User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

I had a question

hey im new to wikipedia, well not really but i have an account now and i was wondering how can I get an edit done on a page if the page is like totally dead has been for years and tons of the information is outdated? (tom clancys rainbow six siege) im just asking you because i think i saw you on the edit history of that page or another one and dont know who else to ask. 88TylerDurden (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That article is extended-protected, which means only those with more than 500 edits and at least 30 days may edit it. Since this is not the place to request one... What's outdated? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh alright I never knew the requirements to edit one of those. I mean, basically everything is outdated I was reading some of the stuff and didn't even know what half of it meant. Looks like it was made at the beginning of the game and hasn't been updated since. 88TylerDurden (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You can always make WP:Edit requests on the talk page to address specific issues. Until you're extended-confirmed that's your best bet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm just gonna put in a request to admin who put in protection to reduce page protection. Its not particularly controversial, and talk page is mostly edit requests, no gigantic debates? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

nvm they did it i think. @88TylerDurden go ahead and try now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice just fixed a few things. 88TylerDurden (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Case request 😜

Shucks, mister(?). We was just havin' some fun. We did'n mean nuthin' -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I shouldn't be so cross, I'm pretty sure I've hopped onto a case request like that before. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

your recent revert

My edit was explicitly per the talk page yet you have reverted without comment. Please explain. 2A06:5900:80F2:9000:30B8:E4AA:ECCF:5AC4 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It was a violation of WP:ECR. I left some notices on your talk page that explain in detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is make-work. I take it if I make an edit request under the talk comment I made five days ago, you will be as quick to self-revert as you were to revert? Which edit request is even appropriate? 2A06:5900:80F2:9000:30B8:E4AA:ECCF:5AC4 (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you use {{edit extended-protected}} and note in the request that although the page is not protected you are prohibited from editing it yourself, then wait for one of the edit request patrollers or talk page watchers to respond. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would you not simply deal with it yourself? It has your attention. 2A06:5900:80F2:9000:30B8:E4AA:ECCF:5AC4 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I've already pinged the editor who placed the tag for their reasoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The talk page is the correct venue for that. I used it, they didn’t. Yet their edit stands and you’re making it a massive time sink for me to simply edit the encyclopedia. 2A06:5900:80F2:9000:30B8:E4AA:ECCF:5AC4 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Please review WP:ECR which details why you cannot make that edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Revert?

Re[1], do you consider that first edit as edit-warring? I don't see it that way at all.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider the bold edit or the first revert to be out of line. The few reverts back and forth after that are a problem, though. At this time there's no way for admins to set a status quo, though. I'm stewing on the possibility of proposing a CTOP rule to allow an admin to determine a status quo, restore the content to that state, and applying consensus required to just that content. There really needs to be a better way to nip these edit wars at the bud. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Consider the difference between these two "edit wars":

• the exact same content is added/removed alternatively by users ("blanket reverts")
• every edit is technically a revert of the previous (any edit "undo[es] the action of another editor"), but it is far from a blanket revert. The users are making good faith attempts to narrow their differences and the edits show that.

I think the first type of edit-war is disruptive, but the second type of editing can be healthy. Though I agree that's not what happened here unfortunately.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there is a line (sometimes blurry) between edit warring and iterative editing, but as you said, this isn't that situation. What we need to do is stop the type of edit warring we're seeing at that article where several editors each make one revert back and forth. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Revdel plz?

Got another quick copy/paste for you to cleanup when you have a moment... added here, removed here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that content in the source. Was it copied from somewhere else? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the cited source, "In November 1863, Confederate Col. William A. Witcher's cavalry rode to the Bell Farm, killed nine young men who were en route to join the Union army, and burned the farmhouse." is word-for-word what I removed from the article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

All set. I had looked for murder, which is the word they changed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Formerlychucks' block

I noticed that you indefinitely blocked @Formerlychucks. I just wanted to point out that he has made productive edits in the past. I figured that a straight-up indefinite block (as well as proposing the deletion of his user page, which was done by @Bugghost) are both a bit overboard.

I'm not going to appeal his block on his behalf, since it isn't my problem (and I know that appealing a block/ban on someone else's behalf is looked down on, making it unlikely to be successful). However, given his past productive edits and his apologizing for his misdeeds, I do think his block should be reviewed at the very least. Derpytoucan (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The user page deletion proposal isn't intended as punitive and was unrelated to tbe block, its just a childish attacking userpage, which is why I nommed it. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regardless I think his block should be reviewed. Derpytoucan (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)