Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:19, 19 October 2024

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

bunny

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43

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

Question

you removed verified and trusted references from Reuters.181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:ECR and the messages I left on your talk page. You cannot make any edits relating to the Arab/Israel conflict except for edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk (and below there I have another call for collaboration) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit notices on ECR talks

Hi, I've noticed you've been doing a lot of ECR talk page enforcement for WP:CT/AI; one well-intentioned editor brought up a point of inquiry about placing an edit notice on ECR talks to warn non-EC editors about the edit requests-only rule. I'm sure this would have to go to/through ARBCOM, but I'm really not too familiar with how ARBCOM works so I figured I'd come here for your insight anyway. :) estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt, but no one would read it. I think it's already in the edit notice as well, but banner blindness is real. I normally leave a {{welcome-arbpia}} most of the time when I revert, which lays it out in plain language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:* IP cleanup

From the page of an article, there's at least one way of rev-del'ing lots of revisions at once (even non-consecutive ones by multiple editors). Might be useful for the current spate of disruption, given how obvious and extensive these edits are on any one page. That would definitely be less explosive for our watchlists of these pages (and possibly more efficient for you as well). DMacks (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That would necessitate waiting until the disruption paused to make the revision deletions, wouldn't it? I normally just block, revert, and revdel from the contribs page. Their efforts at disruption aren't really worth more than the minimum of effort to counter, so if I can do it in a few taps on one page I do it that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Might be even faster then to semi-protect the page as the first step (stop it from getting worse)? DMacks (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:99.237.230.117

Hi, can you please remove TPA for User talk:99.237.230.117 after they kept on going on slur-filled rants after their block? They also already used an antisemitic slur (which I've removed) just before you blocked them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm tempted to make this indefinite. Their comments are unacceptable and suggest they won't change. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been stewing on the best way to handle that. I feel like it's going to end at an indef. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed TPA. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Note that I wouldn't have lifted your block without consulting you if it was a direct block on that user, or if I had any doubt about the WP:CHECKUSER technical evidence. This was a pretty straight-forward case, though. Nothing wrong with your original block on the other account, and autoblocks help far, far more often than they hurt. Hope you have a great day! --Yamla (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't a dig at you, and if you ever think I've placed a block in error you're more than welcome to unblock without consulting me. It's just that normally I see you declining unblock requests from people like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeap. It really makes my day when I get to accept an unblock request. So, so, so many unblock requests just completely miss the point. That particular user... I hope once the U.S. election is over, most of this nonsense goes away. But, I'm a hopeless optimist. --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Been an honor working with you and want to work with you more thanks for the blocks •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about ECR

Could you answer this please? Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

pp

Hey, SFR...re: this: is it still true this'll leave it unprotected in two days? I thought I saw something discussing automatically reverting to previous levels somewhere in the past few months, but I'm fuzzy on what happened with that. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's part of the community wishlist, thanks to a handsome and well-liked editor. m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Restore long term protection when short term protection expires. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime we have Protection Helper Bot. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Ooh that's up and running? Awesome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

lol, forgot to subscribe and missed seeing this until now. I literally had set the timer on my stove hahahaha Valereee (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Is General 1RR still a thing or is it 1-per-page?

Hi, hope you don't mind a quick clarification. Is there still a 1-revert-in-all-ARBPIA-topic rule? Or is it 1-per-page? I could've sworn there was a General 1RR in place. However, I cannot find where that is clearly enumerated. Can you help me, please, when you have a minute? Andre🚐 22:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's per page. Topic wide wouldn't be enforceable, I don't think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, so Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) are no longer in effect, right? Huh. I wonder why I thought it was. Andre🚐 23:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That was still just a page sanction applied to every page in the topic area, I believe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Not sure what happened in my alternate universe. Must be one of those Mandela Effects. Andre🚐 00:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. There's a lot of sanctions and prior sanctions and adjusted sanctions and discretionary to CTOP adjustments. I've made some mistakes myself keeping track of it all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

