Misplaced Pages

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:39, 6 December 2024 editScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators61,338 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:37, 19 January 2025 edit undoJFHJr (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,147 edits →Talk:Scott Ritter: ReplyTag: Reply 
(255 intermediate revisions by 70 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
}}<!-- 11:43 October 1, 2021 (UTC), ScottishFinnishRadish added ] --> }}<!-- 11:43 October 1, 2021 (UTC), ScottishFinnishRadish added ] -->


== "grooming gangs"-related disruption ==
== cand q ==


Thanks for protecting the ] article, Elon Musk has caused a right ruckus about this . The {{articlelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}} article is getting a lot of related disruptive edits like . Would it be possible to semi-protect it for like a week until the contoversy has died down? ] (]) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:
* ''']''' chose ]er by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—], ], ], ] and ]—for a recital at the ].


:I gave it a week, let me know if it needs more when that expires.
What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- ] (]) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:Odd to see the confluence of Indian anti-Pakistani sentiment and homegrown xenophobia. ] (]) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In part, a divide and conquer tactic by the likes of ] probably. ] (]) 05:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== A great username ==
:Those articles don't, in and of themselves, tell me a lot about infoboxes, other than that most of them have infoboxes. Quick power ranking on their hair, though.
:#] - Off center widows peak over male-pattern baldness. Wild wings on the sides. Combined with the expression he really communicates "intense Austrian composer"
:#] - always maximum respect for a pompadour
:#] - I'll always believe that Picard was the best captain, and this haircut communicates that. Middle of the road though, as the default bald guy cut
:#] - trying to pull off the "genius that doesn't care about his hair" look, but Schreker did it much better
:#] - looks like he's going to a job interview at a bank
:] (]) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
:: Thank you for loooking! - November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in ]. - You may be too young (on WP) to know that infoboxes are a declared contentious topic, - sorry that my question was unclear. Do you think they still deserve the label. I found one candidate so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, ]. There are two composers on the Main page today, ] and ]. I find the response of my friend ] to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? --] (]) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


Why hello there!
:Having closed around a dozen infobox RFCs, I think they're still fairly contentious. The CTOP designation serves to let people know they have to be on their best behavior which is important when dealing with an issue that is the subject of strong disagreement. ] (]) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


I just spotted your username for the first time ever (in the Administrators' newsletter), and have to say you have a great username.
== Gaza Genocide ==


Have a great day! :)
I believe you protected Talk on Gaza Genocide. I have insufficient editing experience to qualify for the proper status to post on Talk for this page. I was wondering how it is possible to communicate the simplest information. Specifically, a reference to the link of UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese's latest report
Genocide as Colonial Erasure from October 2024 is missing. This is the link:


''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/genocide-as-colonial-erasure-report-francesca-albanese-01oct24/


:Thanks! My old roommate drew a picture of me as an old timey bare knuckle boxer and coined that as my boxer name. ] (]) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The reference number should be placed before number 240. I hope you or someone else will add it.


== Appeal ==
Is there any way I can post a topic on Talk to add information for someone else to consider and edit? I understand the importance of restricting access to controversial topics. I am only starting to edit again, after a 7 year absence, and I never edited much to begin with. I would like to improve accuracy of topics with minor additions. ] (]) 11:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


A while ago, I was topic banned by you as per this report-. I haven't edited since late November, but I was wondering if you could reconsider your decision.
:You can request that edit at ] where patrollers will check it and either action it, move it to the talk page for further discussion, or decline it. ] (]) 12:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you. ] (]) 12:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::No problem. I'm going to place a couple messages on your talk page that explain some of the peculiarities of the ARBPIA topic area. ] (]) 12:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


I acknowledge that my behavior and edits were subpar at the A/E report, but I strongly believe that overall on the main-space, I am a productive editor who always uses high quality sources and abides by Misplaced Pages's norms on content creation. I believe my interactions with GoDG were an aberration in which things got overly heated and led to frivolous back and forths on Misplaced Pages A/E when they should have been resolved through good faith, substantive discussions on the t/p and related dispute resolution noticeboards. I strongly maintain that I did make a genuine, good faith attempt to resolve the related content on DN- in which I laid out a case to summarize and include content based on high quality sources while the A/E was going on.
== Report ==


I'd also like to point out that this topic area on Misplaced Pages has quite a few bad actors including perennial sockpuppets and some unserious editors who use this platform to inflate, and in many cases, fabricate historical events in order to aggrandize their communities. For many years, I've been a guardrail against a lot of these bad actors and have done a lot to prevent them from disrupting and vandalizing Misplaced Pages.
Hey,


If unbanned, I would learn from my recent experiences in order to leaven my interactions with editors I have had intense content disputes with, such as trying not to let my personal feelings or disdain cloud my judgment on Misplaced Pages, I'd confront any disagreement between myself and another editor through only discussing the issue on the article's talk page, and I'd make a resolute commitment to immediately de-escalating conflicts and avoiding and language that would affront the other party.
Take a look on that ] please.


