User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 5

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 ^(talk) 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)

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)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) 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 05:31, 9 February 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 Humbug! 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 ^Humbug! 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ray Fisher (actor) on a "Biographies" 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 07:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply to edit request

These movies (101 problems 9f Hercules and the others were all first aired on wonderful world of Disney ABC which you can already find on Wikipedia page but then we're adapted to vhs, I can send you those vhs as your proof also can find these movies on Disney's website thanks 166.182.86.70 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide the links in Disney's website on the article talk page and reopen the edit request please? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 5 February 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)

ScottishFinnishRadish, please be aware that the article about João Vale e Azevedo has been the target of WP:ADVOCACY multiple times. SLBedit (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling someone wanted to remove the information, so I didn't a bit of extra time finding the working links. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 7 February 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/wiki/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/wiki/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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

This is a more reliable source with neutral language - the summary of the cast's descriptions are as follows: Divina [Brooklyn-based drag and burlesque artist], “femmecee” Miss Malice, trans drag king K.James, drag/burlesque “queerdo” Nyx Nocturne, drag artist Pearl Harbor, nonbinary drag king Vigor Mortis, and snake charmer-stage kitten Zoe ZiegfeldCrs363 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Crs363, for now I've removed the descriptions that were there, because if they were incorrect it's better to err on the side of caution. For now, I suggest you start a section on the article talk page, and provide the descriptions you'd like, and that source. I will say, that source looks much better than the one we're using now, as I've at least heard of Logo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that we can't copy the descriptions used by the source exactly, we should be paraphrasing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:A Discovery of Witches (TV series) 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 02:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 23:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, i was just wondering if you can edit more pages

You should make more edits and make more pages about books, countries, foods, locals, televisions etc. But i think it will be perfect

Placing the blame...

Sans power sword, but with a cowboy admirer

Why is Pups Alone still not a standalone article? Explain yourself. El_C 13:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was going to make a Masters of the Universe movie joke, linking it to Dolph Lundgren being in both movies, but then I looked at the Masters of the Universe article and lost my will to live. It's the same fucking size as World War II. God, the internet was such a mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bad news. WWII is 12,000 words of prose, Masters of the Universe is 16,000... BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying The Backrooms suck now? Anyway, it redirects to Danny Trejo — how somewhat random (gg Bovineboy2008! ☻). El_C 14:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, there can be some positives, even if something was a mistake. Hell, I'm pretty sure most people alive today are the result of a mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, that's why there's handcuff keys. El_C 14:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

New Cornwood posted today! Please, please let there be more Sheriff Cornwood–Trooper Andrews buddy cop action. El_C 15:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Jesus. Maybe I can work up the will to take an axe to it, like Optimus Prime. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the power of Grayskull. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What I need is a Power Sword to cut away all the cruft from comics/cartoon articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I should create an article about the power sword. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel that we could get at least 8,000 words of prose about it. Hell, just the size changing differences between versions of the power sword in different Masters of the Universe iterations should have it's own article.

ACTUALLY GO FUCK YOURSELF POWER SWORD ALREADY EXISTS AND IS OVER 3000 WORDS. BEAUTIFUL! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I need to stop looking at articles to make jokes because it just hurts me more and more every time I see that these articles already exists, and are already better jokes than anything I can make. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I missed that the article existed. Well, it's shorter that Captain America's shield. And Castle Grayskull has a jawbridge, I never noticed that before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

[1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Tall Girl 2 has been released today. You're welcome! El_C 16:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Maybe since it's being released today it'll be one of the movies on The Last Drive-in with Joe Bob Briggs tonight. I told my wife that if she can't guess the movies correctly she doesn't get to have any oysters when we go out for a fancy dinner on Monday. She'll have to eat Chili Bandit Chili instead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

🍕 Chili Bandit, fuck yeah! 🍕 El_C 16:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of foods, it seems there hasn't been a move request at Maize in a while. Maybe now is the time to reignite the great debate? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this about The Maze? Because if so, keep in mind that the price of admission is pants. El_C 19:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

And on the topic of mazes, I once built a shifting maze in Dwarf Fortress using draw bridges and pressure plates, so as creatures moved through it paths would open and close. All I really managed to do with it was make the fortress unplayable as my framerate dropped to near nothing because of the pathfinding issues of an entire siege of goblins trying to figure their way through the hellscape of shifting walls, pits and traps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, gotta watch for them goblins, they'll get ya every time. BTW, do you remember Drug Wars? Man, I have sold so much Acid! El_C 23:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I played some version of that on BBSs back in the day. You could have gang wars with other drug Lords! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone involved in this thread for helping me reach this milestone:

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish · 1/23/2022 - 2/12/2022 · 1,441 pageviews (69/day)

Nice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nice. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Still haven't reached the Promised Land. El_C 18:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

[2] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2 new posts!

A new Puppy Bowl! (XVIII). And a movie called Cosmic Dawn (crankedupfilms.com/cosmicdawn) that doesn't star Bruce Willis? You've heard it here 1st! El_C 18:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Sword (2nd nomination) - go for DelRev?

