User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

List of serial rapists

You mind taking up with me and the other users exactly why you just wipe so many edits we put a lot of work into? Refer me in an alert through my username coding so I can be sure to get the reply. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ContributingHelperOnTheSide: Who are "We"? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

As in I'm not the only user whose edits were wiped. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

ContributingHelperOnTheSide, lists should only contain notable entries, and in the deletion discussion for the list, that the list only contained notable entries was used as a rationale for keeping by multiple editors. Wikipedia is not a database of non-notable information, e.g. a list of everyone ever covered in the news for committing multiple rapes. This is even more of an issue when many of the entries don't relate to rape in particular, but rather any sexual assault or molestation, when the overly-detailed descriptions are written with sensational language like sexually brutalized... targeted in a rage over a lesbian love triangle, and when other non-notable BLPs are named. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

My not explicitly stating "rape" regarding every rape and regarding it in other terms as a sex crime isn't an argument to try and erase the entries! ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

ContributingHelperOnTheSide, it's certainly an argument for removing the ones that aren't rape convictions. This discussion should really be on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Latest COINTELPRO sock

Obvious sock repeating the "COINTELPRO is still active" blather. Admits to socking on his talk page [1] Meters (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Handled by Widr one minute after above. Meters (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your amazing work at AIV and UAA as well as your vandal fighting skills. Appreciate it! -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 01:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charles III on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A non-admin request

In your ever-expanding free time, if you get a chance to stop by Talk:2023 Allen, Texas outlet mall shooting, I would appreciate your opinion as an editor. There is something of a heated discussion going on about including information of the victims. To be clear, I have no idea where you might come down on this, and if it's opposite my view, that's obviously fine. I just think more engagement would be good. Thanks as ever. 01:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I read through the discussion there, and it's basically the same one that plays out on all of these types of articles. I don't really have much to add because I'm not bothered terribly much either way, but I did offer my line of thinking on victim lists in mass casualty events like shootings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. In addition to honestly seeking your input, I had a very slight hope that maybe there was an overarching discussion or policy somewhere that would offer some guidance. As ever, I appreciate your time and efforts. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's basically like infoboxes. There are two sides, and discussions always turn heated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

So I have noticed! While I guess I care a bit more than you do about the issue, I do my best to turn down the temperature as it's more a preference for me than a tenet of faith. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI Close

Thank you for the close! I was honestly having trouble sleeping worrying about it (even thought it was just a warning ANI stresses me out) and it was very nice to wake up to see it closed just after. And point well noted from multiple editors, I'll be even more paranoid about my ban from now on lol. Quick question, I'm not sure whether this is your prerogative or not, but could you post an explanatory message to the talk page of FAIR noting the whole article falls under GENSEX? I don't want another editor to make the same mistake as I did: given the past talk page discussions, the fact IIRC the original GENSEX warning was placed before they concluded, and the fact that confused many editors (myself included), I think the consensus being noted there would be generally helpful. Have to run off to class now (my final English course for the foreseeable future!). Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It's actually already covered with the template that is on the page and the editnotice which as been in place since February 21st. There is a template parameter if the notice only covers parts of a page. You can see the section parameter at Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. An example of its use can be seen on at Talk:Jimmy Carter where the notice says The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic. You can also see that the editnotice when editing Jimmy Carter states You are subject to additional rules when you edit parts of this page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the parameter and example! I'm not sure how familiar you are with the page but there was an RFC ending in March 4 with consensus that the organization should not be classified as opposing transgender rights and mentions of their policies on trans issues was removed from the lead on the 23rd. Wish I'd asked that the CTOP notice be changed to the "part of a page" when those decisions were passed lol before my ban, c'est la vie. Thanks again for the weight off my chest, I just finished a final paper and presentation and without the case hanging over me I have both the time and drive for some editing today! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad I could give you some relief. I really don't like to see discussions languishing at ANI with someone on the hook. I appreciate that you're sticking it out through the topic ban and still editing, that's going to look good for you when you request your topic ban lifted. In the meantime you should stay away from anything that has even a hint of gensex about it, both to remove the chance of a block for a violation and because teasing at the edges of the ban can lead to opposition to lifting the topic ban. I hope you have an enjoyable time now that you're done with your paper and presentation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for the close. Shame about the Burma shave box though, had a laugh at that. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. In the future, though, try and follow through with the D in WP:BRD a bit sooner if you're going to be reverting. It will save a lot of strife. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I was planning to reply, but got caught up in some other stuff. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I noticed your comment about John Kerry. I wasn't aware of what position he had taken. I found references to a MSNBC interview he did on November 8th, 2013, I think, but not the interview itself. However I did find comments including from Kerry about his doubts about the Warren Commission conclusions. So he shared non-specific doubts about its veracity? That would seem to put him in a majority of 61% of Americans (most of whom hadn't been born in November 1963) who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was hooked up with one of many supposed variously affiliated actors involved. Here's a good article: https://www.kansas.com/article1127730.html#_=_ Activist (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what discussion you're talking about. I've used that as an example on a few occasions to demonstrate why we shouldn't use fleeting news coverage about something to apply labels to a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Response to this report

