(, I'll start it up again now. ST47Talk 11:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot interwiki deletes

I don't do bots but am curious why one would delete the interwiki link (de:Alpenvorland) from Alpine foothills. —  AjaxSmack  06:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The dutch/german/whatever article is an article, not a disambiguation, so they are not about the same subject. That interwiki would be better in the articles linked to from the en: article. ST47Talk 11:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now why a bot would do this. However, in this case the German article is a de facto disambiguation article dealing with various Alpine foothills regions in different countries just as the English page does (though not necessarily the exact same ones). —  AjaxSmack  00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well when I get back to running the bot, I plan to change it so it doesn't remove anything. ST47Talk 11:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice Concerning an AfD on 123 Pleasant Street

I am providing this notice because you recently (Closed January 1, 2007) provided an opinion concerning keep/delete or other comments relating to the AfD for the article 123 Pleasant Street. This AfD had an announced result of a consensus to "Keep." A User or Users dissatisfied with this outcome have intitated a process other than the public AfD to overturn this result. The article is presently once again listed on a AfD discussion. To assure that your original comments and opinions are considered you should immediately again expression them in the Current AfD

I am providing this notice after consulting with the Admin closing the AfD. Edivorce 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding mediation on the Foie gras article

I must say I'm torn between my wish not to overrun the new sections you've created by keeping any comments I make to only the most relevant as as concise as possible, but I must say that Olivierd and Benio76 are using their quoting in a way which is to me misleading, whether they are doing it intentionally or not. I would like to correct the slant, but as I said, I'm afraid this would again spark up such wordy reactions that they would overrun the sections very quickly (if that isn't done already). As mediator, I need your advice on the best course of action in such a case. Your counsel is appreciated.--Ramdrake 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding you RCU on Olivierd

Olivierd has now added [1] something that looks very much like a pure personal attack. Just wanted to know if you felt this was indeed a personal attack which should be removed. As I am involved in this, I dare not remove it myself. Again, thank you for all your efforts.--Ramdrake 15:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your mediation of the foie gras article

The wording of your checkuser request, and that request itself following one-sided discussion with one of the parties ([2], [3]), appear to be in violation of the What mediators are not guideline:

2. Mediators are not Private Investigators. Mediators do not "work for you," nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. (...)

3. (...) Mediators work with all parties as a neutral third party; they cannot and will not counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.

4. Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. (...)

In my opinion, you have handled the foie gras mediation poorly, through the above violations and on the counts that I have stated on the checkuser case page. That mediation case was a difficult one, and I am not implying that you cannot be a good mediator. I do feel it important to note those shortcomings.

David Olivier 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your diffs. The first one was a response to a question asked to me, the RFCU had cause and I was contacted outside of the mediation with suspicions and was simply asked for advice. The second one was also a friendly suggestion to one of the sides, just like I suggested that you all try to come up with helpful suggestions with my edit this morning to the mediation page. I don't see how these situations can be resolved without more interaction beyond "look, here is a page, feel free to nuke each other on it, I'll sit over here and watch", especially when one side is suspicious of foul play. Until those concerns are alleviated I do not see how this can be resolved. ST47Talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The first diff seems quite acceptable, except that you suggested that user Apankrat email you behind the scenes regarding his suspicions of sockpuppetry. (That diff was a double edit, I am not questioning the second part of it.) Any user can request checkuser, it is not up to the mediator to "work to build a case against someone". It was not your role to "counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute". That you clearly did; you gave advice to one party on how to mount its sockpuppetry case against the other; and you are found doing it even more openly in the second diff (second diff, not second part of first diff): "there may be a way to determine it (...), possibly through writing style - typos, grammatical errors, and the like - all of which would be excellent for RFCU." Then you went as far as requesting the checkuser yourself, acting on behalf of one party. In that request, you use heavy language, that is not only biased but offensive - calling our edits "ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" and "disruptive" - if that is not "taking sides and promoting one person's point of view and requests over those of others", I don't know what would be!

What you say about the difficulty of resolving the situation is no doubt true. I recognize mediation is a difficult task in general, and that the foie gras article is a particularly difficult case. I am not competent to advise on what you should have done, except this: to do your work correctly, you would have had to pay much more attention to the arguments. You would then have realized that any resolution of the conflict implies obtaining of Trevyn, Ramdrake and the others that they accept to act in a less blatantly POV manner.

And also, if you had read the arguments, you would have realized how different the writing styles of Benio76, Zelig33 and myself actually are, and how implausible it is for there to be sockpuppets among us. Instead, I believe you panicked, and in substance allowed yourself to become the sockpuppet of one side. That is not a good outcome for a mediation.

