User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

You may wish

...to pull TPA. User_talk:Corene_Effertz --Seawolf35 ^T--C 05:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration enforcement appeal

Hello, I'm leaving this notification on your talk page as is required by the template when opening an enforcement appeal. Thank you. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ecrusized Ecrusized (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Multiple account abuse

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! You recently blocked a vandal using an IP account, 71.215.20.179, for repeated vandalism of Barenaked Ladies demo tapes. That same vandal has multiple accounts & appears to doggedly vandalise the same things again & again over many years. Currently they are using No Wheat Is Allowed, DEH189, Esporta Fitness Is Prohibited, also IP editor 71.215.9.55 & probably more. They are obviously these previously banned vandals: TheresNoWayOut, Woldabe8, 92A, 71.215.219.113, & Front8912. They make a number of Subtle/Silly vandalism but seem most obsessed with changing the number in the title of the Barenaked Ladies song, "If I Had $1000000". Many of the accounts will have 9 edits to their Sandbox, an obvious attempt to game the Autoconfirmed status. I wonder if you could please block those mentioned accounts as vandals/block evasion? I just don't understand someone putting so much effort into vandalism, with that much effort they could make actual useful edits. Thank-you for your time! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I only saw one account in the list unblocked, so I took care of that. The unblocked ips are stale so I didn't bother with them. I also protected the demo tapes article for a few months. Thanks for the heads up and let me know if you see any more disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Thank-you so much for the very swift action! Also thanks to Pickersgill-Cunliffe who appears to have swatted the other accounts I mentioned in the list, the reason they were blocked when you got to them. Both of you acted really quickly. Thanks for your time & help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help, that's why they pay us the big bucks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You guys are getting paid? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My bank account is full of Wikipedia thanks, barnstars, and good vibes. Unrelated, but can anyone spare some scratch for my mortgage? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory 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 01:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

95.91.249.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi. Maybe the wrong place but this may be the quickest. this user is multiple IP abuser.uses "bann".here same with blocked ip. Beshogur (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's actually RumyantsevPolkovodets. I've blocked for a month for block evasion. Thanks for the heads up, and let me know if you see them pop up again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I noticed that you are running for Arbcom elections. I want to wish you good luck for it. I have just voted for you :) Maliner (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaza Genocide

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:

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/genocide-as-colonial-erasure-report-francesca-albanese-01oct24/

The reference number should be placed before number 240. I hope you or someone else will add it.

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. Davids0011 (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You can request that edit at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit where patrollers will check it and either action it, move it to the talk page for further discussion, or decline it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Davids0011 (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Report

Hey,

Take a look on that user please.

IdanST (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2024 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Udham Singh

Hi, it is regarding sockpuppetry by Robinsinghkamboj, who was blocked for removal of sourced content and making legal threats. Apparently, they are back with another ID. Have a look [1] [2] [3] [4]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Might be meat, rather than a sock, but the effect is the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at History of the compass

Could you take a look at History of the compass? An IP editor is edit warring against multiple editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind already taken care of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

1259510796

can be deleted, too.

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:

User doesn't have access to the requested revision (The revision #1259514017 belongs to a deleted page. You can [//wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wikipedia:Help_desk×tamp=20241125161251&diff=prev view it]; details can be found in the [//wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia:Help_desk deletion log].).

(I've nowikied the above, because the error box literally shows that).

Screenshot of an error where the red box shows content that was supposed to include links, but links failed.

Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find the message in Special:AllMessages. Are there other places where they are located?

Also, 1259514953 is still live. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post this at VPT

wait... there's more than 5000 messages, hang on Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like MediaWiki:Rest-permission-denied-revision would be the closest match.

Posting to VPT... Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Request additional revision deletion at Wikipedia:Help desk

Hi, I recently noticed you deleted a bunch of revisions at Wikipedia:Help desk, but there are some remaining vandalising edits (most notably, this one) 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? 208.114.63.4 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) the user doing this is an attention-seeking troll. The less we do the better, and revdel doesn't actually stop them doing anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request at Talk:Imane Khelif

This again. Does this signal the TP might need protection from unregistered users? Thanks as ever for your thoughts. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That was fast. Thank you so much! JFHJr (㊟) 00:22, 27 November 2024 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Block conflict

I've reverted my block of Trampled crop field (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to the settings you had posted. Looks like we had a conflict there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Bare Naked Multiple Account Abuse

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Return of that multiple account abuser making Subtle/Silly edits, this time as DooraDora. 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! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All set, thanks for the heads-up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Goodness, you're fast! Thank-you kindly for your work! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Vegan416

Hi SFR, I wonder if you'd consider lifting your TBAN of 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 research, and I hoped to see more of that.

