User talk:ST47

Jump to navigation Jump to search
02:41 UTC

WikiProject on open proxies discussion[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)


Please see User talk: evasion. This is Linas, as they even disclose, blocked several years back for personal attacks. You most recently blocked this static IP of theirs for 6 months for evasion. They came back with a flurry of activity right after the block expired. I was trying to extend a lifeline here because I think the user could be good to have around (others have too over the years), but they just seem to prefer playing dumb, so, there it is. I still hope something can be worked out, but until they're receptive to the idea, it doesn't seem likely. I'll leave it to you if you think putting the block back in place is needed. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Deacon Vorbis: So, I did see this (I have their talk page on my watchlist), but I'm just not sure that I care. Their original block was for personal attacks and harassment, and if that's continuing, then I'd block. But if they're contributing positively, then I'd say live and let live, we have bigger problems to deal with. ST47 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, that's good enough for me then. Thanks for the response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Tag[edit]

What is this arbitration tag you left on my comment section about and what page does it involve BigRed606 (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@BigRed606: It was to let you know that, due to an authorization by our Arbitration Committee, Administrators have some extra authority to prevent disruption on pages related to post-1932 American Politics. The notice ensures that you are aware of those powers, called "Discretionary Sanctions". For example, Hunter Biden has some page restrictions in place. These restrictions are displayed in the editnotice, shown when you edit the page using the "source" editor, and are also often listed on the talk page. For example, Talk:Hunter Biden has this notice. It says that you can only make one revert per 24 hours on that page, and, if you make an edit that is challenged or reverted in any way, you must gain consensus through a discussion on the talk page before you reinstate that edit. Further details are at our policy page on discretionary sanctions. ST47 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
To be a little bit more direct, I saw that you made some changes to the lead of Hunter Biden, those edits were challenged, and I wanted to make you aware that restoring your changes without consensus would result in you being blocked. ST47 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I am sincerely thankful BigRed606 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked IP address[edit]

Hi, I'm unable to edit Wikipedia because I'm using a VPN. Could you kindly unblock this IP so I can continue editing? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I granted IP Block Exemption. Hope that helps. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Greenfield[edit]

I see that you're in the process of closing that discussion. My fingerprints are all over the situation, from creating the redirect in the first place to initiating the PROD and AfD when it was made into an article and fully protecting the article space after the AfD and recreation attempts. I never expected that these actions would lead to the kerfuffle that followed. As a show of good faith, if you do decide that we should move the draft into mainspace, I'd be happy to be the admin to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: That's where I'm heading, I'm just writing something up. It is your protection on Theresa Greenfield, so if you'd like to handle the move, I'll leave it to you to do so. ST47 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes that'd be great. I'll await your close and then take the action if you do indeed rule in that direction. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Muboshgu: I have closed that discussion here so please do go ahead with the move. I do think the move protection on Theresa Greenfield should stay, but your judgement on what level to leave it at is fine with me. ST47 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah I took off the move protection before I saw this note. I doubt it's necessary, someone moved it to Theresa Greenfield (politician) to get around the now nonexistent page protection on the target. Thanks for the close and allowing me to make the move. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Any suggestion on what to do with Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Damn, I was going to ask you! Some of the discussions on the draft talk page are still relevant. Can we do a copy and paste move, and set up archiving on the article talk page, so that active discussions from both talk pages will remain on Talk:Theresa Greenfield? ST47 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Something like that is probably best. I may butcher it a little, but it's okay, I guess. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Want me to give it a shot? ST47 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Already done, but if you want to do anything to it, be my guest. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That's not a very good close. I think that you've used the page protection permission to justify why a sysop is needed to overrule community consensus, when in fact the page was protected to enforce the decision the community had made. I don't think that discussion was open for nearly long enough to overrule the community's previous decisions. I'm disappointed that you've created a back door into every deletion review, and I'm unhappy that we're making binding content decisions on an administrative noticeboard. Please will you reconsider and reopen?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    The protection is the reason why it was at WP:AN, and no one overruled community consensus. Circumstances change, and the consensus is now that the subject is notable. Entirely reasonable, as there is now much more media coverage than there was in May. If it hadn't been protected, the draft would have been accepted at AfC, thus the protection was the need for admin intervention. There's nothing wrong with bringing it to AfD if you disagree, that is how it is supposed to work. But I'm confident that an AfD today would choose to keep this article, which is why I must decline to reverse my closure. ST47 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    The decision of one editor at AfC shouldn't overrule the community's decision at DRV. In this case, we used page protection to prevent that outcome.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    We use page protection very rarely for that purpose, and it's common for previously-AFDed articles to be re-created either directly or through AfC without any discussion if an author is able to cure the problem that led to the deletion. ST47 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think you're right. I was contemplating doing the same, even though the DRV is compelling, this is in fact a request for reduction of page protection rather than anything else. I suspect someone might WP:POINTily AfD it again, but it would probably survive handily and instead we should just hold off until after Nov 3. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    I'm told that a merge discussion was started, but then reverted on the basis that the AN thread consitutes a binding content decision.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    The merge discussion was started at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. Some of the tags were removed (not by me) but the talk page section is still present and open. It seems like some people there have decided to nominate at AfD if she loses, instead. ST47 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


I'm trying to add citiation to the expensify page and you won't let me finish editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • @ Okay, that seems like a plausible source. I'll unprotect the article, if you expand the section at all, please make sure that it's neutral and supported by the source. ST47 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption Request[edit]

I lives in China and I need to use proxy to visit and edit Wikipedia.Fungchilong (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fungchilong:  Done! ST47 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IPBE Request[edit]

Hello, ST47. I am a Wikipedian who comes from mainland China. Because of my country's restriction, I have to use some proxies to visit and edit Wikipedia. But my proxies are blocked sometimes. I can't edit en-Wikipedia. I hope that you can grant me an IPBE flag. And I can promise I will not do vandalism.

As a Wikipedian, I have GIPBE and zh-wikipedia's local IPBE. I also have made more than 2,000 edits in zh-wikipedia. And I never do vandalism. I think I am enough to get this flag.

In the end, I hope you will accept my request. Thanks for your help, sir.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@波斯波莉斯:  Done! ST47 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@ST47: Can you grant me a long-term flag? It is too short for me to edit.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I forget this years is 2020, not 2021. I am so sorry.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Smooth-On Page Deletion[edit]

Hello, I created and edited the page for Smooth-On Inc. which was deleted. After adding multiple sources and citing them, I feel this article holds as much notoriety as Air Products & Chemicals, Burroughs & Chapin, Malheur Bell and White Weld & Co.. Can you explain why these articles hold more notoriety than the article I wrote? Thank you. Hondo2160 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hondo2160: We have a fairly detailed policy page on articles about businesses at WP:NCORP. It describes how we evaluate whether a company is sufficiently notable based on the independent and reliable sources that give us information about that company, and not by comparing to other articles that exist. If you've reviewed WP:NCORP and think you can meet its requirements, then I can move the article back to the draft state, you can work on it, and it can be reviewed again. Otherwise, you can suggest it as an article at WP:RA. ST47 (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@ST47: If you could move the article to the draft state, I think we can meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. I will review in detail and edit the article appropriately. Thank you for the clarification regarding comparison to other articles. Hondo2160 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tnaks for your help[edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thanks for your help, ST47. By the way, I am just a freshman in en-wiki. If I have some mistakes, pls let me know. Best wishes!

波斯波莉斯 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)