User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 23
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ScottishFinnishRadish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Question from Msgrvem on User talk:Msgrvem (04:47, 15 September 2023)
Hello, I had an encounter wth a Rugaru. It's a Louisiana creature that lurks the swamps of Louisiana. Would MonsterQuest be interested in hearing my story.thank you. --Msgrvem (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Protect articles about road signs
Hello. I'm here. Can you protect articles about road signs in various countries listed below from editing by sockpuppets? The articles about road signs have already been edited many times by sockpuppets but all of their edits have been reverted and the sockpuppets get blocked.
- Road signs in Macau — I created this one very recently
- Road signs in Argentina
- Road signs in Brunei
- Road signs in Singapore
- Road signs in Bulgaria — another one was also created by me
This also applies to draft articles:
- Draft:Comparison of Asian road signs
- Draft:Comparison of road signs in the former Yugoslav states
- Draft:Road signs in Romania
WWBM (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| One year! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly, Gerda. I appreciate it, and I appreciate all the work you put into making others feel appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia: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 17:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Question from FreelanceMinion (05:31, 21 September 2023)
So I had a login name long ago but I cannot find the password to get into it anymore. I understand there is a way to link and redirect its history to my new account? --FreelanceMinion (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- They're would have to be some way to verify the old account is yours to do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Technophant
Wow. Made the best argument of them all for keeping the TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- A corollary to the law of holes is that if you can take their shovel away, you should. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- While I do appreciate @ScottishFinnishRadish ending the misery, part of me was hoping he'd argue himself back into a block. What a headache. Star Mississippi 01:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Could I persuade you to make it a longer block?
The main indicator I used to conclude that the new 2804:33E8 IP I reported is the same as the other /64 range I mentioned is, besides the general nonsense, the repeating name "José Ferreira da Silva Júnior".
When trying to understand what nonsense they were spamming about(I didn't) I found other examples of this spam in other wikis, only one was live, but here are two recent page histories of the same general type of thing: wikidata:User talk:Emaus and wikidata:Wikidata talk:Main Page/Archive. The IPv4 in use there is thankfully already rangeblocked in enwiki for being a VPN.
But basically, this all seems like the same person. I feel like there's a good chance that in 31 hours they will just be back at it again. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:D053:4AB9:4C71:5C00 (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to wait to see if they stick around on that range for a while before dropping a longer block. They might be on an ISP that gives them a new /64 everytime they reset their modem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, like my modem (I think) does then... fair enough, it just felt proportionally like a very small block compared to Graham's, but I guess the other /64 range had spam with a lot more IPs than just this one. Didn't think it that way.
- Sorry for bothering you :s. Thanks for blocking them. – 2804:F14:80FB:2E01:D053:4AB9:4C71:5C00 (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you
I read an off-Wiki comment of yours today that made me laugh so hard that I almost choked. It involved hentai, quadriplegics, and stick-figure drawing. Thank you for that comment. That is all. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't recall this comment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps this artistic masterpiece will remind you. If not, I won't go further into detail. I just wanted to say thanks, because you made me laugh out loud really hard. Take care. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh that one, yeah. Glad I could bring a glimmer of laughter to your day. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps this artistic masterpiece will remind you. If not, I won't go further into detail. I just wanted to say thanks, because you made me laugh out loud really hard. Take care. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Administrator
You may find this IP's edits to Vincent Bolloré's net worth of interest.
- 28 Sept: €40 billion
- 27 Sept: €30 billion
- 2 Feb: €1 million
Needless to say none of these correspond to what is reported in the source cited. I thought about asking for page protection but as they are the only IP updating the fictitious rise and fall of Vince's fortune, perhaps there are other better solutions for that particular page... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's not enough disruption to warrant protection. I reverted their most recent edit and warned them, and I've watchlisted the article for a time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Figured while I was there I'd add some stuff on his free press ventures and respond to a cn tag. It should stop popping up on your watchlist now, unless I messed something (else) up. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Georges Feydeau 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 17:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Revdel
Hi! I noticed this in passing. Is "I hate <group>" really grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading? I could understand if the username contained slurs but this doesn't seem like deletion was necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on revdelling it from there, just the article edit due to relation to the username. I saw that the log of their username was deleted though, so I figured someone else a step above me in permissions made a judgement call, so I removed it from UAA as well. I have no objections if you want to restore those edits to UAA, but I think it was disruptive enough to keep out of the article history.
