Misplaced Pages

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:02, 15 January 2024 editSportingFlyer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers30,601 editsm →RFC on Airlines and Destinations tables: grammar← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:54, 25 December 2024 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,762 edits →Happy Holidays: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{busy|descriptor=bunny}} {{busy|descriptor=a farmer}}
{{archivebox|title=bunny}} {{archivebox|title=bunny}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
Line 16: Line 16:
}}<!-- 11:43 October 1, 2021 (UTC), ScottishFinnishRadish added ] --> }}<!-- 11:43 October 1, 2021 (UTC), ScottishFinnishRadish added ] -->


== cand q ==
== Awdal page edit warring has continued by same user after your partial block lifted ==


Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:
Hi ]
* ''']''' chose ]er by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—], ], ], ] and ]—for a recital at the ].


What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- ] (]) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I just want to point your attention to the ] page. Since the partial block was lifted, the editor Hawkers994 has fully resumed edit warring with multiple different editors in relation to the exact same content despite being blocked twice already prior to that. The page had to be protected yesterday due to the frequency of the edit warring.


:Those articles don't, in and of themselves, tell me a lot about infoboxes, other than that most of them have infoboxes. Quick power ranking on their hair, though.
During previous weeks you made it quite clear to myself and Hawkers994 that we should not edit the demographics section on the Awdal page without concensus or we would be banned which is why I completely stopped editing the page. You could check fully. This is what you wrote regarding the partial block: "I've blocked you from the article for a month for immediately going back to the article with no discussion on the talk page." (]).
:#] - Off center widows peak over male-pattern baldness. Wild wings on the sides. Combined with the expression he really communicates "intense Austrian composer"
:#] - always maximum respect for a pompadour
:#] - I'll always believe that Picard was the best captain, and this haircut communicates that. Middle of the road though, as the default bald guy cut
:#] - trying to pull off the "genius that doesn't care about his hair" look, but Schreker did it much better
:#] - looks like he's going to a job interview at a bank
:] (]) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
| image_upright = 1.3
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
:: Thank you for loooking! - November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in ]. - You may be too young (on WP) to know that infoboxes are a declared contentious topic, - sorry that my question was unclear. Do you think they still deserve the label. I found one candidate so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, ]. There are two composers on the Main page today, ] and ]. I find the response of my friend ] to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? --] (]) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:Having closed around a dozen infobox RFCs, I think they're still fairly contentious. The CTOP designation serves to let people know they have to be on their best behavior which is important when dealing with an issue that is the subject of strong disagreement. ] (]) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I wonder when you closed those, because I don't see many discussions anymore. Most classical composers today get an infobox without a discussion. Mozart ] in favour of an infobox, for example, almost two years ago, and I haven't seen new arguments since. We still have discussions for a few FAs, usually caused by editors who have no idea of a conflict but get immediately treated as infobox warriors, - that's what I see. - ] comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. --] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Today, ]. --] (]) 23:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:: On the Main page today ] on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's ] from the ]. The discussion is still on the Sibelius, ending with that he was playing in a league with Beethoven then, in 2018 ;) - We ] today. --] (]) 21:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Listen today to the (new) ]. - Congratulations to being elected! Could you look at ] and tell me if you miss something in his infobox? --] (]) 10:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Listen today to ]'s 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the ] when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with ], because he was on my ] this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. - I can report happily that the Barber situation was resolved.--] (]) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I come to fix the cellist's name, with ] and new pics - look for red birds --] (]) 20:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== WP:HOUNDING, and enforcing policies and guidelines ==
He has already been blocked twice already for the exact same violation but has chosen to resume anyway. Please have a look at the timeline of edits since the partial block was lifted last week specifically on the 14th and 18th Dec. This was your enforcement of the partial block for the user who has already been blocked twice before:
(])


Apologies for bothering you on your talk page, but I was wondering if you could spare some advice. I am leaving the name of the editor this is about off intentionally.
] (]) 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:{{tps}} @] His recent edits are actually fine. ] and ] should be the ones looked at. Removing content without using a edit summary and calling all other edits vandalism is both a no-go. I'd recommend either putting the article under ECP or warning/blocking the editors under ]. Also, why are you (MustafaO) calling him out, when he is restoring the text that originally you ]? ] (]) 13:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::Hi ]
::Thank you for the question, just to update you on this particular case, yes in normal circumstances I would absolutely agree, but myself and Hawkers994 were told clearly by ] not to engage within that specific content area of the page without using the talk pages or make any edits without consensus that would affect that particular section in the page and accuracy of information isn'tnecessary in case of dispute. Both of us have previously been partially blocked before for making similar reversals.
::I dont know about whether or not the other users have received similar warnings, I think Abdihakimper has, but I assume lack of knowledge on how the edit summary works is his main problem as he seems to be a new user. I previously warned Abdihakimper some time ago on his talk page to clarify his edits before making them myself. But we've been told not to make edits without consensus. If that injunction didn't continue then I would like for there to be some clarification because I stopped completely but the other side did not.
::] (]) 13:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:::I won't have a chance to look into this for quite some time. If you believe it needs urgent attention I suggest you go to ]. ] (]) 14:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Ok understood and will do, I do intend to arbitrate, but could you check it for a moment? I previously received a partial block for an entire month for making one reversal. Should there not be at least some level of sanction/warning to the user appropriate to the level of sanction who did more than one reversal?
::::] (]) 14:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::So am i understanding it correctly that you agree that his latest edits are fine, you just don't like he's editing the page when you're not? ] (]) 14:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::Apologies for the confusion, allow me to explain more clearly, I had an issue with the misuse of a citation that doesn't even show the content of what the user used it for. Have a look at the citation yourself (]). Does it even show anything when you open it? Exactly. It's fraudulent Original research using a dead citation. It's frustrating because it shouldn't have even reached this far.
::::::So I absolutely don't agree with the edit due to what I just mentioned, so I am disputing it but I respected the injunction enough that I abandoned even the idea to edit the page even with what is essentially original research. Having a look at the citation is enough. It doesn't even work. I wanted to get a 3rd opinion and/or establish a community concensus. But it seems that the other user can still reverse to his original edit without impunity. It takes a minute to check. Please have a look at the citation. So yes that and the fact that the user is now in violation of this injunction which I and he previously got a partial block which I feel is deserving of sanction. It was the exact same violation.
::::::] (]) 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Have you read the book and know that it's not mentioning the content? Or are you assuming It's OR because you cant access it/find it online? (Asking because ] exists). ] (]) 15:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I scoured for the content inside the book which is partially available and couldn't find anything inside the book using the search function in the link regarding the content he added on the Awdal page. What he did mention on the Awdal page is not accessible which is interestingly convenient. Anybody could use any non accessible source and just add what they want. The reason why I mentioned OR was because there was a discussion I had a while ago and he admittedly stated that the source doesn't fully reflect the content exactly but was inferring and using it anyway which seems to me that there was a specific motivation to have that content remain whether or not there is any citation that is valid. I also asked for a pic of the book or evidence and they did not send anything. I added the next section in the line of the paragraph which is a plethora of sources effectively stating opposite to what the content stated because I wanted to invoke Special claims which contradict majority of sources need exceptional sources aswell as a reason why it should be removed. I think there is no need for it to be there because not one clean source mentions or supports the content. The search function in the link works. It takes a moment to select key words and use the function and nothing comes up. I just find it inconvenient that it takes this long to fix a relatively simple vandal edit. This is on top of the user violating the injunction and reediting with impunity.
::::::::] (]) 15:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::For situations like these exists ]. I created a request ] to find out if it's actually true or not. ] (]) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::] He hasn’t even attempted to read the book or source, he is denying that a certain community live in this region due to his prejudice, even though the source clearly states the content. This is the 5th time with different moderator he has been told not to delete this content as its sourced ] (]) 19:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::He hasnt unfortunately, written as Haber-awal on the search bar on page 9 should clear up this whole argument. ] (]) 19:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Can you mention what the source states and the relationship it has with the content that you wrote? Please share it with us
:::::::::] (]) 19:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::] Please have a look and establish this once and for all ] (]) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:@]
:"Should the mention of the Habr Awal/Isaaq remain on the Awdal page?"
:That is the question. Also is it ok to add the new discussion on the actual discussion on the talk page? I don't wish to repeat every point that I made on it.] (]) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::@]
::The question is written above but Ill write it here again:
::"Should the mention of the Habar Awal remain on the Awdal page?"
::Can you attach it on the Awdal talk page for the ]?
::Could you as as administrator not make the decision yourself? You've seen how there was only one old citation that contradicts multiple sources. I believe this should be put to rest now by messaging the other user and asking to bring more sources as it is contested. That should bring this all to an end. I don't even believe it should reach this far in all honesty. Everyone in the talk page discussion that we had agreed except him. That should be enough? The page shouldn't be held hostage by one user pushing their edit based on a contradictory source. I even cited several Misplaced Pages rules for acceptable sources.
::] (]) 22:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you very much. Please do inform me of the findings and my request would be to remove the content if it isn't found which is fair. ], apologies for the constant tagging, I'll stop but the edit war is raging as we speak which includes more than one guilty party. Whether or not the edits are correct, the other user wasn't supposed to engage at all. Please have a look. Thank you.
] (]) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


I had a dispute with a user around a year or so ago who said that they didn't need to follow WP:V, essentially. This wasn't a new user, but a user who has been here for close to 12+ years and who had been warned several times for their edits by other users (no admin warnings from what I remember)
]
I was reading ] and the usage section which states that there should be some provision that is added when using an offline source. Especially considering this source that is being used has no E-book available online conveniently as it states in the source: (]). It seems there isn't much activity on the Resource page and this 'source' which is really non existent is being used to push specific content. On top of that his use of that source violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:EXTRAORDINARY because every source on the topic states otherwise, just look at the plethora of sources I added on that section. Over 10 sources contradict this one source that is non existent that I could provide you right now, if you need it just ask, I put only a few in the page when to establish the alternative to that content once it was allowed to remain. Why should it take this long to remove a vandal edit using that source that is clearly motivated?