] (]) 15:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Thanks. ] (]) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:It is an IP that made a series of edits over 13 minutes two weeks ago, and was blocked. At this point there's nothing else to do. ] (]) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) :As this was placed based on the consensus of administrators at AE I will not unilaterally lift it. You can appeal at AE, but it is very unlikely that it will be successful without demonstrating constructive editing in other topics. ] (]) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok, when I do hit 6 months/500 edits, do I have to appeal at a certain noticeboard or will it automatically be lifted? ] (]) 21:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It will automatically be lifted. Please give ] a quick review, too. It is expected that your edits will be, for the most part, substantial. A bunch of small copy edits that appear like you're making edits just to reach 500 could result in further sanctions. ] (]) 21:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ok, thank you. ] (]) 21:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Udham Singh == == January music ==
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg
| image_upright = 1.2
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
], my ] 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. ] will be my story tomorrow. - Happy new year! --] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:Happy new year, Gerda! ] (]) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, it is regarding sockpuppetry by , who was blocked for removal of sourced content and making legal threats. Apparently, they are back with . Have a look . - ] (]) 10:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Thank you! - My ] is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --] (]) 11:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I gave a quick look at one of her dance videos, and unfortunately it's not much my style. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for being curious! - Today a violinist from Turkey, ], whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: ... and today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ]. --] (]) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== You have competition! ==
:Blocked. Might be meat, rather than a sock, but the effect is the same. ] (]) 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


{{u|WelshSwedishTurnip}} ] (]) 16:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Edit warring at ] ==


:This is certain to be a productive editor. We'll see how it plays out. ] (]) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Could you take a look at ]? An IP editor is edit warring against multiple editors. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Admin in a week. ] (]) 16:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:Nevermind already taken care of. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:I see they were just blocked. Just one IP address in the past month, so not going to protect now, but if you see it continue just let me know. ] (]) 15:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Will do, thanks. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== Resolution Path for ECR Topics ==
== 1259510796 ==
Hello. You and I met during a low-grade spat I had while learning that sectional EC restrictions were enforced manually. I have a question related to the resolution paths available when an EC edit request is not replied to. Is RfC for example, applicable to contentious topics? Many thanks!] (]) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:You cannot start an RFC in a topic covered by ] until you are extended-confirmed, so if your edit request is not enacted then you have no recourse until you are extended-confirmed. ] (]) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
can be deleted, too.
::Thank you for the reply. ] (]) 03:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Taha Danesh ==
Also, I'm noticing a very unusual error, when I compare diffs between the LTA and a clean version, it won't show, obviously, because I'm not an admin, but then it also pops up the following in a red box:
Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, I want to bring you a complaint about Taha Danesh. On and elsewhere this editor is being very disruptive. They reverted my addition and falsely accused me of everything in a frankly bizarre edit summary:. This was ironic because I did explain my edit and use sources while BLP clearly doesn't apply. Even worse is that they deleted the content about executions and child soldiers last month without explanation: and . Their are other blatantly POV issues with these edits including about the fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. They have made numerous edits like this across other pages and have gotten into many edit wars recently.


I saw on their talk page you notified them about some of their templates that are up for deletion. I think Taha Danesh is using an IP address disruptively . The latest edits on the IP were reverted by you because they deleted the deletion templates you added. I figured I would make you aware that they are the same person. This IP has exclusively edited the same pages as Taha Danesh, including edit warring mainly on pages created by Taha Danesh. Examples include: , and .
<nowiki>User doesn't have access to the requested revision (The revision #1259514017 belongs to a deleted page. You can ; details can be found in the .).</nowiki>


Thanks for your time. ] (]) 20:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
(I've nowikied the above, because the error box ''literally'' shows that).] ] (]) 16:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


:Not sure what's up with the error. Maybe because some adjacent revision is deleted? I took care of 796. Thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC) :I have given them a CTOP alert for post-1978 Iranian politics. If the disruption continues I suggest you make a report at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I couldn't find the message in ]. Are there other places where they are located?
::Also, 1259514953 is still live. ] (]) 16:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::All set. As for the message, you got me stumped. VPT is probably a better venue for that as I'm blissfully unaware of where many of those messages are located. ] (]) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Ok, I'll post this at VPT
::::wait... there's more than 5000 messages, hang on ] (]) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::It seems like ] would be the closest match.
:::::Posting to VPT... ] (]) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


::Thanks for taking a look. ] (]) 21:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Request additional revision deletion at ] ==


Hi {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, sorry to bother you again but could you please give another warning to Taha Danesh as they have continued to edit war and there are obvious competence issues. Only an hour after you gave them the CTOP alert they continued to edit war at with another odd edit summary that didn't really reflect their edit. Fortunately ] reverted them and pointed out that the sources were clearly reliable and to make their case on the talk page.
Hi, I recently noticed you ] at ], but there are some remaining vandalising edits (most notably, ) whose offending content and edit summaries are still visible. Would it be okay if you redacted the content and edit summaries on the remaining offending edits? ] (]) 16:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{tpw|safe=yes}} the user doing this is an attention-seeking troll. The less we do the better, and revdel doesn't actually stop them doing anything. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::I normally just zap the ones I see when I revert. They're not really worth more than minimal effort. ] (]) 17:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


After a few days of calm they started edit warring over the same issue this time on ]. Yesterday they of a figure without using an edit summary and reinserted a completely unsourced estimate of "several". In the last hour they have again reverted me three further times with bizarre edit summaries where they claim that Amnesty International and NBC news are "clearly biased and politically motivated". They also didn't seem to understand what "several" meant. They also repeatedly claimed that my usage of "thousands" was unsourced even though I quoted Amnesty in my edit summary; , & .
== Revdel request at ] ==


Thanks. ] (]) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
again. Does this signal the TP might need protection from unregistered users? Thanks as ever for your thoughts. ] (]) 00:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