David Olivier 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got bored after the first 50 KB of bickering, and lost my faith in humanity after the first 100KB. It is obvious both sides don't need my help, if all you plan to do is what you've been doing on the article for weeks. I am going to read some stuff then I will be back. ST47Talk 11:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi ST47, I just took notice of your request for checkuser concerning me and the editors of my party in the controversy about foie gras. Well, it was plainly incorrect to do this without even saying it in the mediation page, i.e. in hiding. I see now that the other party contacted you, that they alerted each others when it was needed to charge against us, that you have had contacts all the time. Personally, I never dared to contact other editors who contributed to foie gras (not even to alert those who did not come to the Mediation Cabal, to ask them to come), fearing that it would have been incorrect; I never even thought of writing to you indipendently of the Mediation Cabal page, because it was obvious to me that all the discussion - and making questions, and raising suspects eventually - was supposed to take place there, and every attempt to contact you would have been dishonest. I see now that I've been too naive.

You say that you got bored: you should have said it before. Instead, you stayed silent for a while, then you choose to reduce our request to have precise and verifiable statements in the article (concerning historical facts and scientific definitions) to a question of sockpuppetry. From the very beginning of this mediation, the other party has repeatedly tried to remove attention from the poorness of their sources and the speciousnees of their arguments by making speculations about the identity of their opposants, before accusing everybody to come from PETA, now accusing us to be sockpuppets. And you got bored, you followed their suggestions and your priority now is to help them to see if I'm a sockpuppet or not. You don't care if I contributed to disveal an historical fraud, if I showed the unreliability of a book which was listed as an historical source despite its author was clearly biased and incompetent. You didn't even express your opinion about this, about the necessity to remove that stupid book from the sources, to edit more carefully, to give not speculation for truth. Your priority is just to see if I'm a sockpuppet, because you got bored.

Well, I don't now how many mediations you take, maybe this case is specifically hard or annoying compared to the others, I don't know; but I think that if there were serious problems in our case, you should have said it openly. I worked seriously to demask deliberate disinformation, I wrote a lot, yes, but I always thanked you for your attention: you stayed silent and I thought that you were thinking. Now I see that you lost your neutrality, now I read that "you got bored": it's me, really, who have lost my faith in humanity.

Benio76 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This user has been confirmed as a disruptive sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd. ST47Talk 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, ST47, I think you will find out that it is not enough to assert something for it to become true. David Olivier 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ST47, you are accusing me, among other things, of "several 3RR near-violations and edit warring" [4]. Could you please substantiate your claim ? Please provide evidence supporting this accusation, or please publicly apologize for false accusations. I don't think you can any longer be a legitimate mediator after this. Anyway if you want to act as a mediator, you cannot just ask editors "to compromise" without looking somewhat into the issues involved, into why for instance some editors refuse to accept that claims not grounded on credible sources be inserted into the article. You have to look at the arguments themselves, not just ask people to compromise. If that is more efforts than you want to put into this, fine, it is you right, then just say it and don't pretend you want to be a mediator. To me contributing to a Wikipedia article is not about making editors compromise, it is about stating facts that are grounded on credible sources.

Zelig33 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello ST47 just wanted to let you know that, after speaking with my colleagues, we decided best to continue the conversation on the talk page of the article (which has been severely archived already) rather than going back to the mediation page. I guess you can close that one right now, and say it was successful, but in an unforeseen kind of way. Please feel free to jot down any remarks or such you feel are appropriate. Thank you again for all your help.--Ramdrake 12:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Web-stub

I reverted your bot there because the edit seemed faulty, it added a nowiki-category to a stub template that appeared in the articles with that template, just didn't seem to be formatted correctly.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I messed up with the config, i meant to noinclude that. That page is clear anyway, so don't worry about it. ST47Talk 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:69.253.41.139

The only edit was vandalism by an indef blocked user. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New vandalism templates

Hi, first of all I wanted to thank you for you help on vandal patrol :). I don't know if you are aware of it, but starting today, there are new unified user warnings in place. The idea behind this rewamp was, among other things, to add some consistency to their look and wording. Check them out at WP:UTM! You can of course continue to use the old test templates, but please give a shot of our shiny new {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-vandalism1}} and {{uw-delete1}}. The numbering is still 1 to 4. I hope you'll appreciate them! Happy vandal fighting! -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I was watching that but didn't know anything was happening! I'll reconfigure VP now :D! ST47Talk 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your support and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing the discussion on bow tie list

Hi ST,

Thanks for closing the debate. I think you're right about no consensus. I started a long reply to one editor (Agent 86) and by the time I was done you had already closed the debate. (This happened just a couple of minutes ago) My addition remains on the page, but perhaps not on the version that was archived. Could you please include my final comment in what gets archived? I'd appreciate it. Best, Noroton 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the page, it is there :D ST47Talk 19:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Hi. Thanks for helping out at AFD. Just a small request, if you relist an article, could you please also remove it from the log for the original date.