So I went over several of their older edits at the time and realized that they would insert material with citations that didn't mention what was added to the article or said something entirely different, insert links to primary documents in BLP articles, insert links to piracy sites containing pirated software, just a whole mess of things.
] (]) 19:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


I've tried not to hound them since I firmly believe everyone deserves peace when editing here (within reason), but it has drawn their past edits into question. I don't want to go through and edit 75+ edits of theirs for not following correct policies, since as a regular editor that would certainly annoy me. I have for the most part only edited five or less of their edits in that year time frame but am curious when this should be brought to ANI, or if it's better to just let them go about their editing. I occasionally check their edits to make sure there isn't anything super terrible that justifies immediate removal but feel like this is borderline harassment of them, and wanted to ask the proper steps.
:Why should sourced content from a book be removed simply because you don’t agree that a certain community lives in a region, even though you yourself have used the same book as source in the article. The source clearly states that they do live
:and inhabit this region as well as trade and other customs. Prejudice views are not tolerated in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::Show where it says they inhabit the region. I cant seen to find it at all using the search function at all. Do you have a copy of the book at home that you can scan?
::] (]) 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:::This is exactly the discussion that needs to be happening at the talk page. ] (]) 22:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you and I dont mind but I think it's a fruitless back and forth with him even if we go on the talk page, because the source is non existent and he will say it says something, that cannot be searched for so it's a dead end. The search function even if used doesn't yield anything. I don't understand how it even reached this far. He states something yet there is no function on the search page. For me the only way I see this as justifiable is if there is another clear citation. Until then it would be better for it to be removed and that's how Misplaced Pages always functioned. There needs to be a clear citation. A consensus can be reached once the content of this source can be read, searched for but the source itself states that the E-book is not available. Even then does it say what he says verbatim, how can we verify?
::::] (]) 23:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Discussion is absolutely necessary, even if you don't think it will be productive. Worst case is after you find that there's no compromise, and you're unable to verify the source you start an rfc that brings in uninvolved editors and actually establish consensus. I'm not going to make any call, and ''I can't make any call'', on the content itself. All I can do is tell you how to proceed and keep blocking everyone and protecting the page when the edit warring resumes.
:::::Also, please make sure your messages are complete before posting them. Every time edit a comment I get an email and a notification. I'm up to 22 from you today. ] (]) 23:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::Hi ] The Admins have done a ] which came back positive ] finally we can all put this roundabout like discussion behind us. ] (]) 10:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@] Im about to start a section ] as a recap. ] (]) 10:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::@]
::::::::Apologies for the message so soon. I was looking at the options available and was wondering what the next steps are regarding the issues on the Awdal page? I believe I showcased more than enough evidence stating my case which is why I believe the content should be removed even without the need to have to go for arbitration however I'm willing to go through whatever channel is required to fix a problem I feel is an affront to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 09:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Hi @]
:::::::::@]
:::::::::What process is there now for the Awdal page? Just wondering what the next steps are as it's been a few days and no resolution. I think most people who contributed their opinion on the talk page discussion ultimately sided with the points I raised regarding removing the content until multiple sources explicitly stating the content added is bought. Any chance you can conclude the matter in that regard once and for all? All of the users apart from the editor directly involved all stated the same. If not, then what process can be done? You mentioned ]? Anything at this point would be welcome.
:::::::::] (]) 15:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, you should open an RFC with a '''neutrally worded, brief''' RFC statement. If you need assistance formulating the RFC I can provide some help with that. ] (]) 15:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::@]
:::::::::::I don't know how to do it, any chance you can open it for us on the same talk page? You woupd probably be able tonword it best and in a neutral way.
:::::::::::] (]) 16:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::What exactly is the question you'd like to have resolved? ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@]
:::::::::::::The content on the page contradicts multiple sources that are easily accessible and is only backed up by one old citation which is ambiguous. I would like to ask is it valid to make a request to remove the content until multiple explicit sources that support the content is found per ]. Also it is not fair to give significant coverage to the content in the article based on that citation per ].
:::::::::::::I'm not sure how to word the question, but maybe is it valid to remove the content based on one old citation which contradicts all current known sources until more valid sources are found?
:::::::::::::Sorry for the long winding comment. I just wanted to add context.
:::::::::::::] (]) 17:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I was thinking something along the lines of "Should the article state that whatever subclan has a population in Awdal?" The question itself should be short and neutral. ] (]) 18:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::@]
:::::::::::::::Only contention I would have is, the question probably requires a bit more context because I don't have any qualms with content that is backed up by acceptable sources. The issue here is about an old citation being used that contradicts multiple sources. Is it possible that the discussion is held on the talk page? At least then anyone making a judgement can see the context at play. Everyone wpuld agree that a citation ststing anything is fine to use. However when its old and it contradicts multiple sources then this context is essential.
:::::::::::::::] (]) 18:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Stick with the basic question, and provide the context you'd like in your !vote or in the discussion section of the rfc. So what is the basic question? ] (]) 18:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@]
:::::::::::::::::I think a neutral question would be: "Should a disputed citation be allowed to use to support content if it contradicts multiple sources on the Awdal page"?
:::::::::::::::::You can word it around and edit it if you wish.
:::::::::::::::::] (]) 19:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::That's an argument, not an rfc statement. What is the actual question at hand? ] (]) 19:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@]
:::::::::::::::::::"Should the mention of the Habr Awal/Isaaq remain on the Awdal page?"
:::::::::::::::::::That is the question.
:::::::::::::::::::] (]) 19:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:It needs to be more clear for the uninvolved editors who will be brought by the rfc bot. Perhaps something like "Should the Isaaq clan be mentioned as a part of the population of Habr Awal?" ] (]) 22:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::@]
::Sorry was using my phone and it became difficult to read so had to make some space.
::Yes its perfect, just one correction:
::"Should the Habr Awal/Isaaq clan be mentioned as a part of the population of Awdal?" Could the discussion take place on the exact same discussion we had so the uninvolved editors can look at the discussion that was previously had? Also, I don't think this is an issue of a simple vote alone. It's important to actually see the discussion aswell because of the full context. I personally don't think it should have reached this far because all of the editors in the talk page discussion already agreed except him. I think a simple message to him to bring more sources would have put an end to it. Apologies for additional edits and messages attached.
::] (]) 22:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
:::The discussion will be visible in the section above the rfc. I strongly suggest that you stay away from making too many contributions to the rfc, as extended back and forths tend to reduce overall participation. ] (]) 23:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Ok thank you very much. I will not be make too many contributions.
::::] (]) 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::::@]
::::I think it would be a good idea to have some level of protection remain on the ] page whilst disputing editors comtinue any discussion. Now that your current restriction has ended anonymous IP accounts are already causing mayhem which is an extra added problem. Semi protection at the least would be advisable.
::::] (]) 15:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::I resumed the indefinite semi-protection. ] (]) 15:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you ] (]) 15:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


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


:If you've spoken with them without positive results and the behavior is continuing ANI is certainly an option, or AE if their editing is in a ] and they're aware of the CTOP designation. Really, though, how you handle it is up to how you feel, and if you think it's worth whatever can of worms could be opened. ] (]) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
May this new year brings more happiness and prosperity in your life. Best wishes with the light of true path. Amen.
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#6C3320; background-color:#FFFFA2; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]


awshort does harass and needs to stop stalking me and anyone else. They are not a victim and seldom change anything of value. I saw my “targeted killings” edit was reverted because the allegation was that my sources which said exact dollar amounts of $15,000 and $30,000 paid by Iranian proxies to kill people in the west was alleged to not be accurate. ] (]) 00:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Maliner has given you a pack of ] bars! Chocolate promotes ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


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


::@] I am here in an act of self defense from you. ] (]) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{tls|Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
:::@] That didn't answer the question - you weren't pinged, and I wasn't specific on who I was talking about. So unless you are following my edits, I'm unsure why you came here or why you specifically believe this is in regards to you.
{{clear}}
</div><!-- Template:Toblerone for you --> ] (]) 18:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC) :::] (]) 04:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


:::: ] Can you please respond to the edit war being started by Awshort (who is yet wiki stalking me again)? We are having a dispute on this article page: ]. Thank you. ] (]) 23:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Maliner}}, happy holidays to you as well, and thanks for all you do to maintain Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'll give you a bit of a third opinion. The lead should follow the body, and there is no other mention of lamplighter in the article. It would make more sense to add that information, and also information on whistleblowers which is also absent, to the article before adding it to the lead. Looking at the importance of that information in the context of the article is also important for deciding if it should be in the lead.
:::::This is really a run of the mill editing dispute so you should just follow ]. ] (]) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] And disputes are fixed with discussion. I asked you for a reliable source that isn't one person refering to himself as such, provided policy based reasoning on why your edit was reverted, and provided alternative article suggestions where your text (with proper sourcing) would fit better than an unrelated article with it randomly thrown in.
:::::I would also suggest reading ] {{tq|It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations.}}
:::::You never did answer the above question on what brought you here, but the edits I have reverted or tried to fix of yours in the past have been either highly problematic policy violations (you linking to a private data dump which could carry legal implications for the site, you referring to BLP subjects as pedophiles without proper sourcing stating the same, a few similar instances) or you ignoring ] and using as your rationale.
:::::] (]) 23:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:::::: ] The content fits, but not in the lead per ]. You may now determine where in the article the content belongs and re-add it. The issue here is the quickness to revert and not improve. My first edit had an allegation of bad sources, and you alleged on my talk page that it was nearly impossible to find a better source. So, I showed you with a book citation how easy it can be to improve something without hitting the “revert button” and complaining on a talk page. Now, you may demonstrate your dedication to teamwork on Misplaced Pages by finding my research and correct citation a proper place on the article. Hope this is a lesson for you in good Misplaced Pages etiquette. ] (]) 23:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== "Zionist state" ==
:::::::I didn't say that it fits in the article, just that it shouldn't be in the lead unless it is in the article, and the first step would be to work it into the article. If you want something in an article it is your responsibility to find the appropriate sourcing to demonstrate that it is ] for inclusion. ] (]) 23:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] As I said, I attempted to improve it and find better sources which supported the text, not that it was "nearly impossible" as you put it. Your book citation showed that one person called himself that, and was still not valid for what you were trying to add to an unrelated article.
:::::::There have been several instances of you adding random tidbits of somewhat-related-but-only-barely information to articles which don't necessarily help readers understand the overall topic any better, and other editors in the past have pointed this out to you over a period of several years. In the instances I've seen in the past (as in, not involving me personally) it usually involves you telling them you found the information, it helps the article, and they need to add it back. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; that is policy ]. As is consensus being how things change in articles (or as you refer to it above, "complaining on a talk page"). Not all material necessarily improves an article and just being factually true doesn’t automatically mean it should be included or stay in an article. Once material is disputed, the responsibility falls on the person who wants the material included in the article to obtain consensus that it should stay in (with no consensus usually resulting in the material being left out). And lastly, your responses to other users when you are upset/annoyed with them come off as ''extremely'' condescending. Please work on how you talk to other people; that is part of policy (]) and has been mentioned to you in the past by several users including an admin.
:::::::Regarding the information which started this whole reactivation of an old discussion - I looked last night for a more suitable alternative for the material and it appears in both {{Section link|Frank Serpico|Retirement and activism}} as well as
{{Section link|Whistleblowing|Advocacy for protection}}, with the second link also mentioning the Lamp Lighter Project. Since there is no mention of Internal Affairs in the few sources that mention the term or connection between IA and the term, it seems this has been fixed on the content level at least by ending up in a suitable set of articles.
:::::::] (]) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Please Re-open Requested move 6 December 2024 ==
I read somewhere that you had said something about this on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war page, wasn't sure. Is that term not allowed on the talk page? Just wanted to clarify for my own info. Thanks for your hard work. ] (]) 02:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