:That was fast. Thank you so much! ] (]) 00:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC) :I suggest you bring this to ]. ] (]) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::No problem. There's not enough disruption at this point for talk page protection, since it looks like the last issue was two weeks ago. If it pops up again, let me know, and thanks for keeping a weather eye. ] (]) 00:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


::Ok, I will look to do that shortly. I will add that they just reverted for a in only two hours. ] (]) 21:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Block conflict ==


== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
I've reverted my block of {{checkuser|Trampled crop field}} to the settings you had posted. Looks like we had a conflict there. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Bare Naked Multiple Account Abuse==


== Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment ==
Hello ]! Return of ] making Subtle/Silly edits, this time as ]. Same changes as last time to the amount in the song title "If I Had $1,000,000". Kind of sad that they have nothing better to do. Could you please block the account? At least this should help toward that mortgage, you guys do get a bounty right? :) Thanks for your time! ] (]) 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:All set, thanks for the heads-up. ] (]) 02:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hello ]! Goodness, you're fast! Thank-you kindly for your work! Take care, ] (]) 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment ==
== Vegan416 ==


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi SFR, I wonder if you'd consider lifting your TBAN of {{u|Vegan416}}? Maybe you'll need to hear from him, but I thought I'd try to facilitate as someone more comfortable with such wiki processes. I reached out to him because he had done some extremely substantive work, such as this ], and I hoped to see more of that.


== Permission to respond freely to a false sock-puppetry accusation ==
I think the reasons for the TBAN were valid, but it has been 4 months which seems like a significant sanction already. Can't be sure that the issues won't recur, but I would argue that a second chance makes sense given Vegan's unique substantive contributions. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 15:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


:I can say that I realize that speaking publicly about other editors' personal political (or other) opinions is against the rule, and I can promise to avoid doing that again in the future. ] (]) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) I have been falsely accused by @] of sock puppetry. As his "evidence" is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic I have been banned from by you, I need your approval to be able to respond to his false accusation freely. ] (]) 22:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Per ], {{tq|Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction.}} Looking at their contributions since the topic ban, I see some sub-par BLP editing that makes me a bit wary about lifting any topic ban unilaterally. ] (]) 16:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::What is the meaning of "unilaterally" in this context? ] (]) 11:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::On my own, as the administrator who sanctioned you. I would rather you get broader input through appealing at AE or AN. ] (]) 11:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


:That's close enough to ] where I think it's fine. I urge you to focus specifically on the evidence and be as brief as possible. ] (]) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
== Appeal on indefinite ban on topic ==


== Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment ==
Hello SFR, One year and one month ago, you banned me "indefinitely from any edits related to the Arab/Israel conflict" for unknowingly committing "a 1RR" violation even though I had undone the violation by myself immediately after realizing it was a 1RR, before anyone had done any other edits to the page, and before your ban. I argued at the time that it was clear that I simply hadn't noticed that it was a 1RR violation, as I explicitly stated in the edit summary that I was again reverting someone else's undue removal of content, and only a few minutes later I undid my own edit as I realized it would constitute a 1RR in less than 24 hours violation on my part, but still you ruled to ban me "indefinitely" as, according to you, the Arab/Israel conflict was too serious for someone who was not 100% familiar with the 1RR violation rule. Now that over one year has passed since then, and as I truly believe that a permanent ban (for a violation that had already been corrected by myself in a matter of minutes) was a harsh decision, I intend to appeal the indefinite ban. Before taking the matter to appropriate mechanisms of ban reviews, though, I decided to present these arguments first to you, and to therefore ask if you would be willing to consider removing the indefinite ban yourself. Thank you very much for your time and attention, and for all the time dedicated to Misplaced Pages, and have a good day. ] (]) 08:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:You made far more edits in the week leading to your topic ban than you've made in the past year so it's difficult to determine if there's been a significant improvement. If you do appeal I suggest you mention your earlier 6 month topic ban that came with an explicit warning, {{tq|I would strongly caution you (Dan Palraz@) though that if there are any problematic edits in this topic area after the topic ban expires you will almost definitely end up with an indefinite topic ban and that given that the behaviour continued it would be difficult to successfully appeal.}} as it provides some context to your indefinite topic ban. ] (]) 11:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


== Block Evasion == == your suggestion ==
You used these words "Block Evasion" to revert multiple edits today on airport pages. What does this phrase mean and why did you use it to revert edits ? ] (]) 14:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


Hey, SFR! You wrote ] {{xt|maybe a rule against making comments. Non-parties can only provide evidence pertaining to the report, and any commentary can be removed by an admin as a clerking action}}, and I didn't want to ask there because I'm probably just stupid. Are you meaning 'relevant diff, or don't open a section'? ] (]) 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I was mass-reverting the edits of an editor that was evading blocks on a number of other IP addresses. ] (]) 14:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::Some of the edits were good - I would have done the same edits. ] (]) 14:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Feel free to reinstate any edits that you believe were an improvement. ] (]) 14:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


