Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 31 January 2022 (→A Night at Switch n' Play: yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (Index)

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

Keep maintaining it boss

		Humor Barnstar!
		Your comment on COIN made me laugh, and from ur username, page, to ur edit summaries, man thanks for being a good sport. Cheers.

Tame (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure which comment, because I say a lot of dumb stuff. I think my best comment recently was this, though it wasn't terribly well received. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Requests

Just an FYI, when you respond to an edit request, make sure you flag it as answered, otherwise it will still show up as a request that is pending. Sir Joseph 13:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Did I miss one? Happens from time to time, but considering I've answered in the thousands of edit requests I think my flagging it answered rate is pretty high. Normally, if I see one answered but not flagged, I just swap the flag for the user. Thanks for the heads up though, I'll keep an eye out and try and make sure I swap the flag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request : Hi, I think I have met your requests for: "These need reliable secondary sources, showing they are notable examples." on the Jeffrey Dahmer Page (Media -> Music) : Talk:Jeffrey_Dahmer

could you please have a look? thanks in advance. H8eternal (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Help Me Plz

Help Me Plz عِظْمَت (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would need details about what assistance you need. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Day

Im very dumb plz help me, I want to learn how to edit, I have sources عِظْمَت (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you ignoring my request

I just made a request with a source, from the International Monetary Fund about 2022 Iran GDP (Nominal) estimate, you are obligated to change it, Iran GDP (Nominal) is $1.14 trillion now, it is not $611 Billion, I hope you are not an Enemy of the Article of Iran, or the Iranian People عِظْمَت (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not obligated to make any edit, and my enemies are prominently listed on my user page. I looked at your source and did not see that number mentioned, but I did see a 2 percent gdp growth figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish revisiting this now that you've begun your evidence. I probably should have suggested you email me your evidence before posting so I could offer specific advice rather than the general advice offered here by me and echoed by Dreamy. So that one is on me. If the editor is not a party to the case, posting evidence of behavioral issues grouped by by that editor is basically out of scope. Instead presenting diffs of theirs, grouped by a "theme" as in your example at Sharon A Hill, is what I was attempting to indicate was alright and why a ping would not be needed. Posting diffs of editor behavior of named parties is, of course, with-in scope. As such I would ask you to please revise your evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be fine, in that case, to have a subsection labeled for each noticeboard discussion, and have the diffs linked there? It seems like it'll be difficult to show that the area is a toxic morass filled with stonewalling and personal attacks without posting diffs outside of the named parties. Obviously I have no experience with the whole arbcom thing, so I'd really like to get this right, and not eat up your time making dumb mistakes like the one I just did. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As an example, I'd see this as a bad edit illustrative of the issues in these BLPs, if I'm going based on article, rather than user. Would that be acceptable if the section were Thomas John (medium)? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Showing patterns of issues either by article title or noticeboard discussion could both be ways to provide evidence with-in scope of the case. But I would also encourage you to think about, given the limited word counts, about where you feel you have the strongest evidence that is going to lead to productive remedies. Simply rearranging the diffs about users into categories that comply with the scope may not be as effective as focusing partially on those and then in more depth to articles/discussions/editors that are at the heart of the case. But it is ultimately your call what evidence you want to submit (as long as it is with-in scope as we're discussing here). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of it was within the last discussion anyway. I actually have very limited experience in this topic area, and my exposure has been pretty limited, although almost always negative. Can you take a peek at my sandbox and see if that's ok? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Having only looked at the organization, I don't see any issues with that format. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: I found it hard to be sure, when reading your evidence, to tell where you were arguing something like "this editor has been disruptive and should be sanctioned by ArbCom" versus where you meant something more like "this is an example of how things have become difficult in this topic area". Perhaps it might be helpful to differentiate that a bit more, because it sort of sounds like you intended everything to be the former. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I did intend to note that a bit, but I'm already running low on words. I plan on responding to your comment at analysis of evidence which might clear things up a bit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom etc.