Discussion of changing "Gaza genocide" to "Gaza genocide accusations" was closed and archived before adequate discussion could take place. Please re-open the discussion and restore the archived comments, including my own:
:{{u|Chuckstablers}}, there was some discussion about it ]. ] (]) 20:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
* “Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of a group that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. Immense suffering and civilian toll in Gaza have resulted from the war started by Hamas, and from specific actions by Hamas that put Gazan civilians in harm’s way.
::Thanks, I'll take a look (I tried searching on my own before bothering you, I couldn't find anything). Happy new year by the way, have a good one. ] (]) 22:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
* Hamas does not separate fighters from civilians in its Gaza health ministry numbers. Hamas does not specify whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups; for example, the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.<ref name="b361">{{cite web | title=Gaza: Findings on October 17 al-Ahli Hospital Explosion | website=Human Rights Watch | date=2023-11-26 | url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17-al-ahli-hospital-explosion | access-date=2024-12-08}}</ref>
* Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza. When Israeli officials have made statements reflecting callous disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, they have been disciplined.<ref name="r875">{{cite web | last=Williams | first=Dan | title=Netanyahu suspends Israeli minister over Gaza nuclear comment | website=Reuters | date=2023-11-05 | url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-disciplines-israeli-minister-who-voiced-openness-hypothetical-nuclear-2023-11-05/ | access-date=2024-12-08}}</ref>
* The goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel and Jews off the map, an example of genocidal intent. Israel directs its force at legitimate military targets, which Hamas has intentionally placed under and within civilians’ homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools.
* The Israeli military sends Arabic-language warnings to Gazans prior to its airstrikes on military targets, and indicates routes for Palestinian civilians to relocate. Hamas has repeatedly called on Palestinian civilians to ignore Israel’s warnings about impending strikes and reportedly forced civilians to remain in the vicinity of military objectives, using them, like its hostages from Israel, as human shields.
* Hamas has continued to launch missiles into Israel, not from military bases, as international law dictates, but from civilian areas in Gaza. International law allows legitimate military targets to be attacked when the anticipated military advantage from the attack exceeds the expected civilian harm. Hamas has inflated the number of civilian casualties. Harm to Gazan civilians is a horrible outcome of war, but it is not genocide.
] (]) 15:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Allthemilescombined1, for interest, why do you appear to believe that it is okay to use talk pages in the topic area for what appears to be advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world? I don't understand why this happens so often in the topic area or what can be done to ensure that editors don't need to filter it out when they read talk pages or participate in consensus forming discussions. ] (]) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm saving everyone the time of coming to the same conclusion and lowering the engagement at the next discussion even more. Wait until something significant has changed or a more appreciable amount of time has passed. There will be more outside input and a better representative consensus of things at that point. ] (]) 01:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me. -- ] (] · ]) 00:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== Happy New Year ==
{{reflist-talk}}


== <s>Condolences</s> er I mean congrats.... you gon' be an arb ==
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FDEE00;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | ''']!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. ] (]) 14:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
|}


Looks like you got in, right in the meaty part of the pack. I will not be joining you. That's fine though, you got a hell of a great group coming in with you, I'm suddenly far less worried about the committee's ability to get shit done. ] ] 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you kindly. I hope you have a great 2024 as well. ] (]) 14:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


*Congrats. As reward for dealing with the thankless tasks you get... even more onerous tasks! No, seriously, congratulations and I hope you take it as something of an antidote to all of the criticism that you now enjoy a mandate from the community to clean things up even more. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Happy New Year, ScottishFinnishRadish! ==
*Congrats to the Raddish! You’ve come an incredibly long way and have a lot to be proud of. ]] 02:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">
]]
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|''''']!'''''}}}}
'''ScottishFinnishRadish''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable ], and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
<br />] (]) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)<br /><br />
</div>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}}<!-- From template:Happy New Year fireworks --> ] (]) 20:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


:<small>(Extends my congrats to you)</small> ]? You have a right to. Now, with that out of the way, my recommendation for your first order of business as part of the ArbCom: What are your thoughts about ]'s ] (which include ''Correspondence clerks'', ''WMF staff support'', ''Coordinating arbitrators'' and ''grants for corresponding clerks'')? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 02:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Happy new year to you as well. ] (]) 14:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
::I've been thinking about that, but I don't have any solid input. It's difficult to comment on how to fix a process you've never seen up close. ] (]) 16:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Congrats! <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 02:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


:First root vegetable Arb? Congratulations friend. ] ] 02:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
==Appeal==
::{{yo|Star Mississippi}} We're making plans for an eventual root vegetable majority :) ] (] • she/her) 14:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have appealed the sanction you opposed on me . Thank you very much and a Happy New Year. ] (]) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
:::That arbcom will be the best ever! {{small|at remaining edible when kept in a cellar over winter}} ] (]) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
* O wow, wasn't following this. Well done (I think) - what was it you did in a former life that requires this degree of atonement? ] (]) 03:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:In a former life I was responsible for the formulation of ], and thus for the comedy career of ]. ] (]) 16:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Congrats! ] (]) 12:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* Congratulations. ] (]) 14:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
* Congrats! ] (]) 19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you, everybody, for the congratulations. Here's to hoping I don't bollocks the whole things up. ] (]) 16:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::You'll be accused of it regardless. And in case nobody told you, next month is a sort of hazing ritual where tons of banned users try their luck with the new committee, so enjoy that. ] ] 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::You managed to swim through the rapids of PIA, so I'm sure that the rest will be a doddle. Well done. ] (]) 19:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*Fantastic news! You'll be a fab addition...-- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Finally, I'll get that raise I've been itching for! Right?? {{small|...right?}} ] (]) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A raise in blood pressure, guaranteed.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I know WMF has a legal assistance fund, what about medical assistance? ] (]) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's an option, but they only dispense . You need to be available 24/7 now!-- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If it comes with ] I might just be able to make it work. ] (]) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*Congrats! ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! == == Revdel inquiry re BLPN ==


Greetings! At ] we have whose mind works differently and saw fit to name names of other presumably living people. Is it worth a redaction? Along with a tall glass of calm
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
the hell down for OP? This seems like someone who could maybe be a wider problem, per her post. I'm looking at ] and missing ]... thanks for your thoughts. ] (]) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]

:I don't have time to dig into this right now, but I'll check it tomorrow if no one else has handled it ] (]) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|JFHJr}}, I don't think this needs a revdel, but I did redact the names. Looks like there are some eyes on the article now. ] (]) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ossum, possum. Thanks again. And congratulations on arbor-trader stuff. Trees are friends. ] (]) 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I've lost two of my apple trees in recent years, so I'm hoping with my election I'll be better equipped to take care of them. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

== Question about a couple blocks ==

I'm looking at a bunch of old talk page archives and blocks for a ... project (we all have our hobbies) and I saw that, in June, you blocked two accounts for sockpuppetry ] and ]. The problem is... I don't think they were socking. Basically, a somewhat popular youtuber made a series about micronations, and then made one of his own for fun. It's called "Ironland" and it's not notable by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a pretty popular series (Youtube kept trying to push me into watching it, and the Romanian government's tiktok acccount had some fun with it). It's hardly surprising that a few fans tried to write a Misplaced Pages article for it. (Again, we all have our hobbies) I poked around on reddit and a few fans tried to work on a draft together, but they seemed to accept the decline. Somebody made one on the micronation wiki and fandom, in the end, thank goodness. But that still leaves the issue of these blocks. I know they were made in good faith, and to be fair, I can't see the draft- but I do have additional context.

CG52110 has filed several unblock requests, admitting they had one other account, and promising to abandon its use- but because they were tagged as a sockpuppet in control of at least nine accounts, they're not getting unblocked anytime soon if ever. As far as anybody working in cat:unblock is concerned, not only did they sock, they're also lying. One admin even accused them of being the person to create the micronation- which knowing what I know about the YouTube series, is highly unlikely.

The other block, of 7goldfishglory, is also something I'd like to ask you about. They made a draft, it got rejected, they asked why- and then came back to say they did their research, understood why, and that they'd {{tq|wait until it's more well-known}}. Which, at the end of the day, is sort of what we want to see. They were acting in good faith and they were respectful of our norms, once they realized what they were. I'm not seeing anything blockworthy. They could have used the exact same text in their draft, in fact, and I'd merely assume that they copied it from another fan, or the micronation wiki or something. Bad in terms of copyright, but, again, not blockworthy until they do it twice. They haven't asked to be unblocked, but to be fair, but if they're used to dealing with reddit or discord mods, they probably thought "why bother?" and disengaged.

Anyway, just thought I'd ask to see if my context helped, or if you had any context I'd missed. And, because I've seen your talk page archives and I don't want to feel left out: <insert long, vaguely off-topic ARBPIA-themed rant/interrogation here>. ] (]) 22:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:I am aware that, normally, nine accounts show up to write an article about an obviously non-notable subject is a pretty clean sockpupping block, 98% of the time. But that remaining 2% of the time.... ] (]) 22:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::The short answer is that ] also covers ], specifically {{tq|A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.}}
::I blocked a lot of accounts creating ironland drafts, and after salting accounts were recreating the draft at the same unsalted title. That, combined with matching prose, led me to the conclusion that it was sock or meatpuppetry. Quite a few of the blocks were noted as sock or meat. ] (]) 23:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, don't worry, I do actually know those guidelines, and I completely get how, with the evidence and knowledge you had, you came to the decision you did. ] is very useful for when you just can't quite prove an account is socking or canvassing, but they're causing just enough low-grade disruption that we'd rather be rid of them. I'm not fully sure that applies to all the accounts here though, that's what I'm trying to get at. Some of them, yeah - but 7goldfishglory was blocked <em>after</em> they went out of their way to clarify that they understood why the draft wasn't going to be accepted, and said they'd stop working on it until they found sources that could prove its notability, so I don't exactly know what their block was meant to ]. At worst, they're a fan of the Youtuber who probably saw a fully formed article at the micronation wiki and copied it over in violation of our copyright policies. Your call though. I just think blocks like these are the equivalent of blocking everybody who tries their hand at creating something related to BFDI as an Brandon1998 sock, and that our regular policies of dealing with this kind of stuff - liberal salting and a few polite warnings about what ] - tend to work just fine. Again, YMMV, and I've been known to use quick and dirty solutions like that on occasion. I just figured you'd find an alternative explanation interesting. ] (]) 04:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
== 2025 Arbitration Committee ==

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their ]. Their two-year terms formally begin on 1 January 2025:
* {{userlinks|CaptainEek}}
* {{userlinks|Daniel}}
* {{userlinks|Elli}}
* {{userlinks|KrakatoaKatie}}
* {{userlinks|Liz}}
* {{userlinks|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
* {{userlinks|Theleekycauldron}}
* {{userlinks|Worm That Turned}}

The one-year terms of these members also begin on 1 January 2025:
* {{userlinks|Primefac}}

Upon meeting the Wikimedia Foundation's ] and signing ], all incoming members ] subscribed to ], assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office, and given access to the CheckUser and Oversight queues on the ].

We also thank our outgoing colleagues, whose terms end on 31 December 2024:
* {{userlinks|Firefly}}
* {{userlinks|Guerillero}}
* {{userlinks|L235}}
* {{userlinks|Moneytrees}}

Outgoing members are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the ] and ] mailing lists following their terms on the Arbitration Committee. To that effect:
* Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing members, who have not chosen to retain them, after 31 December 2024:
*: CheckUser: Firefly, L235
*: Oversight: Firefly, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees
* Outgoing members are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. That will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
* All outgoing members will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
* All outgoing members will be unsubscribed from the ''clerks-l'' mailing list, with the exception of Firefly, Guerillero, and Moneytrees, who have chosen to remain subscribed.

On behalf of the Committee, ] (]) 02:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|2025 Arbitration Committee}}'''<!-- ] (]) 02:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
::Congratulations. ] (]) 16:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

== Potential myopia of PIA-centric RSN discussions — thoughts? ==

I’m sure you’re aware of the recent trend of news outlets being RfCed primarily for PIA-related topics

However, one of the most irritating things about it (apart from, y’know, the very incursion of mud-slingers onto RSN, the taurine tunnel vision of both sides, the non-policy-grounded biases nakedly displayed, and the systematic coordination on at least one side) is that both sides tend to forgo any discussion of the given source for its non-PIA coverage. This is detrimental and inconvenient for the broader editing community because it muddies the waters about the usability of these sources for everything else in this big world we live in.

For example, Al Jazeera tends to take a fairly detached, professional view of Ukraine and certain other hot topics, but at the polar opposite end its quasi-coverage of Qatargate in Europe and the Menendez trial quite frankly puts RT and the Global Times to shame. The nuanced usability assessment that a rational, civil discussion would be likely to produce is instead swept aside by a circus in which the majority is spouting distorted applications of policy while the opposing side basically just does variations on “nuh-uh!”