User IdanST

Hi, I have limited experience but wanted to check in on a user that seems to have been restricted for edits. Some of their edits extend to the Wiki page for Ole Sæter in which they used minor edits with misleading descriptions to remove references to Gaza Genocide. There was another IP address making similar edits. If you are willing to take a look, I saw you were involved with said user and wanted your guidance to avoid making that page into an edit war. Carthradge (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You cannot make any edits that deal with the Arab/Israel conflict because of the extended-confirmed restriction in place in the topic area. I've reverted both of you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Note that the version you restored to includes edits by the other user that were not reverted. I'd ask that you take a look at the page and determine what context should be provided. Personally, I am fine with the version by IvanScrooge98 that included both wordings. I will not be editing the page given the notice. I imagine maybe the page should be restricted in some way given its direct involvement around that topic. Carthradge (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

notice of an arbitration enforcement action appeal

you are invited to comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard § Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ltbdl. ltbdl☃ (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello!

When creating Draft:Max Design Pro, don't be selfish, just let other people help with the article. (the rollbacks you done were by me) 2I3I3 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia 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 05:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not reverting anything

Block me site-wide if you wish. --Foxhound45 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Margot Frank

Quack, quack.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Tony Hawk disruption

Since you're the admin who blocked the sockpuppet and their IPs for making those unconstructive edits on the Tony Hawk games, I thought it would be best to ask you this. Would it be a good idea for me to make a request for protection from IPs for the Tony Hawk game series articles? I'm still quite new to Misplaced Pages, so I want to learn what the appropriate situations for requesting protection look like, as well as wanting to put a halt to the various edits that later have to be reverted there. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the vandalism is happening often enough, or has been running long enough to merit any long term protection right now. If it keeps up it would be worth requesting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking long-term, more like one week. Just long enough for the editor to lose interest in their quest. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Killing of Yahya Sinwar

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,

Just for your information but you can't close an AFD discussion based on the nominator's withdrawal if there are any arguments for Deletion which there are in this case. When editors are arguing for Deletion or another non-Keep outcome, a nominator's withdrawal is not a sufficient reason to close an AFD discussion, it should instead continue for the advised 7 days. However, looking over this discussion, you could close this one as a "Speedy Keep" if the outcome is obviously a Keep because of the number of editors arguing for that outcome and the strength of their arguments. At this point, I'd advise you to alter your closure to reflect this as an outcome or the closure could be challenged. Thanks for helping out at AFD. Liz 02:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I adjusted the close. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:One Direction 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 12:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits WP:ECR Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish I think there's been some recent disruptive editing of this article by SPECIFICO as they reverted a well sourced edit that maintained the tone of the article and they have largely been dismissive rather than co-operative in the talk page discussion. I wanted to bring it to greater attention but also as a question whether I can engage in this Talk page?

Or if continued participation there would be considered a breach of "WP:ECR"? Galdrack (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You cannot engage with this topic on the talk page, and this is another ECR violation. I suggest you stay well away from anything that is even tangentially related to the Arab/Israel conflict until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Ok this is my exact confusion, I also asked for clarification on this issue multiple times already and it isn't clear at all to me, by the same logic would this also apply to any articles around Ireland and Palestine relations too even though it's a completely different region? Like US antisemitic incidents are both related and unrelated to the conflict.

To be honest I've been trying to avoid the topic and in turn it's been pushing me away from editing on wiki altogether for fear of warnings/bans on topics that aren't clearly listed or currently being moderated on the page I'm reading, like why I've been so active on that talk page recently is literally because of the warnings and so I don't just edit the page itself.

For example I came to report that very incident, the user @Steven1991 has been uncooperative, dismissive and extremely rude on the talk page and the edits of Talk:List of antisemitic incidents in the United States#Reverts and edits recently. They've continuous mass edits not following the guidelines (as pointed out by many users in the talk page) over extremely short periods of time without consensus in the talk page, similar can be seen on this page with almost 70 edits in just 3 days without any discussion or consensus.