Hi! I notice diffs of mine have been added by you to the newly-started GSoW arbcom case, which seems odd since I am not a member of GSoW or involved in coordinated editing (which is the case's scope). Or are you implying I am involved in these things? It is unclear. As it happens, I am considering whether to submit evidence also and am looking at the contributions of some of the parties to the case which I am unfamiliar with. For full transparency and to ensure there is no bar to WP:SCRUTINY could you please answer the following question: have you edited Misplaced Pages with other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just providing evidence that you repeatedly called people witch hunters during discussions. Not implying you're taking part in any coordinated editing. As I've said over and over again, trying to seek out off wiki coordination is silly. In fact, that's the first three diffs in my evidence.

As for the account question, short answer is no. Look back at my talk page history, way back when I first started editing, and my discussion with Spartaz. I did a small amount of ip editing over the years, but really, I'm just the right kind of smart for wiki editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, for your ease, these are the two discussions: , . I should really add you genuinely are the most talented and sensible new user that I have ever encountered. I mean no-one ever gets "it" as quickly as you have. to my user page.

ScottishFinnishRadish - they gets "it" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As you rightly say, it's hard to believe! Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I also won the geography bee in 4th, 5th AND 6th grade, all three years I was eligible. How unbelievable is that? The worst part is I got the same dumb National Geographic board game each time I won. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So evidently you didn't mix up Finland and Scotland? I am reassured by your exchange with Spartaz and agree with what they say. Alexbrn (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad that is cleared up. I assume you're still of the mind that I had another account, which I assure you is false, but I guess I'll take not believing that I'm some deep cover operative conspiring to answer edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"I assume you're still of the mind that I had another account" ← not necessarily. Strange that it may seem, there are other ways to "get it" just through observation of what goes on. You, for example, were familiar enough with arbcom cases to advise on 6th January "I'm strongly disinterested in this going to arbcom. Even regular, 'smooth running' cases are a huge time sink for everyone involved." A curious reader is bound to wonder which "smooth running" case(s) you had in mind in reaching this view. Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Smooth running" is in scare quotes because it's something that generally doesn't exist. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine is a recent one that wasn't dealing with off-wiki secret groups, and generally was about on-wiki behavior. Look at the evidence page, and imagine the time that went into that. I'm ignoring any of the off-wiki stuff in the current case, and it's still a time sink, but at this point, in for a penny, in for a pound, right? I can't recall the first Arbcom case I watched unfold, maybe Sexology or the Manning name case, but I've watched several unfold throughout my time as just a reader. I watched the whole WP:FRAMGATE thing unfold as it happened, as well. It was interesting, from a outsider perspective, to watch the sausage get made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly recommend both of you to stop discussing this here. I respect both of you as editors and don't see further discussions here contributing anything but an increase in animosity that will negatively affect the case and your interactions down the line. Alexbrn if you have evidence SFR is abusing multiple accounts or attempting to evade bans it is best you provide that either in WP:SPI, in the case evidence page, and other appropriate channels. Just because they wanted to avoid arbcom doesn't mean they're a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish sometimes your first answer is good enough, and continually replying doesn't make your point clearer or more convincing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the conversation has moved on in an interesting direction, to the running of arbcom cases ("smooth" or not). So ironically trying to bring it backs to socks &c. is what is unhelpful. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually don't feel there's any animosity between Alexbrn and myself. I understand the sock question, see here for a quick explainer to the first person who accused me of being a sock.

Alexbrn and I disagree on some things, and that's fine, people don't need to agree on everything. The evidence I added to the Arbcom case was to illustrate how shitty discussions in the topic area are. I'm not seeking sanctions, or banging a drum against them, just providing diffs to support my assertions. I've been called much worse than a witch hunter on the internet, and it will take more than that for me to add them to my arc-enemies list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Good to know there's no animosity then. :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it takes a special kind of reader to grind through Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine months before even having a WP account! I found that case too distressing to participate in (and, as should have been obvious, there was a lot of "history" informing the disagreements on the table). Anyway, it helps explain the unusually "fully formed" appearance of SFR's account in its first edits. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't follow that case super closely, but it's a good example of a regular dispute that the community couldn't resolve, without having super secret cabals invoking dark theurgies to summon coverage that matches their POV into articles. I also saw a lot of the Eric Corbett stuff, although I don't recall if I was following "behind the scenes" stuff as far back as his earlier account. I found it astounding that, on one hand, someone couldn't just stop acting like a curmudgeon, and on the other hand, people couldn't just ignore someone acting like a curmudgeon. From an outside perspective, all the Misplaced Pages drama is basically just a soap opera in text.