In another example, I recently argued against the Jerusalem Post being tarred and feathered because of the inevitable effects on its non-PIA coverage and in particular that it could mess with the diversity of the source basket for domestic Israeli politics and society/culture stuff. <s>Oh wait why would they even care</s>

Do you think there’s any grounds to expect forthcoming changes to the situation due to recent formal proceedings at arbcom and AE and stuff, or that there’s any way to help keep project-wide discussions from turning into spillover from the ungodly cesspool that is high-traffic PIA talk pages? I feel like part of the problem is the self-selection of anyone who wants to make big edits in that topic area.

Cheers, ] (]) 14:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:The short answer is no. The longer answer is nooooooooooooooooooo. As long as the real-world conflict is at high intensity there will be spillover on to en.wiki, and part of that means that there will be an increase in NPOVN, RSN, NOORN, and other spillover from the topic area. The topic area has a great need for these venues of wider participation, both for regular dispute resolution and to establish wider consensus than a local talk page consensus. This does lead to a lot of large discussions, but the recent 1000 word limit sanction should keep things a bit tighter and hopefully avoid huge spirals.
:Despite the added stress on venues like RSN, this is Misplaced Pages working as intended. There are real conflicts over the use of these sources, and rather than have editors argue back and forth on an article talk page they ''need'' to be able to seek a community consensus. ] (]) 16:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Good point. Actually, I get the impression that it’s mostly the same set of editors who participate in such discussions even though it’s on a noticeboard.
::My surmise is that the toxicity of the topic area is still turning off general-purpose editors even in project-wide spaces. ] (]) 09:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The data suggests that the topic area is . I don't know whether there is also more participation in noticeboard discussions related to PIA compared to the background level. It is not possible to say without measuring the background level. But it's clear that noticeboard discussions are not sampling the editor population very effectively. This might also be true of discussions unrelated to PIA. So, it could be related to systemic problems with participation in general rather than something topic area specific. ] (]) 09:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== Congratulations! ==

To differentiate from everyone else congratulating you on the promotion, I decided to do it in your three languages. {{smiley}}
* Scottish: {{lang|gd|Mealaibh ur naidheachd!}}
* Finnish: {{lang|fi|Onnittelut!}}
* and <s>Radish</s> er, Wikipedian:
<gallery>
File:Margaret Bartlett Millar in Los Angeles Times.jpg |]
File:Diana Angwech TIMNATH testimonial.jpg | ]
File:Linda Morra on Humanities Podcast Network.jpg | ]
</gallery>
(I just looked at the list of articles you have on your user page, and hoped you might appreciate having them illustrated. .) The last isn't perfect, but better than what was on the article already, I hope you'll agree. BTW, any objection if we move that to just ], since there isn't anyone else in Misplaced Pages with that name that we need to disambiguate with the middle initial? --] (]) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks a ton, and go for it. I rescued those all from ] declined drafts so they got stuck with whatever name they were created at. Same with ] which was at ], but I actually remembered to move it. Again, thanks, I really appreciate the images. ] (]) 19:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::Speaking of. I would hate to break it, since it's a GA and all, and my skills are more in finding pics than in editing them, but what do you think of:
<gallery>
File:Rosetta Lawson.png|before
File:Rosetta_C._Lawson_(cropped).png|after
</gallery>
::? --] (]) 19:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the after is a bit over-processed, which makes the image artifacts stand out. Somewhere in the middle would probably be an improvement. What really irks my taters is that I ''know'' there are other images of her in old newspapers and other documents, but I haven't been able to dig them up. ] (]) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Better? (I used the same file, so if you don't see any change, hit shift-reload.) --] (]) 19:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, that's better. Keeps the skin tone from getting washed out while still improving the visible details. Thanks again! ] (]) 19:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Great. Now the second part, finding more images. I think I did that. Here are a few versions to choose from. Say which you like, or whether you want me to ''try'' to take off the oval frame.
<gallery>
File:Fannie J. Henderson ; Fannie Elliott ; Cora Everette ; Rebecca J. Carter ; Annie Witherspoon ; Carrie Morgan ; Rosetta E. Lawson.jpg | Fannie J. Henderson ; Fannie Elliott ; Cora Everette ; Rebecca J. Carter ; Annie Witherspoon ; Carrie Morgan ; Rosetta E. Lawson, 1906
File:Rosetta E. Lawson (cropped).jpg | Rosetta E. Lawson
File:Rosetta E. Lawson (cropped) 2.jpg | Rosetta E. Lawson, brightened, de-spot-ified
</gallery>
:::::: However that leads to an awkward bit, which is why I'm not replacing the image in the article quite yet. I'm reasonably sure this is the subject of the article. However, your image had middle initial C, and this one, and your article, has middle initial E. Er ... was that a typo? If not, are you quite sure that first image was the subject of your article ? --] (]) 20:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Her maiden name was Coakley, so I probably just mixed it up when titling the image. I think the original image is better because it captures her "I don't take bullshit" expression. I think the lightened image would be great in the advocacy section. ] (]) 22:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I see you put them both in, thanks. I made https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Rosetta_Lawson and gave her a middle name, cited: Evelyn. --] (]) 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks again for your work, it's appreciated. ] (]) 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

== Your evidence at PIA 5 ==

Your example:
*
:the link is dead/wrong? ] (]) 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up. Should be fixed. ] (]) 23:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== Revdel question... ==

So, what should we do about revdel if ? - ] (]) 22:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:Sorted. You had me worried, but the article only had like 9 edits. ] (]) 22:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's what I was expecting to happen, that's why I just left you a message and then left a copyvio warning on the user's talk... - ] (]) 05:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

== A request for block an user ==

Hello, I'm ], one of the editor on Misplaced Pages. I hear that you are one of the admins on Misplaced Pages, so I want to ask you for help. In the few months before, the article ] had an user name ] was vandalism the article so many. Since the ], there was no third place match. But he always edited the third and the fourth ranking on the ], which lead to many user have to reverted the article many times. He always said that the reason was he used it from the AFC website, although there was no source about it. I have already gave him a warning for this, but he said threatly for me and always said by using CAPSLOCK to tell many user when they said to him politely. I think this user not only used incorrectly sources but he also one of the dangerous user that threaten anyone. So this message today is can you help me block this user please? Because if anyone warning to him about it, he will not change and still violated to them. Thank you for reading this message. Hope you have a good time during this week. ] (]) 07:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

==Io Saturnalia!==

{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" | |rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Half Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You were very fast on blocking the bad username that was reported to U.A.A shortly before! ] (]) 18:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|} |}


:Happy Holidays to you and yours as well. I hope you don't have any winter problems on the farm. ] (]) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Can you intervene please? ==
Hi, I would like to ask for your attention regarding the complaint at ]. Two users, one of whom you have warned to "tone it down" and where a different administrator warned to stop ], are completely misbehaving. They are systematically forum shopping and posting false complaints about me to smear my reputation at irrelevant places, as seen here: . I am not here to defend myself and be personally attacked on a daily basis. This is completely demotivating. ] (]) 20:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


== Another possible 1RR violation ==
:Just noting that I've seen this. I'm under the weather (again) so I'm less active, but I've seen it. ] (]) 00:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry to hear that, feel well ! ] (]) 07:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


Once again I may be wrong here, but I think this is a 1RR violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1263475889
== BANEXEMPT question ==


If so, can you take appropriate action?
Since I am repeatedly raised at ], may I participate in the discussion? ''']''' - 23:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


Thanks. ] (]) 18:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Nableezy}}, yes, that's a reasonable request. With the understanding that this is particularly prickly, I ask that you do your best to keep your cool and don't take any bait. ] (]) 00:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


:I've remedied the violation and made them aware of the CTOP sanctions on the topic. ] (]) 18:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== MGTOW ==


== Possible ] violation by Bohemian Baltimore ==
Thanks, I was just starting a AN3 report and you saved me some paperwork. ] (]) 18:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


Good morning,
:No problem. I've had my eye on that for a few days and was hoping with the number of editors reverting they'd catch the drift and seek consensus. ] (]) 18:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


I have just reverted an edit by Bohemian Baltimore, who has a topic ban on self-ID articles for BLPs, broadly construed. This editor has made a number of small edits that seem to test/skirt the TBAN, with the text I reverted today seeming to be a more obvious violation of the ban. The editor disputes whether this applies in this case.
== Inclusion in WikiProject report proposal ==


Details as follows:
Hello, I am writing a draft WikiProject report for ] about WikiProjects Israel/Palestine and wanted to include the perspective of admins who are monitoring the talk page of related articles. Since you're recently one of the active ones, would you be up for answering a few questions, and do you have recommendations of other admins as well? The questions I am thinking are along the lines of:


* The editor to the ] article to change the wording around how these people are identified.
* Admins who enforce ] sanctions cannot be ]. What kind of knowledge/skill sets do admins need to intervene where not only ] (], ], ] but also complex content disputes arise?


* The editor also made , which are used by some to self-ID.
* What is something you wished more editors knew or prepared before getting involved in editing topics covered by ]?


* The editor changed the article to remove the '''Category:Nahua people''' to '''Category:Nahua''', and the article.
If you're interested, I can link you a draft/follow up with you/other admins if you like. ~ 🦝 ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


* I have just reverted the addition of ] (i.e., groups of people who self-ID) to .
:Sure, I'd be willing to answer a few questions. The only other admin that I know has been watching some talk pages is {{u|Bradv}}, although several more have been handling page protections and contributing at AE. That also doesn't mean there aren't more admins who are haunting those talk pages, but I haven't seen any popping up. There's also hundreds of articles in the topic area, so I may be watching different pages than others. ] (]) 19:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::Forgot the ping. {{u|Shushugah}}. ] (]) 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
:::@] @] amazing! Here is the draft btw ] ~ 🦝 ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::::@] could you give this a priority if you have time? I believe the WP:SIGNPOST would like to publish very soon (they're already delayed on deadlines) ~ 🦝 ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 09:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Shushugah}}, I've added some responses there. ] (]) 23:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


It might be that these don't fall under the "broadly construed" clause, but I thought it worth raising the issue now before a future edit does. I saw that you implemented the ban, so thought I'd reach out to you first. ] (]) 07:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== Topic ban ==