- Also, somehow my phone vibrating with the email notification for this message snapped me awake. No idea how, since I normally sleep through dozens of notifications. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 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 17:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar 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 17:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| you rock!! keep on editing!:) Babysharkboss2 was here!! 17:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC) |
Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello ScottishFinnishRadish,
I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages .
The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.
If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.
Thank you for your consideration.
-- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| For blocking User:Kate Dawes for sockpupptery while I was in the process of typing out an ANI report about said user. Thanks for being quick! Seawolf35 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
- You might also want to protect that page again since that user is still coming back to Sock. Seawolf35 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I protected for another 9 years. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. User:مشروب الليل is quacking like Qahwahistory, who you blocked as a sock of PaullyMatthews a couple of days ago. See the article history of History of coffee. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- All set. I watchlisted too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks SFR -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- My pleasure, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks SFR -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Manipur violence on a "History and geography" 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 07:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Fuerdai vandal
Hey saw you blocked the latest incarnation of this vandal, just a tip if you block them again, just remove TPA at the same time. They are going to continue on their talk page with the nonsense. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Will do, assuming I have a chance with my testicles going up and down and up and down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oh good point. Makes it a bit tougher. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Edits to Baroness Joanna Shields page
My name is Laura and I work for Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields, a baron, businessperson, and former British politician. The page about her was recently tagged for COI and advert issues due to some poor edits made years ago. I posted here regarding my desire to address the substance of the tags with a re-write or heavy trims, to remove the promotional content. I was hoping you might be willing to chime in on the proposed trims and/or the suggestion for a rewrite. Let me know. Best regards.~~~~ LauTad89 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Definition of revert for 3RR
If I add new content or rephrase content that isn’t reverting. If I return a page to a previous state, whether completely or previously, by undoing, whether completely or partially, another editor’s contribution, that is a reversion. Is this correct? Are the 4 examples in WP:Revert comprehensive? Are there nuances to what is considered a revert? Please let me know. Closetside (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is correct, and the list is not comprehensive. There is a lot of nuance, and if you're not sure of it would be a revert it's best to discuss the edit on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a comprehensive list about what counts as a revert? If not, what are the guiding principles for differentiating a normal edit from a revert? Closetside (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you restore a page to a previous version by removing longstanding content, e.g. you undo an edit from a year ago, most editors would not call that a revert. To channel Mr. Justice Stewart, there's no ironclad definition of revert-warring, but Admins will tell you they know it when they see it. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Editing restrictions problem
Hey, what am I doing wrong? It doesn't show up at all. I've stared at it repeatedly, but I'm obviously not seeing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) fixed it for you – you had a space between | and - on your first line. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for picking up my slack! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- And I thought I was fussy. Thanks, DatGuy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- SFR, I don't know how to answer Neveselbert's question. I thought they said they wanted to move on. Looks like they're having a bit of trouble doing so. I'm not even sure procedurally how to appeal a voluntary topic ban. There are procedures for community bans and arbitration-related ones, but WP:UNBAN doesn't seem to cover this kind. Any advice for N? For me? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi B, you were right to think so, I just want to know my options for the future. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, when you wish to appeal you just ask the sanctioning administrator, explaining why you think it's no longer needed. I imagine after a year if there has been no edit warring or violations, and disruption has not moved to another topic, that the tban would be lifted. If the unblocking admin isn't available, reaching out to an admin familiar with the situation is reasonable, or a request at AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've had a look at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary and I've noticed several editors have indefinite topic bans appealable after six months. Would I not be able to get another admin to look at the situation after six months like these editors? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- You agreed to a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the only option presented to me. I wasn't aware of these other cases until now, so I'm not sure what makes my situation different? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- You initially brought it up here, I believe without Bbb23 or myself suggesting an indefinite topic ban. I then asked Bbb23 if your offered topic ban would be acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that topic bans can't be appealed for a year, yet that's contradicted by the cases I've seen on that page, so I'm a bit confused. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- You need to drop this interminable wikilawyering, Neveselbert. It's disruptive. If you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see what I've said that constitutes WP:WL, but fine, understood. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- There are a number of time frames before allowing an appeal, although from what I've seen a year is the most common. What it comes down to is that Bbb23 listed the terms they would accept for an unblock, and you agreed. You could have also waited out the block or followed the guidance in WP:GAB. I don't see that there was any coercion or other issue where you were corraled into this outcome.