Also, I wasn't quite fully formed. I spent like an hour trying to get the split section template to work right on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, and I have broken the Arbcom case page with my failure to use Template:cob correctly as recently as a few days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm also familiar with wikipediocracy. Feel free to add User:SatanicPresence to your list of tag-alongs blocked for shenanigans around the arbcom case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes: so that makes three confirmed socks stirring things, so far. In your interest in Wiki proceedings, I take it you came across the Rupert Sheldrake affair and its (non-)intersection with GSoW? That bit of history explains a bit about the sensitivities regarding this case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Not as familiar as I am with some other wikihistory, though I do think I remember hearing him on a podcast while I was grinding in Wizardry: Labyrinth of Lost Souls years ago. The only thing I think I remember was him saying that his theories were proven because sometimes you'll think of someone, then your phone will ring and it will be them. Seems like legit science to me. Also, I should probably redirect that article to Wizardry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Did it have any of the D. W. Bradley magic? I played Wizardry I (when it came out, on an Apple]

Eh, it was okay, but like all of the Japanese Wizardries it was just too Japanese to catch the original feel. Also, all the sound effects for voices were in Japanese, so when you were grinding, just running through groups and groups of easy stuff it would sound like hentai with all the grunts and squeals from your characters getting hit. When I was a little'un I was spending a summer away from home, and while I was away I bought Wizardry Gold, which was a fancy "remaster" of Wizardry 8. All summer I sat, reading the manual, planning out my party, and not actually playing. What a brutal summer to spend as a kid, with the video game you're super jazzed to play, and no machine to play it on.

In my massive one year experience of actually editing, I've found that pretty much every topic's potted history is that there are users out there, some of whom sock, and have a big axe to grind with (insert whatever group of wikipedia editors edited the article the care about). That is, to a great extent, why people assumed I had to be a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• two points of note, firstly we don’t hand over any rewards for getting it so the nat geo board game was still a million times better than what you get for helping round here. Secondly, I looked at the possibility of socking closely at the time and had reassurance from a member of arbcom too. SFR has not been linked to any alternate accounts and I have yet to see a bad edit from them and I see them round a lot. Essentially he is either legitimate or a million times cleverer than we are. Either way this isn’t worth anyone’s time. Spartaz 17:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Could I be legitimate AND more clever? It would be a big boost to my self esteem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Repeated diffs/evidence

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish! In the evidence I just submitted to the ArbCom case I think I repeated quite a few diff with regard to Roxy the dog which were already posted by you and/or by A. C. Santacruz. I would actually prefer these diffs not to be repeated if possible, and to be put all together in one section. I believe that the section I posted is the most complete at this point, so you may consider removing the diffs from your sections? We can also move all of them to one of your sections if you believe this to be better. Of course, one or two repeated diffs here or there, if they serve a specific context, would be tolerable. What do you think? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we're trying to prove different aims, and only one diff is repeated in my "doesn't fit anywhere else" Roxy the dog evidence. I prefer to keep my evidence related to specific discussions intact, to give a more wholistic picture that discussions are trash, and mostly because of one side of the "debates." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll remove my general ones (e.g. Roxy calling things a witch hunt) as those are repeated by y'all (IIRC). I'd like to keep the diffs in "Target of harassment/PAs" as it is somewhat necessary they are together to prove a point, but believe y'all should include them as well if they serve y'all's context. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the diffs that were still repeated in my section after A._C._Santacruz's removal. It's better that way both for fairness and for concision. I have maintained a few repeated diffs in my general incivility sections though, because these are indeed about wider context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It's not that I disagree with what you said, but it I'm trying to show one conversation was horrible, I think it's better to have all that conversation's diffs together. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Somehow not just being much cleverer than everyone else but also for getting “it” incredibly quicker than anyone else. Spartaz 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I may be clever, but I still ate half of the GSoW case request with a malformed cat/cab template! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Potentially that was a blessing. Spartaz 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't stick it out, and now I'm caught in the undertow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster versus Oxford English

The Merriam-Webster page for "fellows" was coincidentally up on my screen before you posted the link. So was the Oxford English page for "fellows". How was it used? IMO, only the user knows.