In turn the other user has an account that was essentially inactive until 21:07, 20 June 2024 where they proceeded to edit multiple times a day all in articles that fall under this very same topic and dismissing other users edits/discussions.

I'm finding it hard to take part in wiki if my few edits every few months accidentally spill into the topic result in a ban while other users engaging in more disruptive ways repeatedly are allowed to continue, thereby maintaining 500+ edits too. Galdrack (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

How am I “uncooperative” ? I am allowed to disagree with you while respecting your view. I already removed the vast majority of incidents other users don’t consider as antisemitic or well-sourced) and have been extremely polite, patient and humble in engaging the user despite their continuous reference to me as an “entity” alongside a series of offensive language from the user. I haven’t reverted your recent edit either. I would like to make this clear to present a fairer representation. Steven1991 (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991 I've never referred to you as an "entity" or used any other offensive language I believe you are confusing me with another editor (Wikipedious1) on that same page, you haven't been extremely polite but extremely passive aggressive reverting edits from multiple users and continuing to add to the page while discussion is ongoing in the talk page on multiple articles. I've also found you do not assume good faith from other Wikipedians in discussions as noted by Grandpallama here or engaging in bad faith discussion such as here, this isn't a "disagreement" the topic of discussion is how the sourcing is poor on those and many other entries you made as they lacked a direct source but you continued to argue you own POV for inclusion which even when it was explained you still asked for evidence of the impossible, proof that an event wasn't explicitly antisemitic when in turn there wasn't any source calling it antisemitic. That isn't a good faith request especially when (Cdjp1) had already explained this twice.

See the edits between the 7th and the 11th were openly disruptive either re-adding entries I had removed without explanation or not engaging in good-faith when reverting as my edit explanations were clear the the topics lacked any sourcing but then you would re-add them while adding 10 more entries without opening a talk article, this is ultimately disruptive to the page as a lot of cross edits continue to creep in when rapid editing occurs like this without discussion or consensus.

What I will say is my initial post on the talk page ended with "I think most of these edits have been extremely poorly researched and these are only a few in the last few days you need to stop adding any story you can find and actually read them over first." which could have come across as rude and I didn't mean that, I unfortunately find it hard to write this in a more passive tone because I can't come up with the right wording but I'm writing this to say I have been assuming good faith on your part before this because I sincerely think the page needs stricter defining of it's scope rather than spamming events into it because it'll be a direct target for edit wars or other messy edits without first stopping to define a scope before moving ahead and updating it. Galdrack (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. I am exactly referring to the user being named. I would appreciate if you can assume good faith, avoid making accusations against me on an unrelated page and follow the administrator’s advice of avoiding A/I conflict-related articles until your account becomes an extended-confirmed. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Over the past week, I only reverted the alleged edits of the user being named because the user (1) engaged in mass deletions of well-sourced content without reasons (blank or Lol) last week for which the user was restricted for 2 days. My reversion of those alleged edits complied with Misplaced Pages rules on preventing vandalism (2) the second time I reverted the user’s poorly explained (repeated) mass deletion is because a consensus hadn’t been reached on whether the specific case should be kept in the list. The user did the deletion unilaterally without input from other participants, so it’s also justified to some extent as it didn’t look reasonable (3) I followed the “consensus” on the Talk page by supplementing all cases on the list with multiple reliable sources, which was acknowledged by another participant. The “re-adding” was exactly done for this purpose – to follow the “consensus” of sufficient reliable sourcing.