- You have said
...if that means I have to walk away from this topic completely, I'll have to accept that. It's not the main reason I'm here... I'm willing to accept a topic ban on an indefinite basis if that's what you think is warranted. I just really want to get on with the other work I do here.
That's exactly the outcome that you got. You're unblocked and topic banned. You can carry on with the other work you want to do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)- Can I ask if there is any way I can report false information being added to any of these articles, such as vandalism? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- You can revert clear and obvious WP:VANDALISM, which is specifically bad faith edits. That doesn't include information you believe is false. If you're unsure, you're better off not touching it. As for reporting, it can be done off-wiki via email if you believe it is an especially egregious issue, otherwise you should ignore it. I suggest that for the duration of your topic ban that you remove any related articles from your watchlist. They appear to be fairly well watched and patrolled, so you don't need to watch over them while topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think I understand. It's just the edits of one user in particular I've noticed, which have included the insertion of false information and removal of sourced information, under misleading edit summaries, over the past several days. These edits remain, but I've checked the new sources and not all of them support each claim introduced by this user and most likely fall afoul of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I think this counts as subtle vandalism. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound like it will meet WP:BANEXEMPT. I again suggest you remove those articles from your watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- They're not in my watchlist, I noticed the edits from the user's contributions. I'm not suggesting I should intervene, but I would like to report these edits as I believe they are damaging to this project. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'll pipe in. As you may know, my reaction to your questions (again) is much harsher than SFR's. Don't do anything related to the topic-banned articles, including watching them, watching other users' contributions regarding them, analyzing the merits of other users' edits, reporting them to any noticeboard, or even reporting them by e-mail. If they really are blatant vandalism, someone will take care of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
including watching them, watching other users' contributions regarding them, analyzing the merits of other users' edits, reporting them to any noticeboard, or even reporting them by e-mail.
This is not what I agreed to. You saidyou cannot edit any page that's related to human genitalia, broadly construed, which means articles, article Talk pages, project pages, in orther words all pages
, which is what I agreed to, not what you've just said, which goes above and beyond what I think can be considered reasonable. I'm going to adhere to the conditions you originally set out. Why is subtle vandalism acceptable, and reporting it unacceptable? Why is it out of line for me to point out false and misleading information being inserted into articles, and cited information being unilaterally removed from articles? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'll pipe in. As you may know, my reaction to your questions (again) is much harsher than SFR's. Don't do anything related to the topic-banned articles, including watching them, watching other users' contributions regarding them, analyzing the merits of other users' edits, reporting them to any noticeboard, or even reporting them by e-mail. If they really are blatant vandalism, someone will take care of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- They're not in my watchlist, I noticed the edits from the user's contributions. I'm not suggesting I should intervene, but I would like to report these edits as I believe they are damaging to this project. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound like it will meet WP:BANEXEMPT. I again suggest you remove those articles from your watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think I understand. It's just the edits of one user in particular I've noticed, which have included the insertion of false information and removal of sourced information, under misleading edit summaries, over the past several days. These edits remain, but I've checked the new sources and not all of them support each claim introduced by this user and most likely fall afoul of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I think this counts as subtle vandalism. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- You can revert clear and obvious WP:VANDALISM, which is specifically bad faith edits. That doesn't include information you believe is false. If you're unsure, you're better off not touching it. As for reporting, it can be done off-wiki via email if you believe it is an especially egregious issue, otherwise you should ignore it. I suggest that for the duration of your topic ban that you remove any related articles from your watchlist. They appear to be fairly well watched and patrolled, so you don't need to watch over them while topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can I ask if there is any way I can report false information being added to any of these articles, such as vandalism? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- You need to drop this interminable wikilawyering, Neveselbert. It's disruptive. If you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that topic bans can't be appealed for a year, yet that's contradicted by the cases I've seen on that page, so I'm a bit confused. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- You initially brought it up here, I believe without Bbb23 or myself suggesting an indefinite topic ban. I then asked Bbb23 if your offered topic ban would be acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that was the only option presented to me. I wasn't aware of these other cases until now, so I'm not sure what makes my situation different? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- You agreed to a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've had a look at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary and I've noticed several editors have indefinite topic bans appealable after six months. Would I not be able to get another admin to look at the situation after six months like these editors? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, when you wish to appeal you just ask the sanctioning administrator, explaining why you think it's no longer needed. I imagine after a year if there has been no edit warring or violations, and disruption has not moved to another topic, that the tban would be lifted. If the unblocking admin isn't available, reaching out to an admin familiar with the situation is reasonable, or a request at AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi B, you were right to think so, I just want to know my options for the future. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:TBAN includes "discussions or suggestions about [the banned] topics anywhere on Wikipedia". Any violation of that restriction may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- So subtle vandalism that goes undetected is acceptable, in other words. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there nothing I can do? Bbb23's conditions have gone above and beyond what I agreed to, which I note above. I made one mistake in 3RR due to misremembering the rules, which I've now reread, and I would've been unblocked anyway after two weeks free to edit these articles, so I really can't understand why these conditions prohibit me from even reporting edits that introduce wp:subtle vandalism for a year, which seems unduly extreme, especially since I wasn't blocked for a year, just for two weeks. Wouldn't it make sense for me to be allowed to contribute to discussions after two weeks have elapsed, just as would've been the case if I had simply waited out the block? This seems reasonable, as I wouldn't be editing mainspace where the disruption was caused. I've never been involved in any disruption on the talk namespace, and since WP:BMB describes topic bans as an option of last resort, I don't see how this wouldn't be reasonable. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Neveselbert, speaking as an uninvolved administrator, as far as I can see, it looks to me like you are engaged in intense wikilawyering which rarely ends well. I recommend that you refrain from all boundary testing and nit-picking. You could end up completely blocked. Instead, spend a long period of time editing in areas entirely unrelated to your topic ban. I suggest butterflies, meteoroids, dinosaur eggs, or the fascinating history of New Mexico. The idea is that you will develop a more balanced view of neutrality by editing in areas where you have no strong feelings other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Successful editing of that type for at least a year is evidence that your topic ban can be relaxed without threaening the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Cullen, thanks for the suggestions. I'm sorry if I've been acting lawyerly. I appreciate the advice, which I'll be sure to keep in mind. It looks like another user has seen to the edits I've mentioned, which is a relief. I will note though that I was blocked not for violating neutrality but for violating 3RR, which I misremembered as being a limit on reverts on the same content, as opposed to any content, since the third and fourth reverts were partial reverts, which I mistakenly took to mean they were half a revert. You're right about spending time editing in other areas, which is what I really want to do, and that's what I'm going to try and concentrate on for the time being. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
New TPA removal request to ScottishFinnishRadish
Hello! Please revoke TPA from 45.188.165.254. Thank you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed this, but looks like they've gone quiet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
You might need this one. Andre🚐 01:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC) |
- I hope not, it's almost bedtime and I need my rest. Tomorrow is onion and garlic planting day. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, get a good night's rest and hope you have good weather tomorrow morning for that. The wiki-coffee will await your return. Cheers. Andre🚐 01:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
You're mentioned, somewhat indirectly, at WP:ANI#Philomathes2357 et al. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Whichever troll is behind all this is surely having a good laugh right now. Sorry it's your turn for a ride on the trollercoaster. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- No worries here. I got all my winter onions and garlic planted, and I'm finishing up my hot sauce now. Not overly bothered, except the idea that the issue with bdsm sketches of wikipe-tan is my technical critique.
- Drama for the drama god! Bytes for the byte throne! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Question from TheGreeningEarth (19:09, 8 October 2023)
I created this page https://w.wiki/7hg3
How I can make this visible to the world via wikipedia website?