As for me, I try to shy away from using certain polysemic words in order to avoid any allegation that I intended gender cache instead of the epicene sense of a word. After so many arguments in which the speaker and audience each claim the higher ground, I'd rather err on the side of caution. It's not always so easy.

E.g., a colleague once humorously called another a "fop." I knew that word solely in its archaic sense of "numbskull, nitwit, screwball, etc., but the retort was, "Please don't genderize me!" My reaction was, "Huh?" So, I had to look it up. To this day I wonder what minority of people know what "fop" means at all, how many people know its morphology, and who should rightfully assume that Person A is so knowledgeable about arcane vocabulary as to intentionally genderize Person B with such a throwback word?

Anyway, was the intent "fellow" or "fellow"? One thing I know for sure: When Editor A gets wrung out for an ANI after intending formality by referring to Editor B as "my fellow colleague" rather than "they," I most definitely am not going to post anything on either side. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom

As someone who gets it apparently, are you surprised to see that the evidence in this case is pretty micro stuff? Perhaps people think it is redundant to statements or otherwise or doesn't need saying, but if ever there was a case for a few simple factual statements about the relevant Misplaced Pages policies to be entered as evidence so that they might inform the later stages, this is it. From what I've seen, from their own publicity this group has already shown they are incompatible with the core Misplaced Pages policies surrounding transparency, advocacy and harassment. To the point it is quite remarkable to think they have been allowed to operate for this long at all, since while their membership list and activities are secret, their existence, methods and purposes, certainly hasn't been. I admire certain people's efforts to argue this group is somehow legitimate, but in all honesty, they might as well be wearing a sign saying they are a member (or otherwise have no idea clue what Misplaced Pages even is), and the submitting of some high level policy descriptive evidence should show that pretty well. Critter73P (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC) — Critter73P (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is strongly prefer if you'd like to have a discussion about this that you use your main account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I edit under my real name which is easily traced to my employer, and therefore, given the nature of the evidence, I thought it wise to exercise my right under Misplaced Pages policy to use an alternate to ask you this question. For the benefit of the curious and perhaps less versed, I am full compliance as far as I know, given this is my only contribution to this topic area, and I am not under any active sanctions of any kind. So fear not, you can speak freely. It is I who is restricted in the sense I would be forbidden from participating directly in the process, simply because I value my personal privacy over my desire to see Misplaced Pages do the right thing. But there's nothing they can do to prevent me from legitimately stopping by to pick the brains of a main participant, or so I concluded. Perhaps I am wrong. We shall see I guess. Misplaced Pages is a strange place at times. Trust in the system regardless. It is all we have. Critter73P (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith is a very dodgy principle on a computer network. A much safer approach would be “Assume unauthenticated traffic is an attack.” As for your attempt to maintain privacy by using a pseudonym, this is probably illusory. if your livelihood is at stake just refrain from editing. Keep yourself safe, and be well. Jehochman 20:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And don't fall into a volcano. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How would one go about authenticating oneself to a website that doesn't require it? I understand the risks, caveat emptor and all that, but I do have the security of knowing that on Misplaced Pages, assume good faith is a real thing. It's a pretty big deal I would imagine, putting yourself out there as someone who takes these things lightly, for the reward of, what, stopping me, a random person on the internet, asking another random person in the internet, a question. I'm doing no harm, surely. To ground this in the case at hand, if this question were being asked over email, using a throwaway account, who would know, and who would care? Why does the use of more transparency, apparently cause more suspicion of wrongdoing? Like I said, Misplaced Pages is wierd sometimes. Critter73P (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And... indeffed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not terribly surprising. I got an email from a sock as well, that I forwarded up to arbcom. Quite the shenanigans around cases, it seems. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I knew it right away – but I'm psychic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's really the weirdest thing to me where everyone except us thinks we're hell-bent on some anti-GSoW crusade when it's more of a mild concern for the principles of Misplaced Pages being violated. I purposefully asked if Gronk Oz should be added because I know he's a great contributor to show a better perspective on GSoW than the boogeyman that appears in these threads. Like obviously we'll quickly report socks and harassers that seek us. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Joao Vale e Azevedo