:@], pinging you for transparency. Hopefully we can get an answer. ] (]) 07:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, can you take a look at ] at AN/I and either enforce A.Musketeer's violation of their TBAN from ], broadly construed, or explain why it's not a violation? Thanks, ] (]) 00:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
::@] There is no testing or skirting. I was told to stay away from BLPs related to self-identification and citizenship due to controversy over Native American BLPs. And that is what I have done; stayed away from editing those topics on Indigenous BLPs. None of those edited articles is a BLP. I am not aware of any total ban on editing Indigenous topics. If there is, I was not informed. ] (]) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Self-ID is a major topic of most of these articles. Or are least of the edits you have made. It's worth noting that some of the info is also inaccurate—Taíno groups in Puerto Rico and the USVI are in non-sovereign territory (i.e., colonies), so they have no route for formal recognition. Your creation of the ] article and the related '''Category:Taíno heritage groups''' therefore seems oddly ]. ] (]) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry, but this seems like grasping for straws. If a topic ban for BLPs were to include non-BLPs, I would have been told this. Innocuous edits like creating a parent category for Nahua or adding Taino to the Native American identity article, in addition to not having anything to do with BLPs, doesn't even have anything to do with citizenship or self-identification. The information on the heritage group article, also, was not inaccurate. Not that that's relevant to the BLP question though. ] (]) 07:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If I am misinterpreting the decision, then I am happy to apologise. It's entirely possible I'm looking at this too rigidly.
:::::But either way, clarity would be good going forward. It seems to me these articles all have self-ID in common, either as an explicit or implicit element, and often involve the self-ID of people or groups of people.
:::::If these articles are too tangential to the topic to count and it's too non-specific for the BLP element to count, then that's also useful to know for you as well as anyone else. ] (]) 07:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] I think it is clear that it is my intent to adhere to the topic ban and that is what I have tried to do since I was T-banned. If we are going to quibble over broadness, then that needs to be clarified by the administrators and then I can adhere to whatever their determination is. But it seems like you are arguing for my topic-ban to be broader than what it was originally stated to be. If the goal posts are going to be moved, well okay, but I need to be informed of where they are now. ] (]) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think we are broadly in agreement that it's helpful to know where the boundaries lie. I read "broadly construed" as meaning anything related to the matter of Indigenous identity. What's a BLP or not is also relatively broadly construed in its own right. If that's not the case, I am happy to retract and strike my comments. ] (]) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
More edits here:


*Created the article – using the language of your prior self-ID articles to say these aren't recognised. (Note that Puerto Rico is a colony, not a state, so there is no formal route to recognition.)
==I/P article moved without discussion==
No consensus, no discussion, just a move. See . ] (]) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


* Created the .
:Have you asked them to revert the move and open an rm? ] (]) 00:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


* Editor added , even though the link is tangential. Again, seems pointy.
::I just did. ] (]) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
:::We'll see how that turns out. ] (]) 00:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
* ("an ethnic identity") and to a bunch of other articles.
:::{{u|Coretheapple}}, you may also want to start a discussion on the talk page to see if there's a rough consensus for the new title. ] (]) 00:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
::::No, I'm not a regular editor on that page and I don't feel comfortable about what would essentially be a kind of "unmove discussion" after it has been improperly moved without any discussion whatsoever. I think a better procedure would be for the move to be reverted and then a move discussion with a broad community consensus, which is essential in renaming articles in I/P. I would revert per the BRD cycle, but to be frank I'm not sure how to unmove a page and I don't want to screw it up.
::::As you know this is an extremely hot topic, even more hot than the Gaza war right now, due to the British and US airstrikes going on right now. That is how I wandered into this article in the first place---as a reader!. ] (]) 01:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


* Edited ]. (See below.)
Looks like I was premature. Sorry about that. Say what is the procedure when things go off the rails in these articles? The idea of going to ANI gives me the chills, but I hate to come running to you every time there is a problem, as there always will be, and in fact currently exists in the main Gaza article. ] (]) 19:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


Re: BLPs, also see ]: {{tq|A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.}}
:You can come here, make a content noticeboard post if it's related in that way, or even drop a neutral note at AN, rather than ANI, requesting a bit of admin attention on a particular discussion. What's the issue on the main Gaza article? I've been sick, so I'm trying to get caught up. ] (]) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
::Good ideas. Sorry about your illness.
::The problem at the main Gaza talk page is that the 23 December Requested Move resulted in a consensus that "Israel Hamas War" would be the base title, with or without modification. This is not accepted by a number of editors, resulting in an ], in which one of the options (G---"Change to Israel-Gaza War") runs contrary to the consensys determined just a few hours earlier. I pointed this out twice and was told to pound sand.
::After I left this note here, Chessrat began an ].
::So we have on the same page a discussion that iseeks to overturn the consensus of the 23 December RM discussion, which really should be hatted, and another discussion on how to implement that consensus decision.
::A fairly typlical situation in the I/P pages I would say. ] (]) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


I take your point that some of these are probably not violations, but the point is that they're skirting the issue "broadly construed". As for the Taíno, I have added text to the page you created to clarify. You'll see what I mean. But creating a category to call groups out for ''not having recognition they cannot obtain'' does, again, seem to be pointy. ] (]) 07:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== RFC on Airlines and Destinations tables ==


:@] So you admit that there probably aren't any violations and everything is only tangentially related if at all, but are still making an issue out of this. Well, that's interesting. The category for Taino heritage groups was actually created ''before'' my topic-ban was instituted, not that it matters, because it isn't a BLP anyway. Puerto Rico is a territory, not a "colony". I'm not sure that you are correct that a territory cannot give recognition to a tribe (Why are we debating this here?). But your quibble there is not I didn't give enough context on a newly created article still being worked on, not that there is anything false, because there wasn't. None of the edited articles pertains to "small groups". Name one, if so. It is my understanding that "broadly construed" pertains to BLPs, as I was topic-banned from BLPs. I didn't create the Taino category, by the way, to "call them out". That's a bad-faith accusation. I created the category to make it easier for readers to access articles related to Taino orgs. I think my editing over the past month has demonstrated my intent to adhere to the topic ban, as I have stayed away from the BLPs. I supposed it would be possible to quibble broadly enough to make the argument that ''any'' Native-related edits "tangentially" relate to BLPs in some way. ] (]) 08:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I wanted to propose a change to your close of this RFC: {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187|RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles}}. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to challenge the close, since I think your assessment of the consensus is generally accurate. I thought about waiting to discuss my ideas in User:A. B.'s closure challenge, but I'm not sure when they will have the chance to formulate and post it, and my stance on the RFC close is different from theirs anyway. So is it ok if I post my proposal here? ] (]) 02:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|So you admit that there probably aren't any violations}} I didn't say that. I said some may be tangential. I stand by statement that it's helpful to get clarification either way, and have offered to apologise if I'm proven wrong.
::As for the Taíno stuff, I have added sources at the relevant article. You will see what I mean there. The legal framework for recognition only applies to the 48 contiguous States and Alaska (and the latter only because they brought in specific rules to do that). Puerto Rico and the USVI are non-sovereign territories with limited ability to officially recognise groups, which is why groups from those islands have been pushing the UN to intervene on their behalf. But I agree we can drop that discussion here.
::ETA: Also, it's early and I'm particularly grumpy today. I apologise if my tone in general has caused an escalation. ] (]) 08:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If you want this looked at in detail I suggest you bring it to ]. ] (]) 12:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Having thought about it some more, I'm happy to leave this for now. I don't have the energy for it and don't want to get into any wikilawyering. @], I'm sorry for any bother caused. ] (]) 15:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== A bear for you ==
:Sure, go for it. ] (]) 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks">]Cmrc23 has given you a ]! Bears promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br />
I am proposing a change to the first paragraph of your closing summary and the common thread that you identified. My idea is to change the first paragraph to something like this: {{blockindent|1=After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables (or more specifically, ''the maintenance of complete, current lists of airlines and destinations'') ''are generally not permitted per WP:NOT. Individual routes can be mentioned if reliable sources demonstrate they meet WP:NPOV. For some airports, all routes might fulfill that criterion.'' There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables.}}


Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{tls|Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
This is my reasoning:
{{clear}}
</div><!-- Template:Bear -->


I see you working hard quite a lot. Have this bear as a token of appreciation ] 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
#I do not see a requirement for secondary sources in WP:DUE or WP:NPOV overall. (WP:BALANCE includes {{tq|This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint}}, but this is not applicable to the airlines and destinations of an airport.)
#I believe WP:DUE should be broadened to WP:NPOV, since contributors to the RFC cited both the whole policy as well as different sections of it.
#This common thread in the RFC:
#*Quotes from people who !voted "yes" (or qualified "yes"):
#**airport articles should include such tables when including a table would be due
#**the list need not be exhaustive
#**WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns
#**case-by-case makes the most encyclopedic sense; in general I would expect commercial airports with a handful of destinations would be the most suitable
#**For major airports like Heathrow, or Chicago IMHO it's not necessary: one can assume that there are many flights to & from many places involving those airports
#**If an airport only has flights to one or two other airports, for example, it would not serve the WP:READER well to not mention that
#*From people who !voted "no":
#**illustrative remarks on major and historic destinations, backed in depth by multiple independent WP:RS are quite a different matter
#**any routes that have enough coverage to be part of a BALANCED article can be discussed
#**If there are particularly interesting things about an airport, such as the aforementioned fact that KIND only has CYYZ and MMUN as international destinations, then those can be mentioned in prose
#**(My comment) it would be silly to insist that you may not explicitly mention the three flights available at the Kalamazoo airport. I'm sure you will find a good number of RS that discuss them in detail, given their significance to a small airport like Kalamazoo's
#**This would not preclude keeping information of genuinely encyclopedic interest
#*From editors who left other types of comments
#**all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered
#**I don't see why it's needful to have a ''complete'' list, but to me, it seems appropriate and encyclopaedic to provide some indication of which areas an airport serves
#**We should provided enough details on destinations to allow readers to have a good understanding of the airports reach. For smaller regional airports this will likely be the complete list, whereas for large international airports perhaps condensing it into countries served would be more useful
#**outside of table, one can describe in prose the general profile of cities that it serves - I can see this for small regional airports to say what cities that they link to


:Glad to help. Thanks for the bear, I appreciate any animal in goggles. ] (]) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
For some background, I decided to propose this change after replacing the list in the Harry Reid Airport article with . Nearly all the references I cited are primary. Indeed, when talking about an airport's ''current'' operations, I feel that it's inevitable to use primary sources (and I wouldn't consider them "bad" in this context). Perhaps some editors will wonder why maintaining up-to-date lists of airlines and destinations (which requires citing mainly primary sources) is not allowed, while a summary based on such sources is. Therefore, I think the closing summary should more clearly state that the consensus is that the lists are generally not permitted because of WP:NOT. ] (]) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
::I wasn't sure what image to use when I made the template, but when I saw this on the commons, I knew it was perfect ] 16:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's very ]. ] (]) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I can't believe there's no images in that article, surely ] applies? ] ] 22:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I could probably use dall-e to make sexy Rebecca pictures. ] (]) 22:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Given the context, I assumed that link would be about furries on wikipedia! ] 16:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] unblock requests question ==
:Your suggestion ignores the (by far the strongest, as I pointed out in my close) policy based arguments. ], which was widely cited makes it clear that the threshold for inclusion for content that would normally not be part of the encyclopedia is inclusion in independent secondary sources. Deciding what primary sourced information to include fails ] or the same argument for inclusion would apply to the exact dimensions of causeways and terminals, the depth of the concrete and asphalt runways, or the number of toilets and sinks. Per footnote C in WP:DUE, {{tq|The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.}} There are likely hundreds of primary sources for the depth of the runway pavement including blueprints, permit applications, engineering reports, environmental studies, and more, but no one would argue that it would be due without independent secondary sources discussing it. Choosing one primary detail to include and not another is based on its prominence among Misplaced Pages editors, not the sources.
:I think I made it very clear that NOT was the strongest rationale in my close, where I started {{tq|Addressing the arguments, the strongest and by far most common argument put forth by those opposed to the tables is WP:NOTALLSORTSOFSTUFF. WP:NOT is policy, and the strength of the arguments citing it are recognized by those supporting inclusion of the tables.}} Including that in the first paragraph isn't necessary. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
::Doesn't that threshold apply to determining whether a topic merits its own article (] - {{tq|A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject "Sources" should be secondary sources}}), not to whether certain information should be included in an article (])? Also, in WP:NOT the word "secondary" is used only twice, and both cases have to do with WP:N.<p>Including all of those details about an airport's facilities that you mentioned would go against ]. But I think it's sensible to include the dimensions and material of the runways, even though I can only find primary sources for that information. These are just a couple of details in the article that concern a key part of the airport's infrastructure, and I believe they don't violate WP:NOT. Are you saying that per WP:NPOV, those details should not be included either (not asking sarcastically)? I don't see how footnote C of WP:DUE would apply here, since we are discussing facts about an airport's infrastructure, not different viewpoints on a topic like ].</p><p>Another example is the Aer Lingus flight from Cleveland to Dublin, which is Cleveland's only direct flight to Europe. It began in May 2023. Secondary sources about the route now exist (e.g. ), but naturally did not when the flight began. Does that mean an editor writing in May 2023 would not be allowed to mention this flight in the Cleveland airport article, because only ] sources on it were available at the time (e.g. , )? No, I think the editor should be allowed to mention it, since this was an event that reliable sources were giving weight to. ] (]) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)</p>


]
== RFC on Airlines and Destinations tables ==
I'm not sure what the standard procedure is here, or if there is one, but do you think it would make sense to replace their unblock requests with the "on hold" version so it is immediately clear that this at AE and not something for a single admin to review?