Being handled at WP:AE

I am not going like this like a lamb to the slaughter and I will defend my judgements as such I the response I shall make, firstly I believe that the context in which the source was in was highly biased in that it basically said that Jews took over a Palestinian City, which is not true as we know that Jewish settlement was one of the first settlements in Caesarea, when I removed the context, I stated why because to say as such that Jews took over a Palestinian City is just historically wrong, when archeological evidence points to plenty of Jewish history in Caesarea, note the Roman Theatre which contains the name of the Jewish Governor at the time of Caesarea. As such to say that Jews took away a city which had been historically Palestinian is just wrong and as such I provided context as to why a removed a portion of the section and made modifications to it, it isn’t like I just wiped it out without exposing why either, which is why I feel that this report is just a personal nab, since these views don’t seem to align with others and that somehow the sources I brought were unacceptable to them yet theirs was allowed to stand. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:09 12 May 2023 (UTC) Salandarianflag (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Also just because I removed it twice it isn’t a violation as a brought in context as to why I was removing it and my sources for doing so. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Please keep your responses at WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Ok but you must understand that this isn’t as clear cut as you think it is because in most of these situations people removed context without providing an explanation but I provided an explanation and a source as to why I was removing it, further it wasn’t done with malice or ill wishes and I believe that the whole report should just be annulled as I had no ill meaning and provided a source. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Again, WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC) if you want I can provide source on the grounds that I removed it: https://www.britannica.com/place/Caesarea Salandarianflag (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC) This will be handled at WP:AE, so please make your responses there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Please can you review my statement? Salandarianflag (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Also how is it in violation of 1RR since I provided reason for doing so and how does it work as my original edit for removing edit which explained why was reverted back with no context, so why does this violate 1RR and not that and surely providing a source isn’t violating 1RR when editing as it isn’t a baseless removal of context? Salandarianflag (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) i’m not sure if it pinged you or not but just in case it hasn’t may I plead that as this is my first run in with 1RR and I don’t know about it too much so I’ll will go over the rules of 1RR. I did try to my make edits in good faith, I believe that a topic ban or block is too much, I’ll take a warning and I’ll try next time if I have any disputes to start a compromise discussion if I feel context is off in a certain area. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Sock drawer

I noticed you have blocked User:Keymung and User:Khawmhuai98, I believe there is still one sock of User:Khawlnu12. I had started a SPI yesterday about these three at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keymung. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, and I noted the SPI. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Close

thanks for the close of the maps RFC! I imagine you've read better books before... --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've certainly read better, it was a bit dry and it just kinda petered out at the end. Where was the climax? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Sigh… could you comment at a follow up discussion at WT:NOR (it’s the section titled: “Recent addition - maps, charts, etc.”). Sorry to drag you back in, but your intent as closer of the RFC would be helpful. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've replied there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from JBradleyChen (00:21, 9 May 2023)

I am proposing an interesting edit on a potentially controversial page, Scientific_racism, and I would appreciate your objective opinion on whether I am engaging usefully and constructively. You can see the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_racism#Thomas_Malthus

From my point of view I have proposed changes, received feedback, and responded to that feedback by modifying my change and adding citations. Some have shared an opinion that the longer quote is inappropriate, contrary to my opinion that it is appropriate.

A general concern about this page is that it tends to expend a lot of space on decontextualized racist quotes from 17th and 18th century individuals that while deeply offensive had questionable overall effect, as their racism was casual and incoherent, representing immature science and ordinary beliefs in their era. Meanwhile the page totally ignores individuals like Malthus, Spencer, Shockley and Terman whose racism is overt and strategic, and who were major figures in Social Darwinism and Eugenics, recognized precursors to fascism and genocide.