Also, when closing debates you might want to stick to ones that are "unambiguous keep decisions" per the non-admin guidelines. I'm sure that most of the ones that you have closed fall into this category, but closing ones that are non-consensus, might raise some questions. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers TigerShark 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Regarding no consensus, the one had equal votes either way, i didn't think it would be deleted, and it was one of the last few for the day. ST47Talk 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synergistics edit q

I'm slightly puzzled by your message that my edits to the Synergistics Boston article had removed content. Can you clarify which part of the edit you were referring to? I tried to remove only hyperbole, and restate only verifiable facts about the gym. Was it something in the owners' CVs? Thanks in advance for your help.

132.198.107.146 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Audrey

Sorry, it's probablydue to the program I've been using - sometimes it shows one thing but then goes and reverts random stuff, feel free to re-insert your edit, and thanks for contributing. ST47Talk 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. 132.198.107.146 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Audrey

[edit] Hi

I thought i would just come over and say hello and that i am know you from guild wiki, and that i am rather bored, which is mostly likly the real motivation for saying hello :).--JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate being bored. And I am from GuildWiki :D But the vandals are everywhere :( You should run away. ST47Talk 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

oh i do, but the vandals chase me down with spears and pitchforks, its a nightmare, so in an effort to stay away from vandals, i went on a welcome spree, however i greeted someone today in the hope that they would become a well rounded user and one of them has already got themselves blocked permantly. gg.--JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

I see you are using Vandal Proof. I have heard that it does not provide edit summaries on WP:AIV. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :( ST47Talk 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen many incidents of vandalism in which a fake, ostensibly legitimate summary was added. --Seans Potato Business 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That percentage is less than .1%. About 5% do provide a summary, but those vandals provide something like "lol" for the summary. Dead giveaway. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War Z

Hey, I noticed you cut a lot from the World War Z article. Do you really think that much pruning is necessary? Grahamdubya 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I never edited that page. ST47Talk 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what I was afraid of. I forget how it happened, but the user Max Overload somehow redirected here. I think. Oh well. Grahamdubya 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot problem

Your bot is adding the State of Georgia template to many New Orleans related articles. New Orleans is in Louisiana, not Georgia. -- Infrogmation 15:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And Hugh Beamont has no connection to Georgia. This bot account seems to be working swimmingly. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you got many articles in Category:Hurricane Katrina and marked them as part of the Georgia project. Please un-do these edits and choose the bot categories more carefully. --Kunzite 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the categorizers should be more careful - that is a third-level category to Category:Georgia (U.S. state). The articles are being added at the request of Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), which requested on WP:BOTREQ that articles in there and all subcats be added thusly. I set it to go to the requested category, the subcats there, the subcats of those, and any articles up to 2 levels deep, which should be fine. Feel free to remove any articles from any wikiproject you are a member of. ST47Talk 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate that Category:Hurricane Katrina is contained in a category which is subordinate to the Georgia categories; you should have checked that these were valid before the run. As an aside, where is the authorisation for the bot to do wikiproject tagging?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There were 6000 articles listed for tagging, surely the operator should not be responsible for the request being correct? Someone involved in the wikiproject should have a look at 2.txt and drop a list somewhere - perhaps a user subpage - I'll take pages from the categories and run the bot on them. I can also remove the templates if need be, give me a list of categories to do so from. ST47Talk 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block user

Could you block User:Arpabr? He's been warned many times. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'll have someone look into it. Thanks! ST47Talk 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked :D ST47Talk 19:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. There's no warning on the user's page, if the user is blocked. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You can check if someone's been blocked by going to their page, clicking user contributions on the left, and clicking block log at the top. ST47Talk 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STBot

STBot is adding {{WikiProject GeorgiaUS}} to numerous articles. [5] [6] Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't these tags go on the talk page, rather than the article itself? auburnpilot talk 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC) </nowiki>

you're right, what the hell is it doing... ST47Talk 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV stations outside of Georgia (STBot)

STBot is adding {{WikiProject GeorgiaUS}} to the talk page of some television stations outside of Georgia, such as WMTV. Why? --Libertyernie2 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of some over-zealous categorization, quite a few pages were miscategorized - today was not STBot's best day :(. I think I've reverted most, at least from the categories that I noticed. Go ahead and remove it, or I can have the bot do it if there are too many. ST47Talk 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Since the stations are owned by Georgia-based Gray Television, the templates got added. I'm removing them now. --Libertyernie2 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)