Misplaced Pages

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 08:50, 27 December 2024 (Archiving 4 discussions to User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 42. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:50, 27 December 2024 by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 4 discussions to User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 42. (BOT))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This user is a farmer in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archiving icon
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)

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)

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)