:More or less, yeah. I wouldn't specifically say someone would need a diff or link, since someone might be providing context to an action related to the report or something similar. The general idea being we don't need people showing up sniping at each other or just giving an opinion on the situation. ] (]) 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
== Question about what constitutes edit warring (@]) ==
Hello {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{ping|Barkeep49}}. I wanted to ask you for some guidance whether the following situation amounts to edit warring.
* Following a content dispute whether the "]" should be included on the ] article, an RfC was started on 22 November.
* On 27 November, despite the ongoing RfC, User:Selfstudier added content related to the "Gaza genocide" to the article.
* Another editor reverted the addition and requested that Selfstudier refrain from adding the disputed content while the RfC is still ongoing.
* A few minutes later, Selfstudier restored it anyway
Selfstudier says the RfC is about the lead, not the body, but the RfC is clearly about the body too (check the text here ).
I contacted Selfstudier on their talk page asking them to self-revert but they said this wasn't edit warring , asking me to re-read the RfC (which I read, and is clearly on the body too) and threatened to report me for making a 'false accusation'. Then they went on to remove our discussion from the page . Overall this isn't the first time I'm seeing Selfstudier doing this for content that is being discussed in an RfC following a content dispute. What should one make out of this case? thanks. ] (]) 06:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


== Split request for vagina page ==
:I trust this isn't going to be treated at all seriously. ] (]) 15:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:Additionally, appears related to . What should one make out of that? ] (]) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:This seems like the type of thing that, if you believe some action is necessary, should go to AE rather than to a single admin. ] (]) 21:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] I did ] (]) 15:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{TPS}} {{courtesy link|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Selfstudier}} <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


Hi, you reverted a removal of the "split request" notice on ] by ] with the reasoning "Rv sock" but the same user closed the request on ]. Either the split request has to be reopened, or the notice has to be removed from the article. I removed the notice from the article, but if you're going to restore it, then please reopen the request on the talk page. ] (]) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Selfstudier}} ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)


:Looks like {{u|M.Bitton}} took care of this. Thanks. ] (]) 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
== TB? ==

See https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Doug_Weller#User_TheCuratingEditor

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/TheCuratingEditor ] ] 14:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:I would have blocked a few times by now for ECR violations if I had been aware. A topic ban is more than reasonable in my book. ] (]) 21:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== '']'' arbitration case opened ==

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260341982 -->

== A little follow-up ==

Just need a repeat of the archive sorting ]; mainly asking you so I don't have to explain it again; might be worth watchlisting that page, thanks. ] (]) 19:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:All set. I have it on my watchlist, but there's 5800 other pages on my watchlist, so stuff slips by. ] (]) 21:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::It's all good I understand. Thanks, ] (]) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries, thanks for keeping an eye out. ] (]) 22:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


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


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC) ]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== Thanks for watching the Zionism talk page ==

I originally came to ask about my comment's inclusion in ], but I understand now that you're currently "pruning" the talk page, so to speak.

As such, I'll instead thank you for your diligence. I understand that, with how contentious this topic is, "babysitting" it is exhausting work, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate that work of yours nonetheless. ] (]) 22:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for that. Using an LLM to waste everyone's time is bad enough, but with the new word limits it's egregiously bad. ] (]) 22:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Apologies for returning to this matter, but after some consideration, the usage of an LLM, & my previous ], I wanted to ask if ] should be hatted as well?
::If they are genuine quotes & I simply failed my attempt at sleuthing, I'll gladly eat crow, but I thought it'd be best to ask just in case.
::Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorted. I've already pulled their EC permission, as well, so ECR applies to them again. ] (]) 00:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

== VOA TPA ==

Might want to unplug talk page access for ]. Thanks, —&nbsp;] ] 00:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:All set, thanks. ] (]) 00:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

== On LLM checking ==

Hi SFR, I noticed you have recently been clearing up some LLM text from talk pages, I was just wondering if there was any specific tool you were using to flag/check whether a text was likely generated by an LLM? -- ] (]) 10:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:Many LLMs write with a particular style that stands out like a beacon when you're familiar with it. That's all I use. In my experience, the tools are essentially worthless. ] (]) 12:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:: You just deleted a message from my talk page and I'm puzzled by the deletion. . Is it correct that you don't have any evidence it was generated by a LLM but deleted it anyways based on a gut feeling?
:: Boutboul posted a list of 4 references supporting a particular claim. He posted the same references in the Zionism rfc and also you shut down that part of the discussion. LLMs tend to make up facts, but I was able to check the 3rd reference on archive.org and it was sourced correctly.
:: So what makes you think it was generated by a LLM? --] (]) 16:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The recent removals are because they are no longer extended-confirmed. I removed the permission for gaming. ] (]) 16:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

== Removing comment on private Talk Page ==

So if I understand correctly you also have the right to remove comment added on private talk page without giving any indication of the issue? ] (]) 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing on Misplaced Pages is private. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the wording correction, I wanted to say on a "user talk" page. So an admin can do that without giving any explanation? ] (]) 16:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The explanation is in the edit summary, you were violating ECR. ] (]) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], ] ] ] ]. Same as any other editor. And for what it is worth he did leave an explanation in his edit summary; specifically enforcing ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your time and explanation but still unclear. How is an edit on a user’s talk page comparable to an edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? The page itself does not concern the topic. ] (]) 16:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The edit concerns the topic, and ] says {{tq|The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed}}. ] (]) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