Thank You! Prof. Ranga Myneni --TheGreeningEarth (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre 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 12:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Question from MrHistoryH (22:54, 18 October 2023)
Hello, I'm asking how can you give barn stars (are whatever you call them) --MrHistoryH (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Please block TPA of Iphone 97 for blanking the page repeatedly
Technically they are allowed to blank their page, but a blocked user blanking warnings and notices on it seems to be an abuse of the purpose of them retaining access to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is perfectly acceptable to remove warnings and block notices. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I understand, I wish it were not so or there were some way to apply discretion to it. The vast majority of cases I see of people removing warnings from their talk pages are ... misbehaving editors. It serves to hide their history from the casual observer. I don't remove anything from my talk page (that I can remember, aside from automatic archival) whether it's abuse, trolling, wrongful notices, whatever. It's part of the record. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect presentation of profile data.
Scott, the data presented upon the page set for me is inaccurate and/or incorrect. This false presentation of me is gravely concerning, a violation. I've tried to edit it to make it more accurate yet have been obstructed from making the changes permanent. If my profile can't be accurate & truthful, I would rather the entire entry be deleted. Thank you... TRamthun (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @TRamthun: I would suggest you explain what changes you want made on the talk page and what exactly in the article is inaccurate. As you have been elected to a state legislature, it is almost impossible that your article would get deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's unlikely the article will be deleted, as state reps have presumed notability. I suggest that you use the article talk page to discuss changes and WP:Edit requests to request specific, sourced edits. If there are specific issues with the article or falsehoods that need to be addressed they can be brought up on the talk page or the noticeboard for biographies of living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Some maklube for you!
|
Some maklube for you! |
| I think you and your friends will love it! Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Resilient Barnstar |
| You've earned another pair of stripes. Andre🚐 03:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
- Much appreciated, as usual. This is literally impossible to stay on top of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Clarion Fracture Zone on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning
I thought that pointing out the obvious to a user - about assuming good faith - was constructive. I know I'm not allowed to vote on a request for comment proposal, but didn't think that trying to remind someone about how their (somewhat negative) comment comes across would be worthy of a block. Oh well.
I will steer clear from now on. Maybe someone else can let them know about not making assumptions about the intentions of other editors, especially in a contentious topic area like this. 133.106.40.60 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Question from Unnikrishnan07 (11:01, 26 October 2023)
Hi my name is unni krishnan, i am new to this may i know how i need to start ? --Unnikrishnan07 (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I was just stalking your contributions to see if you had actually gone to BN (slightly disappointed that you didn't, by the way - a true loss for Wikipedia Humour and our collective habit of Taking Things To Far™), and saw your recall conditions.
I wanted to thank you for such a straightforward and clear criteria; they are among the best I have seen.
BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, I've been meaning to respond to this for days, but every time I check Wikipedia there's another spill to mop up and it slips my mind. I appreciate it. I figure it's easy enough, and if I fuck up enough where editors I respect are think I'm a negative and are telling me to drop the mop then I probably shouldn't have it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Nothing about my TALK page addition was WPwrong
Your https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Lewiston_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=1182082232 is rubbish. Here comes the revert. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you continue to violate WP:BLP you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your UNDO tag of "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" is wrong, unless suddenly CNN is "unreliable" along with the two big-city newspapers. Shutting down a sourced opinion on a TALK PAGE is pretty imperious. But you threaten to block me, so I sit down now in my place. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- That tag was applied automatically to your edit because it contained a link to the Daily Mail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Daily Mail is URS? Okay. Well, there's the CNN. You'll add his name when the appropriate RS threshold is reached, right? You and your bot aren't just reflexively against the name until after conviction, right? At this point, "police are searching for Robert Card" is already a sourced and true statement. Myself, I'm not going to talk in that talk page any further. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- The name can be added when there is consensus to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Daily Mail is URS? Okay. Well, there's the CNN. You'll add his name when the appropriate RS threshold is reached, right? You and your bot aren't just reflexively against the name until after conviction, right? At this point, "police are searching for Robert Card" is already a sourced and true statement. Myself, I'm not going to talk in that talk page any further. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- That tag was applied automatically to your edit because it contained a link to the Daily Mail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your UNDO tag of "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" is wrong, unless suddenly CNN is "unreliable" along with the two big-city newspapers. Shutting down a sourced opinion on a TALK PAGE is pretty imperious. But you threaten to block me, so I sit down now in my place. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hickory Wind 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 06:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Please explain why you abruptly indefinitely blocked me from 2023 israel-hamas war page?