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish,

Thank you for your help with editing Joao Vale e Azevedo's profile.

I have a question, in order to be clearer regarding page modifications, why can't font No. 12 of the profile be canceled or replaced, which is the following: https://www.slbenfica.pt/404?

This source does not contribute useful information to the profile, because it was canceled. In the same way, should it be kept in the profile? What can be done to eliminate or replace it?

Thanks a lot, Nathalia Nathalia Rodríguez R (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nathalia Rodríguez R, The link you're providing is to the 404 page, not the source itself. The single place it's used has another source as well, so there's no reason to remove the information. We generally won't remove dead links, as someone can use the link to find the current location of the source, as I did with the first two sources you had listed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.

Does that mean that even when the source of the news or information has canceled the page, the link will not be removed? I ask because the profile uses those links to support the written information.

If those links are no longer available, how is the information that is written justified?

Thank you very much for your help, again. Nathalia Rodríguez R (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was actually retracted we can remove it, but that doesn't appear to be the case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Doesn't the 404 error, which is the page cancelled, mean that the content no longer exists? I ask because I tried to find another source where the content that existed there could be hosted and I can't find it. Nathalia Rodríguez R (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It could mean that the page moved, or they don't host the content anymore. There's a lot of reasons to get a 404 error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I found it here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

False flag?

What do you make of the theory doing the rounds on the interwebz that you and El C are not actually arc-enemies? That pretty much everyone involved, including Jehochman, are playing assigned roles? That it's not really about animosity, it's the exact opposite. That these interactions will, once the script has been followed, result in some official rubber stamp for any and all radishes that wish to take advantage of the freedom to collaborate in the shadows so they can better combat their perceived enemies? That this was always the inevitable outcome once the Wikipedians realized that assuming bad faith puts them at a natural disadvantage when arrayed against people who come here for the right reasons. It's pretty out there, but like all good conspiracy theories, there are some strange aspects of it that otherwise defy a more rational explanation. Not sure I can say more without getting trouted. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about SFR but my secret title is definitely not Minister of Propaganda. This whole ArbCom case is not a plan (see Kayfabe) to generate free publicity and drive up advertising revenue. Jehochman 13:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not, and have never been, and never will be, a double secret agent for the anti-woo/pro-woo industrial complex. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, as a non-American "woo" is a new word to me and sounds super childish? So whenever anyone says "pro woo" or "anti woo" I feel like we're talking about Adventure Time. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There are Misplaced Pages criticism sites that promote conspiracy theories that "admin A" and "admin B" are actually the same person, or that an admin also secretly operates various non-admin accounts. It's an easy but delusional way for someone who was blocked or banned here to pretend that they were just a victim of something unfair. I've noticed that El C is frequently the subject of such conspiracy theories. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't possibly be El C, as they're clearly listed as my arc-enemy on my user page. You're not allowed to lie on your user page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As someone that's received a ban from El C, I have nothing but respect for him as an admin. His time given and justification were clear and well-thought out. IIRC he's also an admin willing to do hard blocks so I see how he can be the target of unreasonable backlash. A.C.S.Alt - Talk to main account 22:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

About

Hi , there you left a message on my talk page about adding DOB matters ... Can you explain me more about adding source on DOB ??? Truedboner (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:DOB, Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Truedboner is a sock of LTA User:Blogs19. They have been blocked by CU. The LTA editor generally engages in mass disruption of articles in rapidly and WP:GAMING through new accounts. 2402:3A80:6BD:9CEF:55EC:1848:84F2:1DE9 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Not surprising for someone with "boner" in their username. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I had actually already reported them to UAA. I wonder if that's what drew admin attention? I was wondering when I read it, though, if it was True D Boner, Trued Boner, or Tru Ed Boner. The latter certainly sounds like a porn name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

connor

hi Aojconnor (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou for reasonableness