== Suggestion? ==

So, I have avoided DFW as promised, until they a page they know is on my watchlist. I made a , fixing their punctuation and adding ref tags to what appeared to be a chunk of OR/personal opinion. After which, they , tagging me in the edit summary, and have now () another page that I had recently edited (that is completely outside of their normal wheelhouse, clearly following my contribs) and left talk page , in an apparent attempt to get me to respond. Could you maybe leave a note about adding unsourced OR content, and them purposely trying to goad me into interacting with them? - ] (]) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:Is that what they called first mover advantage?
:*{{tq| So, I have avoided DFW as promised}}
:** No. You to ]. It’s the second time already since 11 Nov. That’s why I leave hoping that you can stop.
:**I first edited that article as early as Aug 2023 , with over 124 edits . You never edited that article until you started to have conflicts with me. You only made your first edit to that article on , after you were blocked for gravedancing (in Oct).
:**In the last month (November) I’ve only edited 5 articles. And you “happened to edit” one of them, *right after* my edit.
:*{{tq| they edited a page they know is on my watchlist}}
:** Untrue again. That page is on my watchlist since 2023 Aug. How can I know if it’s on your watchlist?
:* {{tq|left two talk page comments, in an apparent attempt to get me to respond}}
:**This is completely unfound false claim. I made an edit to an article and then leave a talk page comment to , what’s wrong with that? You wrongly accused me of “assumed you are the OP” and I leave a comment to , again, what’s wrong with that?
:*{{tq| Could you maybe leave a note about adding unsourced OR content, and them purposely trying to goad me into interacting with them? }}
:** this is apparently ABF (Also, you specifically tagged what I’ve just added, and is now accusing me of OR, which is ] ) and appeared to be bullying/canvassing our admin.
:--] (]) 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::Suggestion for admin: Could you maybe leave a note reminding them to keep the they made in their unblock request and “not to have any further interaction with the user in question, 'thanks' or otherwise, and in the future will let editors dig their own hole without my help.” and them repeatedly making untrue claims about me? --] (]) 20:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Please explain how you came upon ] and this page, immediately after I had edited each, having never edited either yourself in the past if you are not tracking my contribs and hounding me? It's been a month, ] already... - ] (]) 20:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Please explain how you came upon Air pollution in Hong Kong (11 Nov), Air pollution in the United Kingdom
::::(), Joss paper (), Asian News International (), mostly immediately after I had edited each, having never edited either yourself in the past if you are not tracking my contribs and hounding me? It's been *many* weeks already, when will that stop? You are hounding me like that, even after a block, of course I need to watch your contribs, otherwise how can I know when will I suddenly got wrongfully sanctioned after you apparently canvassed/bullied whoever admins, etc.? To be frank, you should have been sanctioned for all that a long time ago. Now I’m the “ very hypocritical bad faith incompetent deceptive editor who sh*t on others who persistently making disruptive edits, casting aspersions, wikilawyering, showing classic WP:TE” with a block log showing that I’ve been blocked for a week, while you were only blocked for less than one day. Why are you still unsatisfied and refused to drop the stick and move on? --] (]) 21:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I checked your contributions back when we were arguing and during the AN/I report because you refused to stop using curly q's, and I knew those would need to be fixed. I have had zero interaction with you since the AN/I report closed. I made over 750 edits in November, all completely unrelated to you or the pages we mutually watch. You then made several edits to ] one day, and all I did was (again) fix your punctuation and tag your apparent OR for citations. One single good faith edit fixing your mistakes, no comments, no calling you out in long edit summaries, no tracking your contributions for the past month. I didn't even respond to your edit summary, hoping you would realize it was a good faith edit. Now, you are claiming you "need to watch my contribs" and that I "should have been sanctioned a long time ago" for bullying admins? I'm sorry I made a good faith edit fixing your punctuation on an article you knew I was watching, but that does not justify you hounding me a month later just because you didn't get your way at AN/I. Seriously, get over it, and leave me the hell alone! Walking away now, gonna go watch a movie cuz you have once again ruined WP for me, I will await SFR's reply. - ] (]) 21:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|ou refused to stop using curly q's}} Untrue again. I didn’t refuse to stop using that, I told you in my talk page that it might be a problem of my device which I can’t control. When will all these stop??? Please!
::::::I do see a lot of “a good faith edit” initiated by you on this talk page. And good to know that you’ve found a reason (fixing curly q's?) to break your promise in your unblock request. By “you should have been sanctioned a long time ago” I mean your hounding behaviour from article to article which lasted for many weeks (that’s a lot of ___ faith edits) up to now and all the untrue claims, etc. --] (]) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think a third opinion can be useful here, let’s see if ] can offer us some help. --] (]) 22:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry, I don't have time to help with this or even read the discsussion. You might have a look at ] it it's a content dispute. -- ] (]) 04:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for the reply. It’s ok. Hmm.. I’m not sure that it’s a content dispute, as I have already reverted my edit before the drama on this page, but they just won’t stop their persistent problematic behaviour. Thanks anyway. --] (]) 04:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|Dustfreeworld}}, they have been avoiding you since the unblock, so bringing up six week old diffs isn't very constructive. It's also not a reason to follow them to another article. You two just need to stop interacting. Unfortunately, I don't see any CTOP I can leverage to place an Iban unilaterally, so I'll just ask you both to stop, and take it to ANI if you feel you need to. Then the community can impose an Iban or other sanctions. Really, though, knock it off. ] (]) 12:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thank you SFR, I have no issues, as mentioned. I have avoided them as promised, it was a very simple good faith fix on a mutually watched page (which DFW knew that I watched from our previous interaction), 48 hours after they had made their edit (when I happened to notice it on my watchlist), and after a month of purposely NOT interacting with them otherwise. I didn't think "zero interaction" would include "allow them to purposely introduce bad punctuation, grammatical errors, and OR to a page you both mutually watch a month later". I assumed (yeah, I know...) that DFW would see it as the good faith "olive branch" edit that it was, I never expected it to turn into "I can harass you, and your promise means you can't do anything about it". I will be happy to take this to AN/I though, if DFW wishes, now that they have openly admitted to tracking all my contribs for the last month just to harass me and seems to still have an axe to grind from the original AN/I report. I apologize, I never meant for all this to happen on your talk page. - ] (]) 14:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment ==