Please explain why you abruptly indefinitely blocked me from 2023 israel-hamas war page? i was only active on talk page and i didnt violate any policy.it seems more like a case of WP:idontlikeit Mindhack diva (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- [1] [2] [3] all demonstrate unconstructive edits in the ARBPIA topic area. Editors who are not extended-confirmed are prohibited from editing in the topic area except for constructive comments on the talk pages. As you have violated that, you have been blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Greetings
Hey there, @ScottishFinnishRadish:! I hope you're cool with me dropping a note on your talk page. I ran into something interesting. I used a reference from this IP editor's contribution, and it looked pretty legit to me. But I might've overlooked something. Can you spot any sketchy edits they made? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- [4] [5] right from the top of their contributions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second one seems cool, talking about sources. But for the first one, I would point the new user to WP:NOTFORUM, in my humble opinion. I'm usually down with welcoming contributors who make constructive edits. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second is asking for the sources of the sources. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to look for the evidence used in sources, and it becomes another time sink for extended-confirmed editor to deal with. There has been more NOTAFORUM, and clear battleground mentality. That second diff I find amusing because it came a few moments after a different editor I blocked called me an islamist. The area is under EC restrictions to prevent this type of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- In any big project, whether it's on the web or in the real world, there's gonna be some lingo, an inside vibe, and a learning curve. Fresh faces need some guidance, 'cause what's clear to the pros might not be so obvious to the newbies. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- However, in this topic fresh faces should not be editing unless it is constructive contributions to talk pages. This is unconstructive, uncivil, and a waste of editors time. The ECR sanction was called draconian by Arbcom when they implemented it, but did so anyway because the community was at its wit's end dealing with the disruption. I'm not surprised that it looks draconian to other editors.
- In the case of this IP, of there were any hint of their understanding the issues with their editing an early unblock could have been in the cards, but the immediate attacks and battleground mentality reinforce my belief that the sanction was correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, we did notice a constructive contribution from this IP before the block. While I agree that their response to the block wasn't appropriate, when it comes to the dilemma of whether to see newbies as a "waste of editors' time," I'd lean towards administrators trying the "let's provide them with guidance" approach. If we see new editors as a waste of time, how is the topic area gonna attract any fresh contributors? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- What I'm getting at is that if we spot a helpful contribution from a new contributor, perhaps it's worth giving it a second look. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if User:Ucraniano2 could be relevant here. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- What I'm getting at is that if we spot a helpful contribution from a new contributor, perhaps it's worth giving it a second look. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, we did notice a constructive contribution from this IP before the block. While I agree that their response to the block wasn't appropriate, when it comes to the dilemma of whether to see newbies as a "waste of editors' time," I'd lean towards administrators trying the "let's provide them with guidance" approach. If we see new editors as a waste of time, how is the topic area gonna attract any fresh contributors? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- You should also review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom for an idea of where it's likely that the sanctions are headed. Non-EC editors shouldn't be contributing in the topic area other than to make constructive comments specifically dealing with article content. They should not be engaging in discussion to establish consensus on content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing the link. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- In any big project, whether it's on the web or in the real world, there's gonna be some lingo, an inside vibe, and a learning curve. Fresh faces need some guidance, 'cause what's clear to the pros might not be so obvious to the newbies. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second is asking for the sources of the sources. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to look for the evidence used in sources, and it becomes another time sink for extended-confirmed editor to deal with. There has been more NOTAFORUM, and clear battleground mentality. That second diff I find amusing because it came a few moments after a different editor I blocked called me an islamist. The area is under EC restrictions to prevent this type of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second one seems cool, talking about sources. But for the first one, I would point the new user to WP:NOTFORUM, in my humble opinion. I'm usually down with welcoming contributors who make constructive edits. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Georges Feydeau on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)