Additional bear provided for your amusement. ] ] 22:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello,


:Yeah, that should get it out of the queue, at least. ] (]) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there any way I can convince you to overturn the RfC to no consensus before I start something on ]? I didn't notice the RfC for whatever reason - haven't been editing as often - and it's starting to lead to editing issues.
::{{done}}. ] ] 23:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you kindly. Dall-e is doing an okay job making Rebecca images, but I don't think we're allowed to use them. ] (]) 00:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== Question ==

Hi, could you explain this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1260458061

Thank you, ] (]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:An editor was using an LLM to make arguments while falsifying sources so I collapsed some of it, and removed other parts that hadn't been replied to yet. ] (]) 01:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

== Seasonal greetings:) ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}<span id="Benison:1734891521410:User_talkFTTCLNScottishFinnishRadish" class="FTTCmt">&mdash;&nbsp;Benison <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>

:Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. ] (]) 23:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

== Season's Greetings ==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">]]]{{Center|]}}
'''Hello ScottishFinnishRadish:''' Enjoy the ''']'''&#32;and ''']''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, ] (]) 02:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you kindly and I hope you and yours also have a wonderful holiday season. Hopefully the weather shifts a bit and I'm not stuck with less than no degrees. ] (]) 13:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

]{{paragraph break}}
</div>
<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}}

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

]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

== Revdel request ==

Hello, got another quick revdel request for you. has already been reverted, but is a copy/paste of . - ] (]) 02:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up, all set. ] (]) 02:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== IP block ==

FYI, 83.203.20.206 appears to be a sock for 76.67.115.228 that you blocked, based on the edit to ]. So far just the one edit. ] (]) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:I was wondering if this was the same person. {{User|83.203.20.206}} ] (]) 03:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given the preoccupation with Israel/Hebrew, I would assume so. Though of course conceivably a friend, or just someone who saw the vandalism and decided to do the same. ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I reported them anyway, and they're blocked. ] (]) 03:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::213.49.236.39 the same. same maybe-Neapolitan edit summaries. so they appear to be IP-hopping. ] (]) 05:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== Another IP ==

You interacted on the user talk of {{vandal|190.219.101.225}}. The IP was a sockpuppet of Alon9393 and is now blocked. ] (]) 08:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

== Happy Holidays ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
] (]) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
My biggest issue with the close is that I think you picked a conclusion not supported by the RfC. The question was posed as a yes or no question. Very few users brought up secondary sourcing. Only one user brought up ]. There are two clear valid arguments in the RfC: that these violate ], and that they don't, of which the don'ts had a slightly higher number. (I think the ] argument is flawed, but only a few users made similar arguments, and the counter-argument is more difficult to put together. I'll spare you for now.)
|} ] (]) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! ] (]) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
In doing so you changed the status quo from the previous rule of tables acceptable per numerous prior RfCs, only new destinations needing explicit sourcing (agreed through consensus) to one where there's now a big argument about what sort of sourcing is necessary for these tables to exist.


== Editor you blocked for ARBPIA violations ==
Fortunately the arguments have been pretty limited due to the lack of enforcement. As far as I can tell, only two destination tables have been removed so far, including the one at ], which has set off a huge edit conflict. If there hadn't been an RfC, the conflict would be easily solved - only one user is advocating for removal of the destination tables. And if you paruse through the history, you'll see what a huge impact this has had, because the tables are some of the most gnomed bits of the entire site, mostly by users who don't participate in RfCs. One non-RfC participant has already been blocked for personal attacks. Another user threatened to withhold any future donations. I only learned about this because I noticed the destination table had been removed and didn't understand why - the sourcing as it stands seems fine to me. Whether they previously donated I have no idea, but the problem with the close as it stands is it's left the community in this weird limbo. I checked two airports I'm familiar with and none of the gnomes participated in the RfC.


Aren't their latest edits violations? ] ] 16:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The best way to solve this would be to simply change your close in the RfC to a no consensus, which I think is an accurate reading of the discussion in the context of the RfC based on your text, and one that doesn't draw in arguments which were made by only one or two out of the over fifty participants.


:Looks that way to me. I'm trying to disengage from arbitration enforcement, though, since I'm now on the committee. ] (]) 16:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I do appreciate your attempt at closing it! ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:54, 25 December 2024

This user is a farmer in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

bunny
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42

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


cand q

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Those articles don't, in and of themselves, tell me a lot about infoboxes, other than that most of them have infoboxes. Quick power ranking on their hair, though.
  1. Franz Schreker - Off center widows peak over male-pattern baldness. Wild wings on the sides. Combined with the expression he really communicates "intense Austrian composer"
  2. Alexander von Zemlinsky - always maximum respect for a pompadour
  3. Arnold Schoenberg - I'll always believe that Picard was the best captain, and this haircut communicates that. Middle of the road though, as the default bald guy cut
  4. Gustav Mahler - trying to pull off the "genius that doesn't care about his hair" look, but Schreker did it much better
  5. Erich Wolfgang Korngold - looks like he's going to a job interview at a bank
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places
Thank you for loooking! - November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. - You may be too young (on WP) to know that infoboxes are a declared contentious topic, - sorry that my question was unclear. Do you think they still deserve the label. I found one candidate so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Having closed around a dozen infobox RFCs, I think they're still fairly contentious. The CTOP designation serves to let people know they have to be on their best behavior which is important when dealing with an issue that is the subject of strong disagreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I wonder when you closed those, because I don't see many discussions anymore. Most classical composers today get an infobox without a discussion. Mozart was closed in favour of an infobox, for example, almost two years ago, and I haven't seen new arguments since. We still have discussions for a few FAs, usually caused by editors who have no idea of a conflict but get immediately treated as infobox warriors, - that's what I see. - Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Today, listen to Sequenza XIV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. The discussion is still on the Sibelius, ending with that he was playing in a league with Beethoven then, in 2018 ;) - We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. - Congratulations to being elected! Could you look at Samuel Barber and tell me if you miss something in his infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. - I can report happily that the Barber situation was resolved.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING, and enforcing policies and guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Twillisjr I removed that in mid November. Since you weren't tagged to this conversation, and no user was mentioned by name, what brought you here?
Awshort (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Awshort I am here in an act of self defense from you. Twillisjr (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Twillisjr That didn't answer the question - you weren't pinged, and I wasn't specific on who I was talking about. So unless you are following my edits, I'm unsure why you came here or why you specifically believe this is in regards to you.
Awshort (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish Can you please respond to the edit war being started by Awshort (who is yet wiki stalking me again)? We are having a dispute on this article page: Internal affairs (law enforcement). Thank you. Twillisjr (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll give you a bit of a third opinion. The lead should follow the body, and there is no other mention of lamplighter in the article. It would make more sense to add that information, and also information on whistleblowers which is also absent, to the article before adding it to the lead. Looking at the importance of that information in the context of the article is also important for deciding if it should be in the lead.
This is really a run of the mill editing dispute so you should just follow WP:DR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Twillisjr And disputes are fixed with discussion. I asked you for a reliable source that isn't one person refering to himself as such, provided policy based reasoning on why your edit was reverted, and provided alternative article suggestions where your text (with proper sourcing) would fit better than an unrelated article with it randomly thrown in.
I would also suggest reading WP:HA#NOT It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations.
You never did answer the above question on what brought you here, but the edits I have reverted or tried to fix of yours in the past have been either highly problematic policy violations (you linking to a private data dump which could carry legal implications for the site, you referring to BLP subjects as pedophiles without proper sourcing stating the same, a few similar instances) or you ignoring WP:V and using this as your rationale.
Awshort (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Awshort The content fits, but not in the lead per ScottishFinnishRadish. You may now determine where in the article the content belongs and re-add it. The issue here is the quickness to revert and not improve. My first edit had an allegation of bad sources, and you alleged on my talk page that it was nearly impossible to find a better source. So, I showed you with a book citation how easy it can be to improve something without hitting the “revert button” and complaining on a talk page. Now, you may demonstrate your dedication to teamwork on Misplaced Pages by finding my research and correct citation a proper place on the article. Hope this is a lesson for you in good Misplaced Pages etiquette. Twillisjr (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that it fits in the article, just that it shouldn't be in the lead unless it is in the article, and the first step would be to work it into the article. If you want something in an article it is your responsibility to find the appropriate sourcing to demonstrate that it is WP:DUE for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Twillisjr As I said, I attempted to improve it and find better sources which supported the text, not that it was "nearly impossible" as you put it. Your book citation showed that one person called himself that, and was still not valid for what you were trying to add to an unrelated article.
There have been several instances of you adding random tidbits of somewhat-related-but-only-barely information to articles which don't necessarily help readers understand the overall topic any better, and other editors in the past have pointed this out to you over a period of several years. In the instances I've seen in the past (as in, not involving me personally) it usually involves you telling them you found the information, it helps the article, and they need to add it back. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; that is policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As is consensus being how things change in articles (or as you refer to it above, "complaining on a talk page"). Not all material necessarily improves an article and just being factually true doesn’t automatically mean it should be included or stay in an article. Once material is disputed, the responsibility falls on the person who wants the material included in the article to obtain consensus that it should stay in (with no consensus usually resulting in the material being left out). And lastly, your responses to other users when you are upset/annoyed with them come off as extremely condescending. Please work on how you talk to other people; that is part of policy (WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL) and has been mentioned to you in the past by several users including an admin.
Regarding the information which started this whole reactivation of an old discussion - I looked last night for a more suitable alternative for the material and it appears in both Frank Serpico § Retirement and activism as well as

Whistleblowing § Advocacy for protection, with the second link also mentioning the Lamp Lighter Project. Since there is no mention of Internal Affairs in the few sources that mention the term or connection between IA and the term, it seems this has been fixed on the content level at least by ending up in a suitable set of articles.

