User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Bludgeoning

Could you please talk to Amayorov about bludgeoning at this RfC?

I notified them about my concerns that they may be bludgeoning here, and they were told by another editor at the RfC itself but they don't seem to be getting it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit that some of my commenting in the first hours after the RfC was opened might have been overzealous. I disagree that any of my later contributions can be characterised as bludgeoning. In one place, I reviewed two newly linked research articles by Khalidi. In another, I acknowledged that Morris doesn’t himself make an assertion as to the causes of the orders, but quotes from a primary source verbatim. I also asked an editor how they would incorporate multiple viewpoints using Wikivoice. I don’t see how that is “repeating the same argument” or “ignoring evidence” that characterises bludgoening. Much conversation currently happens without my involvement, and of which I’m a silent observer. Amayorov (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Amayorov, you've made 29 of the 96 comments, and used 1855 of the 6100 words so far in that discussion, including replies to every no !vote. Please disengage from the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok Amayorov (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I suppose I can still respond to people who ping me with direct questions regarding the RfC (e.g. asking me to amend the phrasing, etc)? Amayorov (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Just please don't fall back down the thousands of words rabbit hole. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay :) Amayorov (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Abusive account

Hi! The account Howdysalmon seems to have been created with the sole purpose of harassing me over an AfD. I notice they're now banned (thank you!) and I was wondering whether I can revert this reply. It's completely unrelated to the article at hand and I have no intention of interacting with that account. I don't know whether removing replies from other editors (even if they're off-topic replies from banned users) is acceptable, so I thought I'd ask to be on the safe side. GhostOfNoMan 01:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, but in the future you can remove that type of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much! And good to know. :) GhostOfNoMan 01:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

I am confused why you deleted my comment “I could see why someone would think waving a Palestinian flag or wearing a keffiyeh in a celebration of the October 7 attack is pro-Hamas and therefore antisemitic (although it is unclear what proportion of those who gathered in France and Germany right after October 7 were doing that). It’s fine to disagree, and that is why it should be left as an accusation. It is certainly not objectively not antisemitic. It’s also not really relevant, as that would be Wikipedia:OR.” was removed from the Talk section of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Hamas_war_protests. What rules am I violating? The other commenter is proposing the removal of “an accusation of antisemitism” on the basis that is not antisemitic. I objected to the proposed change as it (1) is subjective and (2) is Wikipedia:OR. If you let me know what I did wrong, I will not do it in the future. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors are who not extended-confirmed may only make constructive edit requests dealing with with Arab/Israel conflict. You cannot take part in content discussions in the topic area. Details are on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still new to the Wikipedia editing process. I thought the Talk section was for discussing and proposing changes to the article, but I will only propose changes on contentious topics in the future. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not even do that, not in that subject area. Not until you meet the criteria outlined. --Yamla (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I may have misspoken here. You should wait for ScottishFinnishRadish to clarify whether or not constructive edit requests (but nothing else) are permitted. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, only constructive edit requests. Further discussion to establish consensus for edit requests may only take place between EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ScottishFinnishRadish. I have one more question (sorry!). Why was my constructive request to include the information that “The union, Starbucks Workers United, posted “Solidarity with Palestine” on social media platform X above an image of a bulldozer operated by Hamas tearing down a fence on the Gaza strip during the attacks against Israel” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/business/starbucks-israel-palestine-workers

(that quote is directly from the CNN article) was removed? Just simply stating “…union for making a social media post in solidarity with Palestine” is misleading.