]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

== WP:HOUNDING, and enforcing policies and guidelines ==

Apologies for bothering you on your talk page, but I was wondering if you could spare some advice. I am leaving the name of the editor this is about off intentionally.

I had a dispute with a user around a year or so ago who said that they didn't need to follow WP:V, essentially. This wasn't a new user, but a user who has been here for close to 12+ years and who had been warned several times for their edits by other users (no admin warnings from what I remember)

So I went over several of their older edits at the time and realized that they would insert material with citations that didn't mention what was added to the article or said something entirely different, insert links to primary documents in BLP articles, insert links to piracy sites containing pirated software, just a whole mess of things.

I've tried not to hound them since I firmly believe everyone deserves peace when editing here (within reason), but it has drawn their past edits into question. I don't want to go through and edit 75+ edits of theirs for not following correct policies, since as a regular editor that would certainly annoy me. I have for the most part only edited five or less of their edits in that year time frame but am curious when this should be brought to ANI, or if it's better to just let them go about their editing. I occasionally check their edits to make sure there isn't anything super terrible that justifies immediate removal but feel like this is borderline harassment of them, and wanted to ask the proper steps.

Thank you for whatever advice you can give!
] (]) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:If you've spoken with them without positive results and the behavior is continuing ANI is certainly an option, or AE if their editing is in a ] and they're aware of the CTOP designation. Really, though, how you handle it is up to how you feel, and if you think it's worth whatever can of worms could be opened. ] (]) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

awshort does harass and needs to stop stalking me and anyone else. They are not a victim and seldom change anything of value. I saw my “targeted killings” edit was reverted because the allegation was that my sources which said exact dollar amounts of $15,000 and $30,000 paid by Iranian proxies to kill people in the west was alleged to not be accurate. ] (]) 00:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:@] I removed that in mid November. Since you weren't tagged to this conversation, and no user was mentioned by name, what brought you here?
:] (]) 01:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::@] I am here in an act of self defense from you. ] (]) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] That didn't answer the question - you weren't pinged, and I wasn't specific on who I was talking about. So unless you are following my edits, I'm unsure why you came here or why you specifically believe this is in regards to you.
:::] (]) 04:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

== ] ==

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, could you explain why you're closing the discussion with 'Sacrebleu' please? Did something go wrong? Or do you have any concerns about it? Kind regards, – ] • <small>]</small> • 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:They didn't have access because they were blocked on French Misplaced Pages. I was just exclaiming in French. ] (]) 17:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

== Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service ==

]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ], and &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

== Possible 1RR violation ==

I believe is a 1RR violation, right? I'm checking to make sure before I request the person self-reverts. ] (]) 18:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Yes, it is. ] (]) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Raskolnikov.Rev}}, I've requested a self-revert. ] (]) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you, I did too at the same time so hadn't seen yours yet, but that's alright, I also added a response to the edit summary. ] (]) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

== Remove my ban ==

Hi, Please remove my ban of editing Indian subcontinent contents. I am feeling sorry and will not edit contents with Talk. Please remove. ] (]) 09:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I will not be unilaterally removing the topic ban any time in the immediate future. I suggest you edit other topics for at least six months to demonstrate you can do so constructively. ] (]) 11:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::But it's ban for indian subcontinent. Remove ban of these area ] (]) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If you know you're banned, why did you make ? An Indian actor in the Indian film and television industry is pretty clearly under a topic ban for India. ''']''' (]) 04:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

== what should one do when in dispute with a ]? ==

thank for your assistance ] (]) 11:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


== A cookie for you! ==
:{{tps}} You might want to start by disclosing previous IPs or accounts that you've used to edit from as this was your second-ever edit from this IP and there is nothing in your edit history to indicate you're in a dispute with the ]. ] (]) 13:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:This looks more like an ] issue than an unblockable issue. ] (]) 20:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, but whoever wrote that unlockables essay is some kind of supper insightful genius. ] ] 20:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::<small>Oh great mystic, tell me what I will have for dinner..!</small> ] (]) 20:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::dammit. I recently started using Grammarly because I make so many typos, but once in a while it backfires. ] ] 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::They're also unlockable because you're not a steward. ] (]) 21:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
==]==
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Well done for taking care of that talk page vandal at the range ]! I did my own rangeblock calculations and ended up at the same /41 destination. I also found out that the vandalism had actually been going on since more than a week ago, and was about to message you about it beforehand, until I noticed you already blocked it! —&nbsp;] ] 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|}