Awshort (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please Re-open Requested move 6 December 2024

Discussion of changing "Gaza genocide" to "Gaza genocide accusations" was closed and archived before adequate discussion could take place. Please re-open the discussion and restore the archived comments, including my own:

  • “Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of a group that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. Immense suffering and civilian toll in Gaza have resulted from the war started by Hamas, and from specific actions by Hamas that put Gazan civilians in harm’s way.
  • Hamas does not separate fighters from civilians in its Gaza health ministry numbers. Hamas does not specify whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups; for example, the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
  • Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza. When Israeli officials have made statements reflecting callous disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, they have been disciplined.
  • The goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel and Jews off the map, an example of genocidal intent. Israel directs its force at legitimate military targets, which Hamas has intentionally placed under and within civilians’ homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools.
  • The Israeli military sends Arabic-language warnings to Gazans prior to its airstrikes on military targets, and indicates routes for Palestinian civilians to relocate. Hamas has repeatedly called on Palestinian civilians to ignore Israel’s warnings about impending strikes and reportedly forced civilians to remain in the vicinity of military objectives, using them, like its hostages from Israel, as human shields.
  • Hamas has continued to launch missiles into Israel, not from military bases, as international law dictates, but from civilian areas in Gaza. International law allows legitimate military targets to be attacked when the anticipated military advantage from the attack exceeds the expected civilian harm. Hamas has inflated the number of civilian casualties. Harm to Gazan civilians is a horrible outcome of war, but it is not genocide.

Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Allthemilescombined1, for interest, why do you appear to believe that it is okay to use talk pages in the topic area for what appears to be advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world? I don't understand why this happens so often in the topic area or what can be done to ensure that editors don't need to filter it out when they read talk pages or participate in consensus forming discussions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm saving everyone the time of coming to the same conclusion and lowering the engagement at the next discussion even more. Wait until something significant has changed or a more appreciable amount of time has passed. There will be more outside input and a better representative consensus of things at that point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. "Gaza: Findings on October 17 al-Ahli Hospital Explosion". Human Rights Watch. 2023-11-26. Retrieved 2024-12-08.
  2. Williams, Dan (2023-11-05). "Netanyahu suspends Israeli minister over Gaza nuclear comment". Reuters. Retrieved 2024-12-08.

Condolences er I mean congrats.... you gon' be an arb

Looks like you got in, right in the meaty part of the pack. I will not be joining you. That's fine though, you got a hell of a great group coming in with you, I'm suddenly far less worried about the committee's ability to get shit done. Just Step Sideways 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Congrats. As reward for dealing with the thankless tasks you get... even more onerous tasks! No, seriously, congratulations and I hope you take it as something of an antidote to all of the criticism that you now enjoy a mandate from the community to clean things up even more. Andre🚐 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Congrats to the Raddish! You’ve come an incredibly long way and have a lot to be proud of. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
(Extends my congrats to you) Happy tears yet? You have a right to. Now, with that out of the way, my recommendation for your first order of business as part of the ArbCom: What are your thoughts about KevinL's 4 motions for improving Arbitrator workflows (which include Correspondence clerks, WMF staff support, Coordinating arbitrators and grants for corresponding clerks)? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that, but I don't have any solid input. It's difficult to comment on how to fix a process you've never seen up close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
First root vegetable Arb? Congratulations friend. Star Mississippi 02:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: We're making plans for an eventual root vegetable majority :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
That arbcom will be the best ever! at remaining edible when kept in a cellar over winter ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, everybody, for the congratulations. Here's to hoping I don't bollocks the whole things up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You'll be accused of it regardless. And in case nobody told you, next month is a sort of hazing ritual where tons of banned users try their luck with the new committee, so enjoy that. Just Step Sideways 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You managed to swim through the rapids of PIA, so I'm sure that the rest will be a doddle. Well done. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
A raise in blood pressure, guaranteed.-- Ponyo 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I know WMF has a legal assistance fund, what about medical assistance? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
That's an option, but they only dispense one thing. You need to be available 24/7 now!-- Ponyo 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
If it comes with something else I might just be able to make it work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel inquiry re BLPN

Greetings! At WP:BLPN we have this from an upset subject whose mind works differently and saw fit to name names of other presumably living people. Is it worth a redaction? Along with a tall glass of calm the hell down for OP? This seems like someone who could maybe be a wider problem, per her post. I'm looking at WP:Articles for deletion/Judy Singer and missing User:DGG... thanks for your thoughts. JFHJr (㊟) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to dig into this right now, but I'll check it tomorrow if no one else has handled it ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
JFHJr, I don't think this needs a revdel, but I did redact the names. Looks like there are some eyes on the article now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Ossum, possum. Thanks again. And congratulations on arbor-trader stuff. Trees are friends. JFHJr (㊟) 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I've lost two of my apple trees in recent years, so I'm hoping with my election I'll be better equipped to take care of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide 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 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about a couple blocks

I'm looking at a bunch of old talk page archives and blocks for a ... project (we all have our hobbies) and I saw that, in June, you blocked two accounts for sockpuppetry User:7goldfishglory and User:CG52110. The problem is... I don't think they were socking. Basically, a somewhat popular youtuber made a series about micronations, and then made one of his own for fun. It's called "Ironland" and it's not notable by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a pretty popular series (Youtube kept trying to push me into watching it, and the Romanian government's tiktok acccount had some fun with it). It's hardly surprising that a few fans tried to write a Misplaced Pages article for it. (Again, we all have our hobbies) I poked around on reddit and a few fans tried to work on a draft together, but they seemed to accept the decline. Somebody made one on the micronation wiki and fandom, in the end, thank goodness. But that still leaves the issue of these blocks. I know they were made in good faith, and to be fair, I can't see the draft- but I do have additional context.

CG52110 has filed several unblock requests, admitting they had one other account, and promising to abandon its use- but because they were tagged as a sockpuppet in control of at least nine accounts, they're not getting unblocked anytime soon if ever. As far as anybody working in cat:unblock is concerned, not only did they sock, they're also lying. One admin even accused them of being the person to create the micronation- which knowing what I know about the YouTube series, is highly unlikely.

The other block, of 7goldfishglory, is also something I'd like to ask you about. They made a draft, it got rejected, they asked why- and then came back to say they did their research, understood why, and that they'd wait until it's more well-known. Which, at the end of the day, is sort of what we want to see. They were acting in good faith and they were respectful of our norms, once they realized what they were. I'm not seeing anything blockworthy. They could have used the exact same text in their draft, in fact, and I'd merely assume that they copied it from another fan, or the micronation wiki or something. Bad in terms of copyright, but, again, not blockworthy until they do it twice. They haven't asked to be unblocked, but to be fair, but if they're used to dealing with reddit or discord mods, they probably thought "why bother?" and disengaged.

Anyway, just thought I'd ask to see if my context helped, or if you had any context I'd missed. And, because I've seen your talk page archives and I don't want to feel left out: <insert long, vaguely off-topic ARBPIA-themed rant/interrogation here>. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that, normally, nine accounts show up to write an article about an obviously non-notable subject is a pretty clean sockpupping block, 98% of the time. But that remaining 2% of the time.... GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The short answer is that WP:SOCK also covers WP:MEAT, specifically A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.
I blocked a lot of accounts creating ironland drafts, and after salting accounts were recreating the draft at the same unsalted title. That, combined with matching prose, led me to the conclusion that it was sock or meatpuppetry. Quite a few of the blocks were noted as sock or meat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, don't worry, I do actually know those guidelines, and I completely get how, with the evidence and knowledge you had, you came to the decision you did. WP:MEAT is very useful for when you just can't quite prove an account is socking or canvassing, but they're causing just enough low-grade disruption that we'd rather be rid of them. I'm not fully sure that applies to all the accounts here though, that's what I'm trying to get at. Some of them, yeah - but 7goldfishglory was blocked after they went out of their way to clarify that they understood why the draft wasn't going to be accepted, and said they'd stop working on it until they found sources that could prove its notability, so I don't exactly know what their block was meant to prevent. At worst, they're a fan of the Youtuber who probably saw a fully formed article at the micronation wiki and copied it over in violation of our copyright policies. Your call though. I just think blocks like these are the equivalent of blocking everybody who tries their hand at creating something related to BFDI as an Brandon1998 sock, and that our regular policies of dealing with this kind of stuff - liberal salting and a few polite warnings about what what Misplaced Pages is not - tend to work just fine. Again, YMMV, and I've been known to use quick and dirty solutions like that on occasion. I just figured you'd find an alternative explanation interesting. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

2025 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 1 January 2025:

The one-year terms of these members also begin on 1 January 2025:

Upon meeting the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and signing its corresponding confidentiality agreement, all incoming members will be subscribed to all Committee-managed email lists, assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office, and given access to the CheckUser and Oversight queues on the VRT system.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues, whose terms end on 31 December 2024:

Outgoing members are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their terms on the Arbitration Committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing members, who have not chosen to retain them, after 31 December 2024:
    CheckUser: Firefly, L235
    Oversight: Firefly, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees
  • Outgoing members are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. That will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • All outgoing members will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
  • All outgoing members will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Firefly, Guerillero, and Moneytrees, who have chosen to remain subscribed.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2025 Arbitration Committee
Congratulations. Crafterstar (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential myopia of PIA-centric RSN discussions — thoughts?

I’m sure you’re aware of the recent trend of news outlets being RfCed primarily for PIA-related topics

However, one of the most irritating things about it (apart from, y’know, the very incursion of mud-slingers onto RSN, the taurine tunnel vision of both sides, the non-policy-grounded biases nakedly displayed, and the systematic coordination on at least one side) is that both sides tend to forgo any discussion of the given source for its non-PIA coverage. This is detrimental and inconvenient for the broader editing community because it muddies the waters about the usability of these sources for everything else in this big world we live in.

For example, Al Jazeera tends to take a fairly detached, professional view of Ukraine and certain other hot topics, but at the polar opposite end its quasi-coverage of Qatargate in Europe and the Menendez trial quite frankly puts RT and the Global Times to shame. The nuanced usability assessment that a rational, civil discussion would be likely to produce is instead swept aside by a circus in which the majority is spouting distorted applications of policy while the opposing side basically just does variations on “nuh-uh!”

In another example, I recently argued against the Jerusalem Post being tarred and feathered because of the inevitable effects on its non-PIA coverage and in particular that it could mess with the diversity of the source basket for domestic Israeli politics and society/culture stuff. Oh wait why would they even care

Do you think there’s any grounds to expect forthcoming changes to the situation due to recent formal proceedings at arbcom and AE and stuff, or that there’s any way to help keep project-wide discussions from turning into spillover from the ungodly cesspool that is high-traffic PIA talk pages? I feel like part of the problem is the self-selection of anyone who wants to make big edits in that topic area.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The longer answer is nooooooooooooooooooo. As long as the real-world conflict is at high intensity there will be spillover on to en.wiki, and part of that means that there will be an increase in NPOVN, RSN, NOORN, and other spillover from the topic area. The topic area has a great need for these venues of wider participation, both for regular dispute resolution and to establish wider consensus than a local talk page consensus. This does lead to a lot of large discussions, but the recent 1000 word limit sanction should keep things a bit tighter and hopefully avoid huge spirals.
Despite the added stress on venues like RSN, this is Misplaced Pages working as intended. There are real conflicts over the use of these sources, and rather than have editors argue back and forth on an article talk page they need to be able to seek a community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Good point. Actually, I get the impression that it’s mostly the same set of editors who participate in such discussions even though it’s on a noticeboard.
My surmise is that the toxicity of the topic area is still turning off general-purpose editors even in project-wide spaces. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The data suggests that the topic area is more attractive to editors than Misplaced Pages in general. I don't know whether there is also more participation in noticeboard discussions related to PIA compared to the background level. It is not possible to say without measuring the background level. But it's clear that noticeboard discussions are not sampling the editor population very effectively. This might also be true of discussions unrelated to PIA. So, it could be related to systemic problems with participation in general rather than something topic area specific. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!

To differentiate from everyone else congratulating you on the promotion, I decided to do it in your three languages.