The pattern of resistance I've experienced on this pages suggest to me WP:TEND, although I would not say we are at that point yet, and I expect some would say the same of me.

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience with me. I am fine discussing via email if you prefer. --JBradleyChen (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute to me. It looks like they're are three editors who disagree with you, and no one who agrees. The page has almost 700 watchers and the discussion is only two days old. I suggest you wait a week or two to see if there's any additional input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

After a couple days I proposed a compromise, adding more support as requested and replacing a long quote with a summary and shorter quotes. I don't see any willingness to compromise from those who object to my proposed change. They suggest I should give up, as there is not consensus regarding my change. I do not agree. It seems to me that if there is not consensus, we should agree to disagree and look into conflict resolution options such as RfC and such. However as I review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution it looks to me like everything ends up relying on consensus, so it depends on who is willing to participate.

I could be wrong but I am concerned the others in the discussion are self-selected and not representative of the scholarly consensus or the broader Wikipedia community. JBradleyChen (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that it will be productive, I suggest an RFC, although with a three to one consensus existing now I don't think the result is likely to go your way. You can also accept that consensus will sometimes support a view other than yours and look for something else to edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider having a look at the comment in Talk:Scientific_racism from NightHeron (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) ?

Her standard for "very indirect" and "not emphasized" seem arbitrary to me. I provide quotes in my comment at 03:07, 12 May 2023 where I show that Mayhew, Shermer and Dugan are quite clear about Malthus and Eugenics. I don't understand in what objective sense "not emphasized" or "very indirect" apply. I also don't understand why NightHeron and VQuakr think they can simply ignore Chase 1977. You can find the references in my sandbox. JBradleyChen (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Any chance you would be willing to have another look at the discussion on Talk:Scientific_racism. I think the people who are pushing back against my edits are running out of arguments. It's unclear to me if the next step should be to commit them and then object if/when they undo, or if I should learn about RfCs, or something else.

I think the interactions on May 15 and May 16 will give you an adequate sense of the situation. I think the pivotal questions at this point are my assertion that chattel slavery and Eugenics are racist. JBradleyChen (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors will disagree, and disagreement with your position isn't necessarily a problem. If you believe that it would be productive you can start an RFC, but it's clear consensus is against your position at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's that clear. Is consensus a popularity contest? I don't think that's how it should work. Consensus implies collaboration, individuals working in good faith to apply objective criteria to a question of scholarship. I don't know how to include individuals who refuse to apply objective criteria. If it does end up a popularity contest, then I will need to engage a larger group, because the group I'm engaging now is too small and self-selected to avoid bias. Any guidance on how to engage a larger group would be welcome, although eventually I will figure it out myself.

On a separate topic, I've started a new page, Draft:Allan Chase. I've asked User:RJensen to review it and he said he thought it was okay but I should find more reviewers. I'm not sure where to find more reviewers, apart from the Scientific racism page, which doesn't seem like the right community. It seems like a pretty simple page to me.

Thanks! JBradleyChen (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

An RFC is how you engage a larger group. See WP:RFC and WP:RFCBEFORE.

On the draft page at the bottom of the draft header you'll find a link that says submit the draft for review! Click on that and it will be put into the queue for the articles for creation reviewers to check out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@JBradleyChen: all editors here are "self selected" since we are all volunteers. This is the nature of editing collaboratively - consensus is decided amongst those who show up. I do agree that a RFC is the best way to engage a wider group. I think there are two main questions that a RFC could be formatted to address: whether Malthus should be mentioned at all, and whether a specific draft section should be added to the article. I suggest against starting an RFC for the latter because at this point, the answer "no" would be essentially a foregone conclusion. I can help with a neutrally-worded query for the former, though; feel free to hit me up on my talk page. SFR, please let me know if you'd rather I not engage in this thread here. Kind regards to you both! VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind the engagement here. It's all collaboration, and I've popped in as a (talk page stalker) on more than one mentorship question on other talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration is welcome. I assume we ought to agree on neutral wording of a summary and where to send it. JBradleyChen (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding self-selection, the three editors that have engaged in Talk:Scientific racism#Thomas Malthus have self-selected regarding their interest in Scientific racism. I suggest soliciting participation from a group that has not previously self-selected for interest in Scientific racism. Make sense? JBradleyChen (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

When you create an RFC a bot will invite a random selection of editors. You can see one of the bot notices above on this page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a sound design. Thanks for explaining that. JBradleyChen (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I gave @JBradleyChen: two options for neutrally-worded single-sentence queries for an RfC, but unfortunately the version that was posted is neither brief nor neutral, [2]. Would it be appropriate to close this RfC early so it needn't sit open a month? VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've closed the RFC and left a short note on that talk page, and their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

WTF Happened on my talk page?