This is not the article’s Talk page, so I’d stop here. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Steven1991 is currently discovering WP:BOOMERANG at WP:AN, not unrelated to their behavior in the same article. SerialNumber54129 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the article Racism in Poland, I have been discussing with another editor (unnamed for privacy’s sake) for two days on another page and removed content not deemed by them as relevant. I hope that you will avoid that judgment without sufficient information. Thank you very much. Steven1991 (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case I think those discussions should be placed in public on the talk page of the relevant article as per the guidelines, I thoroughly read the updates and find that the majority are good faith however some of the edits such as this stand out to me as needless undue weight here, I don't know why Islamphobic hate crimes are specifically referred to as such "only 6% were "anti-Muslim" hate crimes" implying there's something artificial or fake about anti-muslim or Islamophobic hate crimes or why they're referred to as "only", and the thing is this could easily be good faith I don't have that issue but if it's on an uneditable article and you're writing it with a friend elsewhere not in public discussion then there's no room for anyone to voice that concern until it and many other publishes are already there making it harder to remove. Galdrack (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you can post on that article’s Talk page because this is the Talk page of an uninvolved administrator. I believe that we need to respect their space. Steven1991 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I shall be paying less attention to that article given that things do not go smooth. I agree with your suggestion on the AN that I shall start editing less controversial ones. Steven1991 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 is this being investigated further in AE or any other such forum? Currently there's quite a lot of users commenting on this but I can't find a single area, @Steven1991 has also gone on to send warnings on my personal talk page since these discussions despite the fact I haven't edited the related page since. Galdrack (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Galdrack: It's not at AE—yet—although it probably will be sooner rather than later. Particularly if steven1991 continues their current MO. They have a somewhat scattergun approach. As noted above, they opened a WP:AN thread on other editors (one of which they never even notified), attempted to remove one of his editorial opponents through a possibly retaliatory SPI—having already been found to have socked themselves!—canvassed, attempted to protect the article in their favour, bludgeoned the article talk page (over 70 comments in the last week, twice that of the next editor), where it has been suggested that there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own.There is a certain tendency towards battlefield editing, WP:OWNership of the article, walls of text, and a passive aggressive treatment of other editors, combined with the attempted weaponisation of several of our administative processes. Considering their block log—which I wouldn't usually raise, glass houses, etc, but three in a month, all very recognizably involving Disruptive editing edit warring, deceptive summaries, battleground territory—something needs to change, and fast. I suggested yesterday that they might find another, less controversial area to edit, and they agreed. Twice. It is a shame, perhaps, that they have not yet done so. SerialNumber54129 14:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a warning but a reminder. It would be appreciated if it is not taken personally – wish you a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: what makes you think that WP:ARBECR applies to this edit? M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit you linked may not be directly related, but the article itself is tangentially related to the A/I conflict given that many of the incidents are associated with events thereof to varying extent. In that article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times and “Gaza” 3 times, almost all in the context of A/I conflict-associated issues, not mentioning over a dozen of edits was made by another non-EC user in which the Gaza War was discussed directly, which shouldn’t have been done in the first place until that user has become an EC member. Just because it hasn’t been noticed by an admin, it doesn’t prevent EC users from making discrete reverts of non-EC users’ entries on the stated ground as per the protection under WP:ARBECR’s clause C and D. Steven1991 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is tangentially related, then the edits need to be judged on a case by case basis. Can you or can you not explain how ARBECR applies to that particular edit? M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but under the WP:ARBECR, A/I conflict-related edits made by non-EC members in A/I conflict-related articles can be deemed invalid and reverted by any EC users without being considered “edit warring” (clause C and D). They shouldn’t have made A/I conflict–related edits in the first place, so I can hardly see a violation in exercising our right to revert one or two of such edits. Steven1991 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question: what makes you think that WP:ARBECR applies to this edit? M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

(1) I have already answered. (2) This is the personal Talk page of an uninvolved admin. We need to respect their space. (3) You are free to participate in the Talk page’s discussion of the said article if you have any concern about the quality or quantity of the article’s content. (4) I won’t prefer to repeat the same points on an unrelated page as per (2) if a chat starting going off on a tangent or heading into the direction of a heated argument. (5) I am trying my best to keep things gentleman and I would be delighted if you are able to do the same. Steven1991 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)