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. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 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. Vegan416 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CTOP, 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "unilaterally" in this context? Vegan416 (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Appeal on indefinite ban on topic

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 Wikipedia, and have a good day. Dan Palraz (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2024 (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, 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Block Evasion

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 ? Pmbma (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I was mass-reverting the edits of an editor that was evading blocks on a number of other IP addresses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of the edits were good - I would have done the same edits. Pmbma (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to reinstate any edits that you believe were an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

TB?

See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#User_TheCuratingEditor

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheCuratingEditor Doug Weller talk 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. 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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A little follow-up

Just need a repeat of the archive sorting you did last time; mainly asking you so I don't have to explain it again; might be worth watchlisting that page, thanks. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's all good I understand. Thanks, 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for keeping an eye out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Zionism 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 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for watching the Zionism talk page

I originally came to ask about my comment's inclusion in the hatted section, 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. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for returning to this matter, but after some consideration, the usage of an LLM, & my previous issues verifying any of the quotes, I wanted to ask if this comment 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. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorted. I've already pulled their EC permission, as well, so ECR applies to them again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

VOA TPA

Might want to unplug talk page access for this account. Thanks, — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Question about what constitutes edit warring (@Israel)

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish:, @Barkeep49:. I wanted to ask you for some guidance whether the following situation amounts to edit warring.

• Following a content dispute whether the "Gaza genocide" should be included on the Israel 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. [5]
• Another editor reverted the addition and requested that Selfstudier refrain from adding the disputed content while the RfC is still ongoing. [6]
• A few minutes later, Selfstudier restored it anyway [7]

Selfstudier says the RfC is about the lead, not the body, but the RfC is clearly about the body too (check the text here [8]). I contacted Selfstudier on their talk page asking them to self-revert [9] but they said this wasn't edit warring [10], 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 [11]. 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. ABHammad (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I trust this isn't going to be treated at all seriously. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, appears related to this. What should one make out of that? Selfstudier (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I did ABHammad (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Selfstudier 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Zero^talk 07:55, 29 November 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? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You just deleted a message from my talk page and I'm puzzled by the deletion. [12]. 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? --Bob drobbs (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The recent removals are because they are no longer extended-confirmed. I removed the permission for gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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? Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is private. Acroterion (talk) 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? Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The explanation is in the edit summary, you were violating ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for multiple different reasons. Same as any other editor. And for what it is worth he did leave an explanation in his edit summary; specifically enforcing the 500/30 rule in effect in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 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. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit concerns the topic, and WP:ECR says The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion?

So, I have avoided DFW as promised, until they edited a page they know is on my watchlist. I made a single edit, fixing their punctuation and adding ref tags to what appeared to be a chunk of OR/personal opinion. After which, they removed the OR, tagging me in the edit summary, and have now edited (twice) another page that I had recently edited (that is completely outside of their normal wheelhouse, clearly following my contribs) and left two talk page comments, 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? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is that what they called first mover advantage?

• So, I have avoided DFW as promised
  • No. You followed me to Air pollution in Hong Kong. It’s the second time already since 11 Nov. That’s why I leave this edit summary hoping that you can stop.
  • I first edited that article as early as Aug 2023 [13], with over 124 edits [14]. You never edited that article until you started to have conflicts with me. You only made your first edit to that article on 11 Nov, 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.
• 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?
• 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 explain it, what’s wrong with that? You wrongly accused me of “assumed you are the OP” and I leave a comment to correct you, again, what’s wrong with that?
• 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 definitely untrue [15]) and appeared to be bullying/canvassing our admin.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for admin: Could you maybe leave a note reminding them to keep the promise 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? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how you came upon Cleveland Institute of Art 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, WP:DROPTHESTICK already... - Adolphus79 (talk) 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

(17 Oct), Joss paper (28 Oct), Asian News International (19 Oct), 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? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 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 Air pollution in Hong Kong 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. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

[Y]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. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a third opinion can be useful here, let’s see if Diannaa can offer us some help. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 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 WP:Dispute resolution it it's a content dispute. -- Diannaa (talk) 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. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User_talk:Serial_Number_54129#TWL_access

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, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible 1RR violation

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

Yes, it is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Raskolnikov.Rev, I've requested a self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)