I'd support you, obviously, this should be relisted at the very least. Although maybe ask the closer first to revert themselves and relist, skipping the delrev is possible? Ping User:Scottywong. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

While I firmly believe the article should be deleted, judging from the state of related articles, I just don't think it will happen. Wikipedia loves it's cruft. If Scottywong is willing to relist, that's good, but I just don't think it's worth the drama of a deletion review. Look at it this way, at least it's an overly bloated article on a fake sword, not on a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting is for AfDs that have had only a few participants or a distinct lack of policy-based arguments, and this AfD didn't have a shortage of either. Therefore, I don't think it qualifies for relisting. See WP:RELIST for relisting guidelines. Additionally, there was clearly no consensus to delete the article; in fact, no participant even voted to delete. There was one editor who voted to redirect (which is admittedly nearly equivalent to deleting), another who voted to merge, and the remaining 5 voted to keep. You're welcome to bring this to DRV if you want, but I don't see a lot of room for interpreting the consensus differently here. Even if you got it overturned to no consensus (which would be an enormous stretch, in my opinion), the article would still be kept. My advice would be to let it go, or maybe come back in a year and see if consensus has changed. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the minor support in reverting that guy’s edits about me… I’m sorry about him being a nusiance but I wanted to thank you. Aardwolf68 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, sorry about the misplaced CSD tag, I'm trying to clean up the redirects. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, stuff happens man, anyways, thank you so much regardless. Aardwolf68 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

El C is on the case. He's like Dale, from the Rescue Rangers. Sure, he's not as responsible or level headed as Chip, but he still has the tools to get the job done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68: Just happened to see that person's report in AIV (because Scottish deleted it because it was vandalism and I was confused as to how since the username seemed like an obvious username vio) and I feel really bad that someone decided that all they wanted to do was harass you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the reason that speedy notice went to me is because I left a redirect when I moved the page back where it belonged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright. I figured it would either go to the faux user or the sock because you didn't actually create it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s all good, I’m not the good guy or anything in this situation, I’ll admit, but I’m just trying to improve and this guy hasn’t helped, but I appreciate the help and support. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68: I noticed that there's an ANI report against you. I would give my own view on the situation there however I strongly dislike ANI because of how messy it tends to be. I wish you good luck and hopefully the situation can get resolved soon. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, godspeed to you. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests

Yeah, I know. My general beef isn't with you, or with other editors answering edit requests with less-than-ideal canned responses. It's with our general response to edit requests. It's just so counterproductive to welcoming new users in. I've tried to discuss it. The last time, the discussion just ended up archived. Multiple editors think this is an issue. Why are we having such a hard time fixing this? valereee (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I've mentioned before, but I think that altering the wording on some of the templates, and adding several other responses would go a long way to help.

Another issue that affects patrollers is that the vast majority of edit requests are either malformed beyond usability or in bad faith. That leads to similar issues as recent changes patrol, where after seeing huge amounts of vandalism it's easy to respond poorly to borderline cases.

The last big issue I see is that talk page watchers pretty much never answer edit requests. Talk:Israel, for instance, had had a request open for quite some time. I haven't looked at how many watchers it has, but my guess is somewhere between a lot and a shit load. That leaves patrollers to work out of an edit is good without the context of having been involved in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It's that last issue that I'd like to see us focus on:aging requests. If I were czar <g>, edit requests at articles currently being actively worked on by multiple editors wouldn't show up at the category until they were a week old. valereee (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Then we'd have week old vandalism and gross BLP violations sitting in on talk pages for a week before anyone sees them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Weird that reply tool let me reply without mentioning that your statement changed after I started. If people are discussing an edit request, the request should be closed, per the template instructions. The problem with that is, for the most part, the people who patrol edit requests are the only people who handle them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Take this for example. There are over 800 talk page watchers, and it just sat there in the queue for about a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually there's discussion going on about that exact reply tool issue at...hm, somewhere, maybe at MediaWiki? Next time I get a ping I'll let you know. valereee (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Here it is. valereee (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recall the behavior used to be that you'd get a notice that what you're responding to changed or was removed in red text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that was back with (Enterprisey's?) tool? I do know that's basically what they're trying out now in a test thing. They're asking for testers. valereee (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It was recently, with the new tool. It happened a few times during the arbcom hullabaloo I'm caught up in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure I've seen that, and I often take a while to compose a response and end up with an edit conflict of some sort. Maybe I've just missed it or been lucky.

And, oof, I'd missed that entire AC case. Tons of fun.