I understand that I am making several suggestions on Israel-Hamas topics, but they seem to be somewhat biased (intentionally leaving out information) and I would like the opportunity to be involved in proposing changes to make the articles more balanced. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because multiple iterations have already been declined. Other editors can see the request, even if declined, and decide if they want to move forward with some part of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There were a few iterations over the source (but https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/business/starbucks-israel-palestine-workers ended up being acceptable). And the last iteration M.Bitton rejected it for Wikipedia:OR, so I proposed instead of changing it to “…social media post supporting Hamas” (which may be Wikipedia:OR) to “Solidarity with Palestine” over an image of Hamas militants braking into Israel on October 7.” (not Wikipedia:OR). I’m also not the first person on the Talk page to point this omission out. Am I going about requesting the change incorrectly? 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the change, which is why it isn't being done. If you'd like to discuss to build consensus you'll need to create an account and gain the extended-confirmed user right through constructive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I am not that invested. It is a glaring omission that paints a false narrative (Starbucks is suing for “solidarity with Palestine” as opposed to Starbucks is suing because of a post supporting Hamas), and I thought I could quickly recommend fixing it, but it seems to be more trouble than it’s worth. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, my edit request was not contested. It went through several iterations, all of which were constructive (e.g., use a different source or phrase it move closely to the source) and not because they disagreed with the change. I don’t see why I violate Wiki policy to have my request not considered, especially when the article as it stands is non-neutral and intentionally dishonest (as anyone can see from the source). I am not going to jump through hoops, but I hope you reconsider my request to have the proposed edit listed in the Talk section and discussed. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish 84.225.147.49 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Keep the good work. Beshogur (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I too would also like to thank you. 500 edits, here I come. Wikipedious1 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you kindly, it's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Full protection at Zionism

Hi SFR, Just a note that consensus for the section of text was arrived at in the discussion at Talk:Zionism#Revert. This was confirmed with @Theleekycauldron prior to the current wording being restored by me at Special:Diff/1243007031 on 30 August. So the changing of the material by Profavi1 and then the reverting back to consensus wording by Onceinawhile isn't necessarily something that requires full protection. I've now advised Profavi1 of the discussion in which consensus was arrived at. TarnishedPath^talk 04:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I dropped the protection and added a hidden note before the sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks for your efforts. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked through this earlier discussion. It seems that there may have been more agreement about the text which was proposed by Levivich, which refers to the ideology of "Zionism" not collectively of "Zionists" as currently shown on the page. And there is now an active discussion about the sentence indicating that there isn't consensus at all, and that the sources need to be trimmed down.

Are you okay with either removing your hidden comment about consensus and/or allowing the change to "Zionism" an ideology instead of "Zionists" all of the people. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This would be better worked out on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Snow close

Thanks for generally being a balanced admin and doing a good job keeping things calm, but I think the RM close was premature. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia:Snowball_clause#What_the_snowball_clause_is_not: In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of....ut this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous. Andre🚐 18:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If more than half of the editors responding are bringing up good faith concerns of a process issue, including the presented options, as well as several uninvolved admins at AE agree that it is disruptively soon to the earlier RM then it's best to stop the time wasting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more like Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions. There were also quite a few editors who opined that the earlier RMs and move reviews were flawed. I can't agree with your action, as it's not consistent with the historic application of the SNOW clause. Consensus is not a vote. Andre🚐 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that it should be reopened I suggest WP:AN as an appropriate venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that going my way, and I'm not out to ding you. Just wanted to register my disagreement. Andre🚐 21:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• SFR, I don't understand why you felt the need to close a discussion on an article talk page that would normally run for 30 days and undergo a more formal closure process. Would it be possible to engage you and ask why you closed the discussion just a few hours after pinging tens of editors instead of tellus us to post on AN? There is really no rush here and these hasty actions are quite unnecessary. I would like to see you undo the close and let it runs its course. IntrepidContributor (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• SFR, I appreciate your attempts to handle this topic area. I do not think closing it procedurally was a good idea. There is really no other mechanism to "re-argue" a move review, and there is a significant minority (if not majority) of editors who think the move review did not adequately address the concerns in the last move request. The policies and procedures on WP advise that if no consensus can be found, a new discussion can be opened to form a better consensus, and that's actually encouraged. The MR closure, while labeled an "endorse", was more a "this discussion went on so long and there's not a clear consensus here". As such, I do not think either a procedural close or a SNOW close was appropriate. That said, I don't plan to challenge it because I respect that this will be a lot easier to discuss after ArbCom takes action in the topic area. So uh, if you really want to take this in any case, take it as a thank you that you tried, and an apology that it won't have worked/done anything useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  @IntrepidContributor, Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 was an RM, not an RFC. Wikipedia:Requested moves are normally open for seven days, not 30 (also, RFCs are explicitly allowed to run for any length of time, though we suggest that it always be at least one week, and the RFC bot assumes you've forgotten about the RFC if you haven't removed the tag after 30 days). This RM was open for a hair over three days, so about 40% of the usual length.

