User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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)

Wikipedia: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 ^{Read! Talk!} 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 Wikipedia 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)

@Serial Number 54129 thank you for the information, can you please inform me if comments are required as I've (as I'm sure you've noticed) been having these issues too, I'd request in the interim that a block be placed on said page for the user as they are still reverting edits rather than engaging in discussion particularly when the entries were added by Steven1991 and did not follow the correct sourcing as has been raised in the talk page before.

They are also starting discussions in the talk page about the scope of the article (good compared to before) however this is after being told to leave it and agreeing (as you mentioned) and in turn they are abusing WP:ECR to shutdown discussion from users they disagree with, the page isn't under protection and doesn't have a clear link to WCR while also the user has engaged in gaming to attain 500 edits themselves.

Sorry I want to step away from this page currently until I have 500 edits myself but given the user's approach it's frankly been too disruptive to ignore and has now begun with them sending warnings to me based off self-determined definitions of the page. Galdrack (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

May I humbly ask you not to mischaracterise my actions or cast aspersions on me when I am trying to enforce relevant rules? I would appreciate if a degree of civility can be demonstrated. Steven1991 (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I haven’t reverted any more edits. Steven1991 (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are presenting a very one-sided view of the issue, missing a lot of context, and mischaracterising my handling.

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when an non-EC user engaged in mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which they’re not supposed to have got involved in the first place.

II.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries that the non-EC user didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address their “concerns” so as to de-escalate for any disputes the sake of de-escalation.

III.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from other users concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.

IV.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by the non-EC user at any point of time. The user does not appear to have shown any signs of improving their manner in their correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.
The non-EC user was asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in their replies to my polite and humble messages.
Rather than listen, the non-EC appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process. Steven1991 (talk) 19:42, 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 have already explained. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 19:29, 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)

No you didn't answer the question. I've told you twice before why your assessment was incorrect & instead of acknowledging that you got defensive & sidestepped the issue. Now for the last time -

They're allowed to edit the article, just not be involved in WP:PIA. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you discuss this matter on the specific Talk page instead? Steven1991 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this reached a resolution without me. That'll learn me to take a weekend off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the touch of humor

is a hole wide enough to drive an article about an 80s cartoon character through. and the term 'banana-hater' in the VPP 'What is a revert' topic gave me a good chuckle.

Just wanted to thank you for making Wiki fun to read at times, and wish you a good weekend!

Awshort (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Always glad to bring a touch of levity to our proceedings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

2603:8001:c2f0:7d0::/64 range block

User talk:2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:D92E:2417:3D6A:25BE FYI. Sam Sailor 20:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Request

A little ways back you had a run-in with BMN123 [1] [2], in recent months they've been back to causing the same sort of disruption. I did some checks and reverted a lot of it though doubtless some has escaped my notice. I could though use your help with a little clean-up on the talk page due to edits coming from the datacenter 2A06:8184:1:5D:0:0:0:A, which the edit filter disagrees with me cleaning up directly.

Admittedly I could just go to EFFP, and it probably wouldn't take much longer to explain it there than here, assuming an explanation was needed at all, but I do have a secondary motive. Three of the four people listed as contacts for dealing with them are currently inactive, and I certainly don't have the time right now to help out regularly. So I was wondering if you would be willing to list yourself there, especially as contacting a sysop directly can often be more convenient than trying to explain things on ANI. If not I understand, just trying to fill a hole I noticed, thanks for your consideration. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I sorted the talk page and archive. I don't think I'm really in a position to provide more information about giveaways/behavioral tells, history, etc. beyond what is listed at the LTA page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, appreciate the help anyway. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about talk page harassment by random IPs

ive been having random talk page harassment recently. [3] [4] [5] [6]

Im curious, is there any process on wikipedia that helps against this? i think i recall seeing talk pages are not supposed to be protected. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

They were all on the same /64, so I blocked that for a week. If anything else pops up, let me know and I'll semi your talk page for a bit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually ramped the block up to a month. Still, let me know if it continues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sock return

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ronah%C3%AETV_support_YPG Shadow4dark (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Something to do with ECR

Just made a citation recommendation request in the Talk section for the page on the Nakba so it reads like an actual sourced article (and not as some under-sourced political slander piece, like it currently does), and you immediately deleted it. What gives? Whatever your politics, how is it bad to source things fully? Why shouldn't the page be formated similarly to other articles on human tragedies? My apologies if that was the incorrect section to put those recommendation comments, but you're really not working for the common good here if you're going to just blindly delete article improvement topics... #DoBetterMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.132.186.56 (talk • contribs)

Quick question

Hi SFR. I have been summoned here and want to give a proper statement, but I'm limited to 500 words. I have trimmed my statement as much as I could but it is still pretty long (a little bit more than 800 words). Would it be possible to get an extension? I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask. Thanks. - Ïvana (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a question for Arbcom or their clerks. ARCA is a different venue than AE and it's fully under the purview of Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks! - Ïvana (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Close protection request