Thanks for reverting the user that screwed up my talk page, I haven’t been active on my account. But who the hell was this IP? Wolfquack (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Who knows. Vandalism pops up in the oddest places. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s for sure…

Again thank you, I really can’t express my gratitude. Wolfquack (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Glendoremus

Could you take a look at User talk:Glendoremus. There are edits there that need to be permanently removed. Thanks, Grachester (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Was taken care of before I had a chance to. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Grachester (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For being so nice in the Discord server and talking farming/gardening with me forever. Thank you for being a good person. Bobherry Talk My Edits 02:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, though the timing is a bit ironic as in about 10 hours I'm slaughtering a pile of rabbits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Haha Bobherry Talk My Edits 02:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the names used to describe British people.

Since the topic ban I have edited other topics and I have tried to make the edits good and I have put in a reference, though I do want to ask you is this edit on the British people Wikipedia page ok, I have added in an appropriate reference to back up this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1154271141 I just want to make sure I haven’t landed in any controversial topics, since I have heard the term Britisher used to describe British people. I may also need some administrative guidance so would you be able to review my edits to see if they are good quality and may I be able to have some mentoring guidance on these issues. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on the edit to British people, and I don't believe it's particularly controversial. Anything dealing with that edit should follow normal editorial processes. I do not have time to review your edits, and currently your restriction is to say away from the Arab/Israel conflict broadly construed. As long as you stay away from that you should be good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Salandarianflag (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC close

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish:

About this RFC, 25 February 2023 you closed, it removed important contextual information from the lead:

• By 1981, authorities had banned the MEK and begun a major crackdown on the group's members and supporters, driving the organization underground.
• In June 1981, the MEK organized the 20 June 1981 Iranian protests against the Islamic Republic in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr, claiming that the Islamic Republic had carried out a secret coup d'état. Afterwards, the government arrested and executed numerous MEK members and sympathizers. As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982.

What was the argument that indicated consensus for removing that (rather than just adding information about the bombings in the lead)? Part of that text had been achieved from consensus from another recent RFC (which you could not have known). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus of editors involved in the discussion was to remove that and replace it with something else. Apparently the contextual information was not important enough for a consensus of editors to believe that it belonged in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

But nobody even addressed those points, so I don't understand how there could even be a consensus for removing that material. Could you kindly re-open the RFC once again so this can be addressed? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The RFC statement contained Currently we have the following sentences related to the events of 1981 in lede: followed by Should we replace them with the following paragraph? Those responding in support supported that change, and another editor refuted your own arguments in the RFC. If you believe this was closed in error feel free to bring it to WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Modified discussion after close

Hello! I realize this is a lot of words to explain why I added a single line break to a discussion, but I know editing a discussion after it's closed is usually a faux pas, so I wanted to give you a heads up that (1) I did so, and (2) why. I don't pretend to understand any kind of formatting issue—and I've recently learned that my particular browser might sometimes uniquely struggle with collapsing templates—I'm looking into switching!

After the {{archive top}} / {{archive bottom}} templates were placed, this is what the page looked like for me: (external link) (if you prefer not to click on the link, the archive bottom template ended immediately after the first {{ctop}} template, even though the archive bottom template was well below). I had seen an archive top template successful capture a ctop before, so I looked at the source text, and I realized that, for whatever reason, the fact that there was not a break before the ctop template was the cause of the error. Using the preview feature, I tested adding the break, and I realized that all the other ctops (which did have a break before them) were captured by the archive top template. So I went ahead and made the edit. (diff)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Rendering can be wonky. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the edit suppression on Talk:Emmanuel Weyi, and those in the article. Ah, WP:TRUTH. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. Tidied up BLPN and the article history as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Piling on here. Thanks for doing what you do and trying to educate users with patience and more importantly, faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That's much appreciated, thanks. I know not everyone agrees with all the actions I take, but I'm certainly trying my best. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you from me as well. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to remove the material from BLPN, but I'm glad it got taken care of.