  If any of you believe the summary does not accurately represent the discussion, then Wikipedia:Move review is the place to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, move review is a better idea than AN, which I mentioned above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I believe what you are doing is improper. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive editing from User:Makeandtoss

Following up the unconcluded issues with the editor we discussed a few days ago here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeleYoetz#Communication_is_not_optional The issue is continuing. Now I saw this extremely problematic editing: (1) Removing completely the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization from the lead, under the claim it does not suit the first paragraph (if that's the issue, why totally delete it from the entire lead? this is a misleading edit summary). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=prev&oldid=1247673123) (2), when they say they "trim to reduce size of lede which is now bloated", they removed only one aspect - the ideology of the group, nonetheless a main aspect. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=next&oldid=1247673123).

This just joins the battleground behavior, casting aspersions and other problematic conduct presented in the above discussion, all happening after the last warning they received, which the closing admin said "is very final, and anything else like this is going to mean sanctions." Isn't it time to resolve this? ABHammad (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• "I say it is a witchhunt, sheer McCarthyism, Big Brother, guilt by association, collective punishment... That I have done nothing wrong and that I am being persecuted for my POV. I think the whole business of banning in these conflict areas ought to be looked at very closely. It becomes a weapon to be used by others who are --in fact-- using wiki as a battlefield." Juanita (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there something preventing you from just following the rules, all of the rules? If you disagree with an edit the way to resolve it is through discussion on the talk page. If that doesn't work, there are RfCs etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please bring this to AE if you believe it needs to be addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Are you aware you semiprotected ANI claiming sockpuppetery? Luhanopi (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like somebody protected wrong page :). You know it prevents IPs from adding topic to ANI? for sure i think Luhanopi (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

could you just go and semi-protect WP:RS/N? i put the request in but ip user is annoying Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Need help logging this

I've blocked [1] - I assume you logged it when you. But I can't search because of the username, which is a major pain. Can you help? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Doug Weller, was it another ECR violation? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I think they need to be reset to 0 also, but not sure how to do that. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Can manually add and revoke extended-confirmed and it won't autoassign, or we can just topic ban them for six months and 500 edits. I guess the benefit of keeping them from EC is they cannot edit through the protection. Logged that block for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. A topic ban would keep them from rushing to 500. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding and removing the permission requires them to go to WP:PERM/EC and convince an admin to give it to them. Six of one, half dozen of another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Pietro Amenta

Hi, just seen this article was speedily deleted as an attack page. The article was on a notable subject and was not an attack page earlier this month. What happened? AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed this at BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Disney+

I don't know why you blocked my other account just for editing the Disney+ wiki. Can you please let me edit a wiki page? IAmSoHandsomeToday (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

To "IAmSoHandsomeToday:

If I think I know the name of that account which has been blocked indefinitely to every Wikipedia page including all user talk pages like this one, you are not permitted to edit during the block on the other account. That definitely applies to both Disney+ and this talk page (since the block on the "other account" affects all types of page), therefore sockpuppetry seems to be admitted. I doubt ScottishFinnishRadish will grant that promise to edit any wiki page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, i am a real person! 2603:6010:B200:8E63:4101:DEAF:2750:5A2A (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry explains better. The first point is part of the method which I've noticed possible logged out editing.

' Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. But i have the right to edit a wiki page if i want to, 2603:6010:B200:8E63:79E7:3DD4:BA9E:1EC9 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy because ma story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

May I point your attention at WP:ITNN#September 5? The first entry is ready, but no admin in sight, - the five who usually do it haven't edited in hours, one not even in days. - It's not by me, I just watch the mood and understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

On my phone during a work day isn't when I want to try editing something onto the main page for the first time, sorry. If I already had some experience, maybe, but that's out of my wheelhouse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and understand. You may have seen that I told Martin a few things, including that in valid "ready" cases like this, they are not rigid about the limit. And indeed, it got posted this morning. (For Maryvonne Le Dizès, however, there was no such "ready" marking when I had to leave home late on that last day, instead only complete ignorance - after one initial support - for three days.) Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday, top of my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

ps: I forgot how long the thread already is, - look for 11 Sep or "Don't canvass about Herbie!". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. - What do you think of my talk page corner for "help wanted", recently recommended? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a great way to seek assistance with articles. I appreciate you taking the criticism and suggestions on board. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't worked, though. You haven't visited the DYK nom ;) - So far one person arrived there and at one of the deletion suggestions (the same person), and nobody at the RD nom, the second day. I will not panic again, I will not panic again, I will not ... - (I'll travel, that will help. Tomorrow will be the last day, as in the other case.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

She's my story today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to report that all four cases where I said that help was needed have now been resolved. - my story today is about one of the greatest users I had the honour to meet here, mentioned in my edit notice, which often helps me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, written for today, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. - I received criticism from two users and had replied. Did you see that? I am generally open to dialogue, - why not use that first before using a method of "criticism" that left me cold? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How about an answer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not see that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - I believe in dialogue ;) - But did you see both criticism and replies (that I tried to post prominently) in the thread that you started on my talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not see that, no. I have 5500 items on my watchlist and dozens of of subscribed discussions. As I've had limited time for Wikipedia recently I missed a whole lot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that very well, but why - under those circumstances - you begin such a thread (that didn't impress me much but caused others trouble I would have liked to see avoided) I still don't know. In case you missed that as well, I felt that you received some questions there (before I even woke up), and I gave you just three questions, with a ping, but you probably receive 50 pings per hour. I'd appreciate if you took some suggestions on board. I'm going to archive the thread with the turn of the month. I looked at my talk page on a mobile today and didn't like the scrolling ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't archive the thread completely - I have nothing to hide - but shortened it. You have one more month to say shortly what you took away from it, for the future. Yesterday was another similar case: Michael Sladek was nominated for RD, one support only on the last day, and I had to be out. I had learned to not make him my story before he appeared, not even on the last possible day which - to make it harder - was his birthday. I only approached the three admins who had indicated that they were open to such pings (who all had not been available in the other case), and the article received a second support and then a promotion by a fourth admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

ps: he and his wife are my story today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In your RSN clean up...

...you missed this one. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

They're baaaaaaack. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

And someone else has now squooshed it, so you don't need to worry about it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA question

Hello again, I noticed that you AE protected Gold Apollo AR924. Does that also mean WP:Articles for deletion/Gold Apollo AR924 is under WP:ECR? If so, I think the AfD page may need EC protection since there are several IPs and new accounts that have participated there. I can help clean up, or you can, either way is fine. Left guide (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That AfD is a bit in the middle. I didn't indefinitely protect the paper article, since it's not primarily about the conflict, so if the IPs at the AfD aren't discussing the conflict, it's fine. I'll review the AfD when I have a chance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I tidied up and protected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Need help with a page please

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish, hope all is well! I am reaching out to an admin for some help please. I noticed that a page I edited, Louis Lagassé, has been changed because the material I posted is unfavourable to the subject in question. It is however properly sourced. I also suspect that the user Media5130 has a conflict of interest in the matter. Here is the diff:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_Lagass%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=1248834866] . Thank you in advance for any help. Pramod8375 (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the section entirely. WP:BLP is clear on this, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you. For clarification, if newspapers published articles relating to the mentioned court records, can I use them as sources? Should I rewrite the article with more sources? Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Pramod8375 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is sustained secondary coverage of the lawsuits demonstrating that it is WP:NOTNEWS then that would be what you'd have to use to have a mention in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