:Glad to help out. I checked the /32 as well, but didn't seem like they were on that whole range, although the extra edits still weren't great. ] (]) 12:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I had a question about a topic ban you placed on Southasianhistorian8. A similar sanction was placed by ] on another editor. Is this 500 main space edits or 500 edits in any namespace of the project? It seems like a fair sanction I was just wondering what the intent was here. Thanks for clarifying this for me. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ec}} (I was going to do the range searching before I made the AIV report, but the disruption was rapid enough that I went a little 'hasty' and reported the latest address instead.) —&nbsp;] ] 13:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Can't speak for SFR, but my view on it is that it is 500 edits anywhere, not just to mainspace. Of course if an editor is clearly "gaming" that part, e.g., makes 500 one-letter edits to their sandbox, that can be seen as bad faith and the sanction can be extended or made indefinite. But I think if anything, it is even ''more'' valuable for a sanctioned editor to, for example, learn to participate constructively in discussions and the like, so I certainly have no problem counting non-mainspace edits. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's basically my view. The whole point is to get them involved in other places, which may involve discussions on article talk pages, BLPN, NPOVN, and similar venues. All of that is good experience and shows that they're expanding their involvement rather than sticking in a topic where there have been issues. The hope is that when the ban expires they have enough experience elsewhere to let them see where they might be making missteps. ] (]) 12:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC) :::That's the right way to handle it. I blocked the /64 initially, then started looking into the range. ] (]) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
== When does WP:GAMING for permissions go stale? ==


If you have time and are inclined to redact, . Thanks as always for action or feedback. ] (]) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I've come across an editor who I believe gamed their extended-confirmed permission and since then has posted almost exclusively within the PIA space, with some attention paid to the war in Ukraine. Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, they made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th; they stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. But they do now have over 1,200 edits, and I'm wondering if this is still something that should be reported. I've searched ANI/AE and their name has appeared for other reasons (you've interacted with them), but gaming wasn't brought up at the time. I don't want to put their username on a report without some input first because there are implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023, but those same implications leave me uncomfortable saying nothing.


:Just wanted to take a moment to thank you again, in words, for your help. In the unlikely event I'm ever handed a janny mop, I'll remember "bloop" is an RD2 option {{smiley}}. Thanks again for being available. Cheers! ] (]) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if you know whether gaming like this is (discreetly) monitored; I've been looking at Quarry and I think a query could go through the list of EC perming over the past year or two and find users who made many edits of a single type within the month prior to their perming, who then went on to be mostly active in specific contentious topics (maybe even show trends in volume), but I don't have the expertise to write this myself. Thanks for advice in advance! ] (]) 07:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, and my phone will always choose the autocorrect option to make me look the worst. ] (]) 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This is a basic universal rule. Nobody escapes it. I even get auto'd TALKING to my phone. Sigh. ] (]) 20:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:37, 19 January 2025

This user is a farmer in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archiving icon
bunny
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.


"grooming gangs"-related disruption

Thanks for protecting the Huddersfield sex abuse ring article, Elon Musk has caused a right ruckus about this . The Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is getting a lot of related disruptive edits like . Would it be possible to semi-protect it for like a week until the contoversy has died down? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I gave it a week, let me know if it needs more when that expires.
Odd to see the confluence of Indian anti-Pakistani sentiment and homegrown xenophobia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
In part, a divide and conquer tactic by the likes of Tommy Robinson probably. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A great username

Why hello there!

I just spotted your username for the first time ever (in the Administrators' newsletter), and have to say you have a great username.

Have a great day! :)

·addshore· 20:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! My old roommate drew a picture of me as an old timey bare knuckle boxer and coined that as my boxer name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Appeal

A while ago, I was topic banned by you as per this report-. I haven't edited since late November, but I was wondering if you could reconsider your decision.

I acknowledge that my behavior and edits were subpar at the A/E report, but I strongly believe that overall on the main-space, I am a productive editor who always uses high quality sources and abides by Misplaced Pages's norms on content creation. I believe my interactions with GoDG were an aberration in which things got overly heated and led to frivolous back and forths on Misplaced Pages A/E when they should have been resolved through good faith, substantive discussions on the t/p and related dispute resolution noticeboards. I strongly maintain that I did make a genuine, good faith attempt to resolve the related content on DN- in which I laid out a case to summarize and include content based on high quality sources while the A/E was going on.

I'd also like to point out that this topic area on Misplaced Pages has quite a few bad actors including perennial sockpuppets and some unserious editors who use this platform to inflate, and in many cases, fabricate historical events in order to aggrandize their communities. For example, one perennial sockmaster in this topic area was pretending to be me in order to get me "blocked everywhere" as per Inzo. For many years, I've been a guardrail against a lot of these bad actors and have done a lot to prevent them from disrupting and vandalizing Misplaced Pages.

If unbanned, I would learn from my recent experiences in order to leaven my interactions with editors I have had intense content disputes with, such as trying not to let my personal feelings or disdain cloud my judgment on Misplaced Pages, I'd confront any disagreement between myself and another editor through only discussing the issue on the article's talk page, and I'd make a resolute commitment to immediately de-escalating conflicts and avoiding and language that would affront the other party.

Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As this was placed based on the consensus of administrators at AE I will not unilaterally lift it. You can appeal at AE, but it is very unlikely that it will be successful without demonstrating constructive editing in other topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, when I do hit 6 months/500 edits, do I have to appeal at a certain noticeboard or will it automatically be lifted? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It will automatically be lifted. Please give WP:GAMING a quick review, too. It is expected that your edits will be, for the most part, substantial. A bunch of small copy edits that appear like you're making edits just to reach 500 could result in further sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

January music

story · music · places

Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy new year, Gerda! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! - My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I gave a quick look at one of her dance videos, and unfortunately it's not much my style. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for being curious! - Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You have competition!