Just one comment - you missed one of their accounts at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/38.15.242.225 which has been previously blocked. (Sorry I'm on the wikipedia app and it's not letting me hyperlink it)

Keep up all the good work that you do, and we appreciate you! Awshort (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I revdel'd that last edit. Not going to bother blocking because it's unlikely they're still using that IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Malthus and scientific racism

Thank you for your guidance on my attempts to influence this topic/page. My sense is my efforts to date have been imperfect. Perhaps I am sometimes too transparent. I would like to focus the discussion on an objective standard for relevance to the article. Does that seem reasonable to you? JBradleyChen (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable goal, although trying to nail down exact criteria can be difficult. Glad to help with your interactions on that page. You stepped directly into the deep-end, and the way Wikipedia works is difficult to grok without experience. I still think you'd be better working on less contentious material to start, but as long as you continue to listen to experienced editors you may end up with a good, or at least not bad, result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

While I can tolerate a certain amount of people getting mad at me, I want to be sure I am being respectful of the culture and policies, so I hope you will be direct about that.

I am definitely learning from the engagement, on multiple fronts. I want to senseless destruction of cultural equity on the platform. JBradleyChen (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI I have started a new RFC for Thomas Malthus. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Scientific racism#RFC (take 2): Thomas Malthus JBradleyChen (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Is my RFC question malformed (again)? If so I will remove the RFC tag, however it is quite hard for me to distinguish between protocol errors and effective blocking of a legitimate edit by entrenched editors. JBradleyChen (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to look over this as I've been very busy, but it's safe to assume that if every other person in a discussion is telling you something, especially when there's around a half dozen of them, you should probably accept what they're saying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

One problem is that almost all of the people who are engaging on the question seem to be self-selecting due to interest in that specific page. Another problem is that their interpretation of WP:SYNTH doesn't make sense to me, and none of the explanations seem like explanations beyond "just because". WP:SYNTH is not sound scholarship, as they apply it.

You have already gone beyond the call in terms of supporting me as my mentor, so I am going to stop bugging you about this. But this still seems totally broken to me. I was hoping that an RFC would provide opinions from a robust random sample of editors, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Or maybe it just takes more time. JBradleyChen (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

One of those responding did so based on the bot notification, and supported the speedy close. Many others that get a notification will see an RFC they recognize isn't going anywhere and will save their time and not respond. I still haven't had the time necessary to review the whole discussion, but it's not often a half dozen editors age unanimously to do something. At this point I think closing the RFC in your own is a wise step. You could try a discussion at the no original research noticeboard if you believe that the group is not representative of what community consensus will be. Keep in mind, though, that editor time is the most valuable resource. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor closed it while I was asleep. Live and learn... JBradleyChen (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Hey SFR, we have a newly minted WP:SPA who has been WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page (making multiple sections that we collapsed into one [3], repeatedly posting the same argument despite others saying repeatedly that they are using poor quality sources and BLUDGEONing [4] across multiple talk pages: [5][6][7]), and has now escalated to casting aspersions, ignoring WP:AGF, and making personal comments about me and my life outside wiki on article talk [8]. Could you look into this? Thanks for all your brooming in general. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It also appears this /64 range was at this exact sort of behavior for a while, and was blocked back in March by SFR and then denied unblock by @331dot (another request denied subsequently by @Yamla). It seems they did not learn much from the block, and have recently resumed that same disruption. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for another month, if they pop up again after that let me know.

Also, please try to get your message nailed down before posting. I got 10 alerts for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh sorry, I forget that it gives you a new notification every time I edit, unlike article talk. Will do better. Thanks for the brooming — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Glass on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Maliner (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Jan Żabiński

Hello! Would you plese have a look at my request for update of the Jan Żabiński article? I have written the request on the talk page of the article on May 29. Regards Szelma W (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not read Polish, so I cannot verify what is in the source. I added an edit request template which should bring edit request patrollers to look at the request, and hopefully one will be able to verify what is in the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?