I am glad you were reasonable in the last discussion. I am thinking I should have reviewed that article better. However I have to admit I saw that she was born in Hong Kong, clearly British, and focused mainly on the first two lines. I did not notice the third line and am sorry about that. Do you think it would help if I reverted the edit?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt. I don't really see it as a topic ban violation, but I'm not really experienced with the specifics of what would be a violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Pun

I don't know if fits the bill was intentional, but I enjoyed it all the same. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's why I keep getting all those humor barn stars. And my wife appreciates that I have an outlet aside from punning at her. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Fletcher

Hi, if I deleted the AfD notice, it was a mistake. I am currently trying to edit the article to fix the concerns identified on the BLP noticeboard, and would be grateful if you could give me a bit of time to do that, as I don't want to get into an edit war. I believe I can address all the concerns that people had. Thanks! Ephesians511 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPRESTORE. There are good faith BLP objections, so do not make those edits unless you have consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, however, WP:BLPRESTORE says If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I did make "significant change" to address the concerns, in particular by making it clear that the subject hadn't been charged / convicted of a crime. Also, in the reference for the independent review, I included a quote to make it clear that the reviewers had found the subject had been engaged in "a range of harmful behaviours". So I think I fully addressed these concerns and I was justified in making the edit. Please, let's discuss on the BLP noticeboard now. Ephesians511 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A Night at Switch n' Play

I am the director of A Night at Switch n' Play and am asking for corrections to errors on the page. I am following the guidelines based in this wikipedia contact page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects)

I am asking for the identities and pronouns of the performers to be corrected. There's a lack of neutral and straightforward language that misrepresents living people based on a poorly sourced material (as outlined in this Wikpedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced).

The Queer Guru source that is cited for the cast descriptions contains a number of original interpretations or descriptions of the performers that can be considered offensive, and these descriptions are also reproduced word-for-word. This source's descriptions are not accurate and misinterpret the characterizations offered in the film. The language in this article regarding the cast's description is transphobic, defamatory and contentious.

As stated in Misplaced Pages's "Reliable Sources Section": contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.186 (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't have time to look into this until tomorrow. The issue we've been running in to is that we have to follow sources. You could make an account and reach out to WP:OTRS to prove, at least, that you're the director, at which point it's possible we can take you at your word that there we're describing the individuals offensively. You could also go to WP:BLPN, which is the noticeboard for BLP issues and explain the issues there. Sources using the descriptions you've given would still be helpful, though.

I'll try to take a closer look at this tomorrow and help you out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

216.165.95.186, the important question is whether Misplaced Pages considers Queer Guru to be a reliable source or a "poor" source? If it's a RS, then we generally follow what RS say, sometimes regardless of the subject's opinion of the matter, at least if they are a WP:Public figure (they have a WP:COI regarding themselves...). If reliable sources consider the matter contentious, then we attribute the POV, in this case to Queer Guru. If it's a "poor" source, then we try to find better sources. -- (talk page watcher) Valjean (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about this as we're dealing with gender self identification and such, so we have to exhibit care. I started a section on WP:BLPN to hopefully get some feedback. This might also be a WP:PARITY situation, where the topic is covered mostly in niche LGBT publications, and that might be the best we get. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes total sense. Performers' self-identification should be respected. -- Valjean (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess the question would be is if someone proves to OTRS that they're the director, is that enough to change the description? I keep meaning to do a thorough BEFORE on that article, as the sourcing isn't great, but I also tend to be more forgiving on underrepresented topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The real director is both a subject matter expert and one with a COI, so OWN comes into play. Even they must use RS. Subject matter experts in niche areas often know the RS for that niche better than we do. You're absolutely right about PARITY. We may need to depend on sources we've never heard of. -- Valjean (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)