Also I'd just now asked at Template talk:Request edit/Instructions what to do if I was working with an editor. So I should close it as |ans=y if I'm not accepting or declining but am still working? valereee (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

At the bottom of the template it says "Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Somewhere at Template:Request edit/Instructions? valereee (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's where I'm working: Special:Permalink/1072785891#Proposed changes: Opening paragraphs valereee (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It shows in the edit request template itself, on the talk page it's used on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's the COI edit request template. That has different instructions, for some reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try to create a very simple copy-paste instruction page we can direct newbies (and the non-technical like myself) to. Is that anything you could/would be willing to help with? valereee (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. It'll probably be a couple days before I can dedicate real time to it though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

No urgency whatsoever. I just feel like edit requests are one of those things that need to be very easy for the inexperienced/non-technical to create/answer, and finding a way to make them easier is a worthy eventual goal. :) valereee (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee, another quick example of why I think leaving requests open instead of just closing as "get consensus" is Talk:Millennials#Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022. 985 talk page watchers, simple copyediting request, open for three days with no action. Basically, only those who patrol open requests really answer requests. Otherwise, in general, the requests just languish on talk pages, so it's difficult when there is talk page history about a controversial subject (or not very controversial subject in many cases) to leave it for editors who are familiar with the topic area and the article.

As far as your simple guide to edit requests, have you seen the edit request guidance that shows up when you click "submit an edit request" on a protected page? In my experience, it's the most common way edit requests are made. Template:Edit_semi-protected/editintro is the notice editors get, so changes to that might be in order. Also Template:ESp are the templates most patrollers are using, so updating the verbiage there gets the most bang for our buck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this particular edit request was that the page isn't protected. It's a COI editor, and they used a different template.

And I agree with you on the Millenials edit! It isn't that there shouldn't be patrols. But that talk page had been edited two weeks earlier. And it had been three days? At (wherever it was) I believe there were active discussions among multiple editors currently happening, and it had been a few hours, IIRC? Just my opinion, but there was no rush to answer that edit request, and in this case a better response would have been "this is being discussed in the above section, feel free to join the discussion, but we can't make this requested edit until that discussion is resolved." Newbs (again, ostensible newbs) don't even know what 'get consensus first' even means. It's a silly thing for us to ever use with anyone making their ostensible first edit.

Why did that editor make that edit logged out, again? lol... valereee (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you suppose it's kosher for us to boldly edit that template? valereee (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Uhm, I'm not really sure. I know there's a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests/Archive_1#Requiring_verbatim_suggestions for some changes to the response template. I would assume as long as the changes to the edit notice aren't too drastic, and don't change the overall meaning, there wouldn't be any objection. Who knows though, sometimes it's easy to step in it when editing anything in project space, and other times no one cares. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and for the record I can't even figure out WHERE to go to edit the silly thing. It's transcluded from somewhere (or multiple somewheres?), but where? valereee (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the response template is one template that is invoked through all of the individual levels of protection templates. I can barely make pings work, which is why I haven't rewritten or expanded any of the responses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

lol...same. I was hoping you knew more about it! :) valereee (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you mind if I join in?

It doesn't seem essential to start a new section. Could you kindly take a look at this? VScode fanboy (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

VScode fanboy, you're autoconfirmed now, so you can make the edit yourself, no request necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)'

Same thing as with the edit equest, in WP everything is a wiki page, guess I have to adjust to that, thanks! 112.135.80.127 (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Geography cop-outs

• Kinnoull Terrace (AfD discussion)
• Kinnoull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been dealing with GNIS rubbish for so long that when I see an article that begins "X is a residential area" I immediately think of the standard Wikipedia information-free cop-out "unincorporated community". There do seem to be a fair few "Kinnoull something" things that are or were there, from Kinnoull Manse through Kinnoull Cottage to Kinnoull Primary School and Kinnoull Hill. It would be nice if Wikipedia explained that it was a parish. Then it might make sense.

• Lewis, Samuel (1851). "Kinnoull". A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland: Comprising the Several Counties, Islands, Cities, Burgh and Market Towns, Parishes, and Principal Villages, with Historical and Statistical Descriptions: Embellished with Engravings of the Seals and Arms of the Different Burghs and Universities. Vol. 2. London: S. Lewis and Company. p. 89.
• Hume, William (1979). "The Parish of Kinoull". In Taylor, David B. (ed.). The Counties of Perth and Kinross. Third statistical account of Scotland. Vol. 27. Culross. pp. 401 et seq. ISBN 9780903589383.
• Gifford, John, ed. (2007). Perth and Kinross. Pevsner: Buildings of Scotland. Vol. 10. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300109221.

Our article is sourced to the bowling club's WWW site.

Uncle G (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Just who do you think you are?

You call the truth a “disruptive edit.” CovidHoax (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm just a simple caveman, and your modern world frightens and confuses me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems you are not ready for the Truth just yet, SFR. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What really bakes my noodle is that they figured Talk:Scream (2022 film) was the best place to get the word out about the COVID hoax. Also, I would have assumed the user name CovidHoax would be taken by now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That's... definitely a choice for peddling misinformation. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Right? There's probably a CVD H0X vanity plate in multiple US states. But it only gets registered here today? Our trolls are seriously slacking off. valereee (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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, 12 March 2022 (UTC)