Needs no body text GFGearestFunk (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't the platform to advertise your TikTok. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Singh harwinder9878 (15:17, 2 June 2023)

hello how can upload my articles on wikipedia? --Singh harwinder9878 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Singh harwinder9878, check out WP:YFA for a detailed guide on how to create articles on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

About blocking sockpuppets and other Bulgarian IPs.

Maybe you should tag that vandal as a sockpuppet of DiscoveryTeenHD, because this is the same guy from Bulgaria who vandalised articles about TV channels and radio stations. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DiscoveryTeenHD LDM2003 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to tell me which vandal you're talking about, as I've made a lot of blocks recently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about User:AlfaTVBG1 who used to evade blocks and vandalize on TV-6 (Russia). Because, I believe he is the same guy who persistently hijacks articles and adds unsourced content. Today, he vandalized on Alfa TV (Bulgaria) by using multiple Bulgarian IPs with the same thing about the so-called launch of TV6 Bulgaria and closure of Alfa TV which doesn't appear on news pages. LDM2003 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Tagged. I often block as socks based on ANI reports where the socking is obvious, but I don't know the master. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to handle that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

HBLC

No rush, but I wanted to know if you have yet considered the possibility of a POV tag (ping from the other day). The claim that the neutrality issue was resolved in the RfCs, when neutrality was not mentioned, is concerning to me. If you have already thought it through and decided against it, I would like to know. I do not wish to overstep, I'm just trying to be courteous and not waste anyone's time, including my own. DN (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that was discussed months ago, and consensus was it was a backdoor way to circumvent the RFC consensus. I can try and dig it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look as well. I remember when I first added a tag it was taken down, but I don't think any of the RfC discussed neutrality, just use of the terms alleged, "belonged to" etc...IMO denying the tag or any discussion of neutrality seemed like a backdoor way to prevent uninvolved editors from chiming in about the overlying issue of conflicting RS (some with qualifiers, some without). DN (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Darknipples, Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 5#A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text discusses a disputed tag, but a NPOV tag over the same language does the same thing, and as Awilley said There was no RfC consensus against adding maintenance tags, but the [disputed – discuss] tag could also be considered prohibited language depending on where it's placed. I'm sure this was also discussed in some of the ancillary threads, as this has been on every noticeboard, including this npovn thread. Some fetching chap there said back in February At some point there needs to be acceptance of consensus until something significant comes up that makes another discussion worth the effort. The more this comes up over a short period of time the fewer uninvolved members of the community will take part in the discussions, and the same entrenched users will continue to go back and forth. I believe that's the stage we're at now. The one new editor that took part in that discussion said I believe if you look at the talk page of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy you can find most of your answers. This topic about the specific lines you are questioning has been discussed at great length.

So no, I don't think at this point an NPOV tag would be a reasonable compromise based on all the earlier discussion, and falls into that grey area Awilley was talking about, where it's basically circumventing the consensus of two RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In other words it's a waste of time in your opinion. Thanks for the heads up. You might want to go ahead and stop the discussion there, so others don't continue to waste their time as well. If evidence does eventually show up one way or another, I think our actions here will make a good road map for the future. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's also a waste of time because with consensus required it'll be immediately reverted then there will be a 200kb discussion about that that won't have consensus for the tag.

I'm hoping the discussion dies down on it's own, but we'll see where it's at after a while longer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I am a bit confused by the requirement for a CONSENSUS for the tag. I was under the impression that any one editor could add a tag as long as a reasonable argument was made with clearly explained issues and how they could be addressed. Could you point out where that is stated? Not that I don't believe you, I just can't find it. DN (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Like everything else, content tags are based on consensus. If every available step has been taken to address concerns, including 2 RFCs, adding tags to protest that consensus doesn't fly. Imagine how many tags would be on every politician's article after every RFC? RFC shows consensus for labeling someone far right, can those that opposed the label then add an npov tag to the article? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, but the RfC wasn't about neutrality. It was more or less about what context should be used. I'm not trying to argue, but I still don't see where it explicitly says that consensus is required (to ADD, not remove). No worries, I promise to do my best to find out without violating canvas or any other such no-nos. DN (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Every edit to an article requires consensus, be it a tag, prose, or an image. When something has been discussed to death at every available venue, including two RFCs and a close review, it's clear that the community doesn't believe any tags are necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I think you may not completely understand what I am asking, or maybe I don't completely understand the answer. Either way I can take it from here, no worries, have a peaceful day. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)