A user refusing to change a username which violates a username policy

I have a question User talk:Garethbot has made a claim that his username is hbot therefore not violating username policy he then says im a bot why don’t i have the bot tag
He then ignores me and continues editing what should i do. report him but he’s editing in good faith he’s just confused and i tried explaining •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You can report them to WP:UAA, and there is also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you
Cheers, cyber •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already soft-blocked them, as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

you removed verified and trusted references from Reuters.181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:ECR and the messages I left on your talk page. You cannot make any edits relating to the Arab/Israel conflict except for edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit notices on ECR talks

Hi, I've noticed you've been doing a lot of ECR talk page enforcement for WP:CT/AI; one well-intentioned editor brought up a point of inquiry about placing an edit notice on ECR talks to warn non-EC editors about the edit requests-only rule. I'm sure this would have to go to/through ARBCOM, but I'm really not too familiar with how ARBCOM works so I figured I'd come here for your insight anyway. :) estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt, but no one would read it. I think it's already in the edit notice as well, but banner blindness is real. I normally leave a {{welcome-arbpia}} most of the time when I revert, which lays it out in plain language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:* IP cleanup

From the [history] page of an article, there's at least one way of rev-del'ing lots of revisions at once (even non-consecutive ones by multiple editors). Might be useful for the current spate of disruption, given how obvious and extensive these edits are on any one page. That would definitely be less explosive for our watchlists of these pages (and possibly more efficient for you as well). DMacks (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That would necessitate waiting until the disruption paused to make the revision deletions, wouldn't it? I normally just block, revert, and revdel from the contribs page. Their efforts at disruption aren't really worth more than the minimum of effort to counter, so if I can do it in a few taps on one page I do it that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Might be even faster then to semi-protect the page as the first step (stop it from getting worse)? DMacks (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:99.237.230.117

Hi, can you please remove TPA for User talk:99.237.230.117 after they kept on going on slur-filled rants after their block? They also already used an antisemitic slur (which I've removed) just before you blocked them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

[2]

I'm tempted to make this indefinite. Their comments are unacceptable and suggest they won't change. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been stewing on the best way to handle that. I feel like it's going to end at an indef. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed TPA. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Category talk:Professional wrestling controversies on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 09:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Landmark Worldwide on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 15:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Note that I wouldn't have lifted your block without consulting you if it was a direct block on that user, or if I had any doubt about the WP:CHECKUSER technical evidence. This was a pretty straight-forward case, though. Nothing wrong with your original block on the other account, and autoblocks help far, far more often than they hurt. Hope you have a great day! --Yamla (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't a dig at you, and if you ever think I've placed a block in error you're more than welcome to unblock without consulting me. It's just that normally I see you declining unblock requests from people like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeap. It really makes my day when I get to accept an unblock request. So, so, so many unblock requests just completely miss the point. That particular user... I hope once the U.S. election is over, most of this nonsense goes away. But, I'm a hopeless optimist. --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Been an honor working with you and want to work with you more thanks for the blocks •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about ECR

Could you answer this please? [3] Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Is General 1RR still a thing or is it 1-per-page?

Hi, hope you don't mind a quick clarification. Is there still a 1-revert-in-all-ARBPIA-topic rule? Or is it 1-per-page? I could've sworn there was a General 1RR in place. However, I cannot find where that is clearly enumerated. Can you help me, please, when you have a minute? Andre🚐 22:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's per page. Topic wide wouldn't be enforceable, I don't think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, so Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) are no longer in effect, right? Huh. I wonder why I thought it was. Andre🚐 23:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That was still just a page sanction applied to every page in the topic area, I believe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Not sure what happened in my alternate universe. Must be one of those Mandela Effects. Andre🚐 00:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. There's a lot of sanctions and prior sanctions and adjusted sanctions and discretionary to CTOP adjustments. I've made some mistakes myself keeping track of it all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)