WelshSwedishTurnip Knitsey (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This is certain to be a productive editor. We'll see how it plays out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Admin in a week. Knitsey (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


Resolution Path for ECR Topics

Hello. You and I met during a low-grade spat I had while learning that sectional EC restrictions were enforced manually. I have a question related to the resolution paths available when an EC edit request is not replied to. Is RfC for example, applicable to contentious topics? Many thanks!Johnadams11 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot start an RFC in a topic covered by WP:ECR until you are extended-confirmed, so if your edit request is not enacted then you have no recourse until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Taha Danesh

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, I want to bring you a complaint about Taha Danesh. On Ruhollah Khomeini and elsewhere this editor is being very disruptive. They reverted my addition and falsely accused me of everything in a frankly bizarre edit summary:Rv unexplained changes with ideological or political or personal previews or poor or unsourced statements and BLP issue or vandalism. This was ironic because I did explain my edit and use sources while BLP clearly doesn't apply. Even worse is that they deleted the content about executions and child soldiers last month without explanation: and . Their are other blatantly POV issues with these edits including about the fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. They have made numerous edits like this across other pages and have gotten into many edit wars recently.

I saw on their talk page you notified them about some of their templates that are up for deletion. I think Taha Danesh is using an IP address disruptively 93.71.57.57. The latest edits on the IP were reverted by you because they deleted the deletion templates you added. I figured I would make you aware that they are the same person. This IP has exclusively edited the same pages as Taha Danesh, including edit warring mainly on pages created by Taha Danesh. Examples include: Eitaa Messenger, Bale Messenger and Rubika.

Thanks for your time. Tele-1985 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have given them a CTOP alert for post-1978 Iranian politics. If the disruption continues I suggest you make a report at WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Tele-1985 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish:, sorry to bother you again but could you please give another warning to Taha Danesh as they have continued to edit war and there are obvious competence issues. Only an hour after you gave them the CTOP alert they continued to edit war at Ruhollah Khomeini with another odd edit summary that didn't really reflect their edit. Fortunately User:HistoryofIran reverted them and pointed out that the sources were clearly reliable and to make their case on the talk page.

After a few days of calm they started edit warring over the same issue this time on Ebrahim Raisi. Yesterday they reverted my correction of a figure without using an edit summary and reinserted a completely unsourced estimate of "several". In the last hour they have again reverted me three further times with bizarre edit summaries where they claim that Amnesty International and NBC news are "clearly biased and politically motivated". They also didn't seem to understand what "several" meant. They also repeatedly claimed that my usage of "thousands" was unsourced even though I quoted Amnesty in my edit summary; 1, 2 & 3.

Thanks. Tele-1985 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this to WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I will look to do that shortly. I will add that they just reverted for a fourth time in only two hours. Tele-1985 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) 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 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of health insurance chief executive officers in the United States on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Permission to respond freely to a false sock-puppetry accusation

I have been falsely accused by @Levivich of sock puppetry. As his "evidence" is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic I have been banned from by you, I need your approval to be able to respond to his false accusation freely. Vegan416 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's close enough to WP:BANEXEMPT where I think it's fine. I urge you to focus specifically on the evidence and be as brief as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Love Island (2015 TV series) contestants 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 00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

your suggestion

Hey, SFR! You wrote here maybe a rule against making comments. Non-parties can only provide evidence pertaining to the report, and any commentary can be removed by an admin as a clerking action, and I didn't want to ask there because I'm probably just stupid. Are you meaning 'relevant diff, or don't open a section'? Valereee (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

More or less, yeah. I wouldn't specifically say someone would need a diff or link, since someone might be providing context to an action related to the report or something similar. The general idea being we don't need people showing up sniping at each other or just giving an opinion on the situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Split request for vagina page

Hi, you reverted a removal of the "split request" notice on Vagina by User:Afranklady with the reasoning "Rv sock" but the same user closed the request on Talk:Vagina. Either the split request has to be reopened, or the notice has to be removed from the article. I removed the notice from the article, but if you're going to restore it, then please reopen the request on the talk page. Tuscan Ant (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like M.Bitton took care of this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 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 03:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Well done for taking care of that talk page vandal at the range 2003:D9:6700:0:0:0:0:0/41! I did my own rangeblock calculations and ended up at the same /41 destination. I also found out that the vandalism had actually been going on since more than a week ago, and was about to message you about it beforehand, until I noticed you already blocked it! — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Glad to help out. I checked the /32 as well, but didn't seem like they were on that whole range, although the extra edits still weren't great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (I was going to do the range searching before I made the AIV report, but the disruption was rapid enough that I went a little 'hasty' and reported the latest address instead.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That's the right way to handle it. I blocked the /64 initially, then started looking into the range. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Scott Ritter

If you have time and are inclined to redact, this is going off the rails. Thanks as always for action or feedback. JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you again, in words, for your help. In the unlikely event I'm ever handed a janny mop, I'll remember "bloop" is an RD2 option . Thanks again for being available. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, and my phone will always choose the autocorrect option to make me look the worst. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a basic universal rule. Nobody escapes it. I even get auto'd TALKING to my phone. Sigh. JFHJr (㊟) 20:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish: Difference between revisions Add topic