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish just wondering if you could close my request for protection in relation to October 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran as I believe you protected it just from stumbling on to the page and not in relation to my request. Also could you protect the talk page I think talk pages are only semi-protected to allow for edit requests but not sure. Thanks Brandon Downes (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Closed. We don't protect talk pages unless there is disruption. I'll keep an eye on it for a bit, but if there are a lot of ECR violations feel free to request semi or ec protection at RFPP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Agh ok I didn't know that I thought they just fell under the contentious topic in some form. Thanks for letting me know and for closing the request! Brandon Downes (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

User in violation of a TBAN

I'm contacting you since you enforced the original ban and I don't really feel like this needs to go to AE. User:Peckedagain recently made this edit which I believe is in violation of their topic ban. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked a week. That was their 7th edit after acknowledging their topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,

I was reverting an edit by an IP account from last week and saw on their User talk page, User talk:2A0A:EF40:C9:E901:7E8B:B517:31EA:EEF7, that you had imposed a block on them. But when I looked at their block log, there is no block listed. In fact, they have never been blocked. So, did you post this message and then change your mind? Or did you actually do a range block? I only see one edit that might have provoked a block and you seemed to have posted that talk page message immediately after that edit had been made and before it had even been reverted which is very very quick so I wonder how you even saw it. So, color me puzzled. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the /64, which would be really nice if it showed in the log. [7] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I've opened a community wishlist request for this at m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Display range blocks that impacted single IP address block logs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Block appeal by IdanST

Hi SFR, just providing formal notice of the appeal on AE by User:IdanST, copied over per your request. The thread is here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reversion on comments in talk pages

For unexplained reasons, you've reverted (wiped out) two of my comments made in the talk pages, one of which I took a reasonable time to formulate and did not violate any guidelines. First, I would like to state that I don't appreciate the trigger-happy censorship and "we don't owe you any explanation" attitude. This is an open forum. If users feel that some shadowy gatekeeper is going to decide arbitrarily who gets a say and who doesn't, then nobody should waste their time on this website. So, respectfully, I would like an explanation. Viktorzoi (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You are confused, Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM), open or otherwise. Nor do you have any freedom of speech here (WP:FREESPEECH). This is just a statement to clear up your confusion, I have not taken a look to see if the reverts of your comments themselves. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It does look like you've been violating the contentious topic restrictions, Viktorzoi, the ones you were warned about on your talk page. You are not permitted to edit about the Arab-Israeli conflict at this time. Any cases of you doing so should be reverted. There are more details on your talk page, including links you are obligated to read. --Yamla (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Commemorative Air Force on a "History and geography" 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 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy

Can you see here [8] please? Andre🚐 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ... point out that everyone in this topic area is on edge. Everyone is all about the assuming bad faith. Can I suggest that perhaps if folks don't want to be met with incivility, that folks start out by going the extra mile - instead of beginning the discussion with "Your repeated accusations of tendentious, disruptive, and gaming are incivil. A veteran editor should know ..." which instantly puts the person reading the statement on the defensive, instead try "I'm not trying to be disruptive and/or tendentious, and I regret that you found my actions so. How can we try to resolve this issue without turning it into a bunch of back-and-forth-accusations?" I know that's like a pie-in-the-sky dream, but trying to extend some good faith towards others would at least not instantly start things out adversarial. Can we TRY, at least? Ealdgyth (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion was here. As far as I know, my actions have been normal wiki discussion, nothing tendentious, gaming, or disruptive. As you say, there are strong opinions in this topic area, but you're asking me to extend further than is merited here. I don't think AGF extends to justifying evidence-free aspersions. While I appreciate Ealdgyth's attempt to cool the temperatures, I do not think my message to Nableezy was incivil or aggressive. Nor do I think it's appropriate to turn this around and try to claim that my demeanor is somehow to blame for Nableezy's incivility. I'd like for SFR to let me know or if he doesn't want to, I suppose I'd need to open an AE? Or is Nableezy simply allowed to make aspersions and falsely accuse me of disruptive editing and tendentiousness and gaming the system and I just have to take that in stride because he is 'on edge'? Andre🚐 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm on record as not wanting to eat these shit sandwiches alone anymore, so AE is the venue for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The tendentiousness is in making people have the same argument multiple times across multiple pages while also demanding that what does not have consensus, and has an RFC established consensus against including in the lead of a related article, remain in the article. Ive provided evidence for my claims, making them not "aspersions". Im not making false accusations, Im saying that X, Y and Z actions are disruptive and tendentious. So is restoring factually untrue material to the lead of an encyclopedia article like you did here. nableezy - 21:12, 28 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)

My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Another cantata turned 300, Mache dich, mein Geist, bereit, BWV 115. Another bio is nominated for RD, Walter Jacob, a rabbi who created the first rabbinic seminary in Central Europe after the Holocaust, in Germany of all places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope you followed reading to a rich day. Today a caricature, for a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This invitation says 10-15 minutes and the survey says 15-20 minutes. Also, the next button is like 100 miles from the options you choose from. 1 star, still pregnant. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

DFW

To maintain my pledge to you, you might want to check out the activity at their talk page since the block... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove their page from your watchlist. They can dig their own hole without anyone's help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Eep, it seems I lost my protection with that action, not worth creating a new section though. If you don't mind restoring? - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)