  • Scottish: Mealaibh ur naidheachd!
  • Finnish: Onnittelut!
  • and Radish er, Wikipedian:

(I just looked at the list of articles you have on your user page, and hoped you might appreciate having them illustrated. I do that occasionally.) The last isn't perfect, but better than what was on the article already, I hope you'll agree. BTW, any objection if we move that to just Linda Morra, since there isn't anyone else in Misplaced Pages with that name that we need to disambiguate with the middle initial? --GRuban (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, and go for it. I rescued those all from WP:WPWIR declined drafts so they got stuck with whatever name they were created at. Same with Rosetta Lawson which was at Rosetta E. Lawson, but I actually remembered to move it. Again, thanks, I really appreciate the images. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of. I would hate to break it, since it's a GA and all, and my skills are more in finding pics than in editing them, but what do you think of:
  • before before
  • after after
? --GRuban (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the after is a bit over-processed, which makes the image artifacts stand out. Somewhere in the middle would probably be an improvement. What really irks my taters is that I know there are other images of her in old newspapers and other documents, but I haven't been able to dig them up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Better? (I used the same file, so if you don't see any change, hit shift-reload.) --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. Keeps the skin tone from getting washed out while still improving the visible details. Thanks again! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Great. Now the second part, finding more images. I think I did that. Here are a few versions to choose from. Say which you like, or whether you want me to try to take off the oval frame.
  • Fannie J. Henderson ; Fannie Elliott ; Cora Everette ; Rebecca J. Carter ; Annie Witherspoon ; Carrie Morgan ; Rosetta E. Lawson, 1906 Fannie J. Henderson ; Fannie Elliott ; Cora Everette ; Rebecca J. Carter ; Annie Witherspoon ; Carrie Morgan ; Rosetta E. Lawson, 1906
  • Rosetta E. Lawson Rosetta E. Lawson
  • Rosetta E. Lawson, brightened, de-spot-ified Rosetta E. Lawson, brightened, de-spot-ified
However that leads to an awkward bit, which is why I'm not replacing the image in the article quite yet. I'm reasonably sure this is the subject of the article. However, your image had middle initial C, and this one, and your article, has middle initial E. Er ... was that a typo? If not, are you quite sure that first image was the subject of your article ? --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Her maiden name was Coakley, so I probably just mixed it up when titling the image. I think the original image is better because it captures her "I don't take bullshit" expression. I think the lightened image would be great in the advocacy section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I see you put them both in, thanks. I made https://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Rosetta_Lawson and gave her a middle name, cited: Evelyn. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for your work, it's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Your evidence at PIA 5

Your example:

the link is dead/wrong? Huldra (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Should be fixed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel question...

So, what should we do about revdel if the plot section on a film's article was a copyvio since the article's creation? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorted. You had me worried, but the article only had like 9 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
That's what I was expecting to happen, that's why I just left you a message and then left a copyvio warning on the user's talk... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A request for block an user

Hello, I'm Quangminhvilla, one of the editor on Misplaced Pages. I hear that you are one of the admins on Misplaced Pages, so I want to ask you for help. In the few months before, the article 2023 AFC Asian Cup had an user name RealLifed was vandalism the article so many. Since the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, there was no third place match. But he always edited the third and the fourth ranking on the 2023 article, which lead to many user have to reverted the article many times. He always said that the reason was he used it from the AFC website, although there was no source about it. I have already gave him a warning for this, but he said threatly for me and always said by using CAPSLOCK to tell many user when they said to him politely. I think this user not only used incorrectly sources but he also one of the dangerous user that threaten anyone. So this message today is can you help me block this user please? Because if anyone warning to him about it, he will not change and still violated to them. Thank you for reading this message. Hope you have a good time during this week. Quangminhvilla (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to you and yours as well. I hope you don't have any winter problems on the farm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Another possible 1RR violation

Once again I may be wrong here, but I think this is a 1RR violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1263475889

If so, can you take appropriate action?

Thanks. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've remedied the violation and made them aware of the CTOP sanctions on the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:TBAN violation by Bohemian Baltimore

Good morning,

I have just reverted an edit by Bohemian Baltimore, who has a topic ban on self-ID articles for BLPs, broadly construed. This editor has made a number of small edits that seem to test/skirt the TBAN, with the text I reverted today seeming to be a more obvious violation of the ban. The editor disputes whether this applies in this case.

Details as follows:

  • The editor edited the intro to the Taíno article to change the wording around how these people are identified.

It might be that these don't fall under the "broadly construed" clause, but I thought it worth raising the issue now before a future edit does. I saw that you implemented the ban, so thought I'd reach out to you first. Lewisguile (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore, pinging you for transparency. Hopefully we can get an answer. Lewisguile (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Lewisguile There is no testing or skirting. I was told to stay away from BLPs related to self-identification and citizenship due to controversy over Native American BLPs. And that is what I have done; stayed away from editing those topics on Indigenous BLPs. None of those edited articles is a BLP. I am not aware of any total ban on editing Indigenous topics. If there is, I was not informed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Self-ID is a major topic of most of these articles. Or are least of the edits you have made. It's worth noting that some of the info is also inaccurate—Taíno groups in Puerto Rico and the USVI are in non-sovereign territory (i.e., colonies), so they have no route for formal recognition. Your creation of the Taíno heritage groups article and the related Category:Taíno heritage groups therefore seems oddly WP:POINTY. Lewisguile (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this seems like grasping for straws. If a topic ban for BLPs were to include non-BLPs, I would have been told this. Innocuous edits like creating a parent category for Nahua or adding Taino to the Native American identity article, in addition to not having anything to do with BLPs, doesn't even have anything to do with citizenship or self-identification. The information on the heritage group article, also, was not inaccurate. Not that that's relevant to the BLP question though. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If I am misinterpreting the decision, then I am happy to apologise. It's entirely possible I'm looking at this too rigidly.
But either way, clarity would be good going forward. It seems to me these articles all have self-ID in common, either as an explicit or implicit element, and often involve the self-ID of people or groups of people.
If these articles are too tangential to the topic to count and it's too non-specific for the BLP element to count, then that's also useful to know for you as well as anyone else. Lewisguile (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Lewisguile I think it is clear that it is my intent to adhere to the topic ban and that is what I have tried to do since I was T-banned. If we are going to quibble over broadness, then that needs to be clarified by the administrators and then I can adhere to whatever their determination is. But it seems like you are arguing for my topic-ban to be broader than what it was originally stated to be. If the goal posts are going to be moved, well okay, but I need to be informed of where they are now. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we are broadly in agreement that it's helpful to know where the boundaries lie. I read "broadly construed" as meaning anything related to the matter of Indigenous identity. What's a BLP or not is also relatively broadly construed in its own right. If that's not the case, I am happy to retract and strike my comments. Lewisguile (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

More edits here:

  • Created the article Taíno heritage groups – using the language of your prior self-ID articles to say these aren't recognised. (Note that Puerto Rico is a colony, not a state, so there is no formal route to recognition.)

Re: BLPs, also see WP:BLPGROUP: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.

I take your point that some of these are probably not violations, but the point is that they're skirting the issue "broadly construed". As for the Taíno, I have added text to the page you created to clarify. You'll see what I mean. But creating a category to call groups out for not having recognition they cannot obtain does, again, seem to be pointy. Lewisguile (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile So you admit that there probably aren't any violations and everything is only tangentially related if at all, but are still making an issue out of this. Well, that's interesting. The category for Taino heritage groups was actually created before my topic-ban was instituted, not that it matters, because it isn't a BLP anyway. Puerto Rico is a territory, not a "colony". I'm not sure that you are correct that a territory cannot give recognition to a tribe (Why are we debating this here?). But your quibble there is not I didn't give enough context on a newly created article still being worked on, not that there is anything false, because there wasn't. None of the edited articles pertains to "small groups". Name one, if so. It is my understanding that "broadly construed" pertains to BLPs, as I was topic-banned from BLPs. I didn't create the Taino category, by the way, to "call them out". That's a bad-faith accusation. I created the category to make it easier for readers to access articles related to Taino orgs. I think my editing over the past month has demonstrated my intent to adhere to the topic ban, as I have stayed away from the BLPs. I supposed it would be possible to quibble broadly enough to make the argument that any Native-related edits "tangentially" relate to BLPs in some way. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
So you admit that there probably aren't any violations I didn't say that. I said some may be tangential. I stand by statement that it's helpful to get clarification either way, and have offered to apologise if I'm proven wrong.
As for the Taíno stuff, I have added sources at the relevant article. You will see what I mean there. The legal framework for recognition only applies to the 48 contiguous States and Alaska (and the latter only because they brought in specific rules to do that). Puerto Rico and the USVI are non-sovereign territories with limited ability to officially recognise groups, which is why groups from those islands have been pushing the UN to intervene on their behalf. But I agree we can drop that discussion here.
ETA: Also, it's early and I'm particularly grumpy today. I apologise if my tone in general has caused an escalation. Lewisguile (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If you want this looked at in detail I suggest you bring it to WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Having thought about it some more, I'm happy to leave this for now. I don't have the energy for it and don't want to get into any wikilawyering. @Bohemian Baltimore, I'm sorry for any bother caused. Lewisguile (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A bear for you

Cmrc23 has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I see you working hard quite a lot. Have this bear as a token of appreciation Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help. Thanks for the bear, I appreciate any animal in goggles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what image to use when I made the template, but when I saw this on the commons, I knew it was perfect Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It's very TaleSpin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe there's no images in that article, surely FUR applies? El Beeblerino 22:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I could probably use dall-e to make sexy Rebecca pictures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Given the context, I assumed that link would be about furries on wikipedia! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Nicoljaus unblock requests question

you should see the video I got of this, he eventually turned it completely over and tried to see if spinning the wheels would get him access to the sweet, sweet combination of garbage and cat poop within.

I'm not sure what the standard procedure is here, or if there is one, but do you think it would make sense to replace their unblock requests with the "on hold" version so it is immediately clear that this at AE and not something for a single admin to review?

Additional bear provided for your amusement. El Beeblerino 22:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that should get it out of the queue, at least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
 Done. El Beeblerino 23:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. Dall-e is doing an okay job making Rebecca images, but I don't think we're allowed to use them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi, could you explain this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1260458061

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor was using an LLM to make arguments while falsifying sources so I collapsed some of it, and removed other parts that hadn't been replied to yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings:)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly and I hope you and yours also have a wonderful holiday season. Hopefully the weather shifts a bit and I'm not stuck with less than no degrees. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

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

Your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Next Nintendo Console 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 16:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, got another quick revdel request for you. This revision has already been reverted, but is a copy/paste of here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, all set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

IP block

FYI, 83.203.20.206 appears to be a sock for 76.67.115.228 that you blocked, based on the edit to Maté. So far just the one edit. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was the same person. 83.203.20.206 (talk · contribs) Knitsey (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Given the preoccupation with Israel/Hebrew, I would assume so. Though of course conceivably a friend, or just someone who saw the vandalism and decided to do the same. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I reported them anyway, and they're blocked. Knitsey (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
213.49.236.39 the same. same maybe-Neapolitan edit summaries. so they appear to be IP-hopping. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Another IP

You interacted on the user talk of 190.219.101.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP was a sockpuppet of Alon9393 and is now blocked. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor you blocked for ARBPIA violations

Aren't their latest edits violations? Doug Weller talk 16:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. I'm trying to disengage from arbitration enforcement, though, since I'm now on the committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)