User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish


April music[edit]

story · music · places

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See? I was right all along when I misread your username as ScottishFinnishRadio. I still think of you as that. Meters (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but radishes are sharper --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My story today is about a piece composed for the Second Sunday after Easter 300 years ago, and I just returned from a (long) opera about the same age, with soprano Pretty Yende --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
back to Copland, a little bit of background:
The list of Copland's compositions was removed within "ce", 3 Dec 2023. I discovered it by chance when the TFA appearance of Appalachian Spring on 6 April was near, and I restored the works, 2 April, based on my understanding of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#MOS:FORCELINK (which came from Vivaldi - same players - so you may want to study there). It was reverted, 3 Apr. I began a discussion on the article talk and alerted the author of Appalachian Spring to watch. What could I have said without you thinking "canvassing"? - How about you telling the reverter that any change to an infobox should say "infobox" (or at least "ibox") in the edit summary, at least as long as infoboxes are regarded as contentious (which I hope will end some day)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(patiently waiting for answers to two questions) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, I must have missed this among all my other notifications.
I'm not going to tell anyone reverting an infobox change that they must say "infobox" in their edit summary. This is far beyond the scope of CTOP, and isn't really an issue that needs solving. As for the canvassing, you did not make a neutral notification, and based on your past infobox discussions with MyCatIsAChonk you shouldn't have been reaching out to them as a neutral party. Even with a neutral notification that would have been canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, it must be my lack of language. An alert = a note to please watch: no discussion was intended. The removal of the list of a composer's works was not an "infobox discussion". What in my notification was not neutral, - "rubbing eyes" perhaps? I have no words, really, for how absurd I find it to disconnect a composer from their works, which has nothing to do with infoboxes, - I would find it absurd in prose as well. MyCatIsAChonk and agree with what Voceditenore said in the discussion for Mozart (and the community seems also to agree): "Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that a discussion about what to include in an infobox is not an infobox discussion is not convincing. Any discussion about a part of an infobox, how to implement an infobox, or anything else about an infobox is an infobox discussion. That you support your argument by linking to another discussion about an infobox further demonstrates that this comes down to a discussion about an infobox. Additionally, asking someone to watch a discussion is still notifying them of the discussion, which is what WP:CANVAS covers. That you expressed displeasure with the discussion, e.g. rubbing eyes is certainly not a neutral notification. Your notification to Barkeep was also not neutral, as you expressed your opinion on it and followed up with The question is: does the list of compositions belong in the composer's infobox, and I rub my eyes how that can even be a question. What else could be more worthwhile to show?.
If you believe my logged warning was incorrect and wish to appeal you can do so at WP:AE or WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the Mozart RfC of 2023, because for me, that changed the scene for infoboxes: once regarded as an invasion by a few who where called infobox-warriors, they came to be respected as what readers expect. I had hoped that the RfC ended discussions, and while that is true for the majority of articles I read and write (even of classical composers), in a few cases obviously not.
As I wrote in my reply on my talk, I encountered AE: I won't report a colleague, and I won't appeal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday I went to a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... followed by two birthdays in a row, and I prefer those (see my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
now images of a flock of sheep that I met by chance on the 300th birthday of cantata Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theoracle1233[edit]

Special:Contributions/Theoracle1233 isn't looking great... e.g.[1] Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing 'user conduct' in RSN discussions[edit]

Is the point Iskandar raises here correct, that it doesn't fall afoul of WP:NPA to chastiise "user conduct" in an RSN discussion if it doesn't chastise "the person"? So as not to be coy, I would suggest that that kind of personal comment is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that we don't need on RSN. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack, but it is mild incivility. There's not a lot I can do unless I can find the time to review that entire mess at RSN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estonia 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 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied you on my talk page[edit]

@ScottishFinnishRadish There was concern which you raised on my talk page. Kindly be informed that I have replied and I treat this with every seriousness. Please, do clarify me on time before I move on with edits on Arab-Israel related topics. Caleb Ndu (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR replied on your talk page @Caleb Ndu. Please do not edit in the topic area until you meet the requirements outlined in the welcome message. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That's noted @Philipnelson99 Caleb Ndu (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Notice of WP:ARCA request[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:83.30.172.40[edit]

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, Good day. the editor you just blocked reverted the warning and blocked messages and- stated "CUM shot" on his edit summary - see [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.30.172.40&diff=next&oldid=1219554601 HERE]. Maybe blocking them to write on their talk page is needed? Cassiopeia talk 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point they've probably moved on to a different IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Good work, painting with oils. ——Serial Number 54129 12:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although I don't understand the painting with oils reference. I hope it has to do with Bob Ross. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Yeah, Bob Ross was cool. Taught Oshwah's barber everything he knows  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check[edit]

Since you're admin I'd be happy you look at Noor TV (US) which I've nominated for speedy deletion. Mobilustener (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For administrating the high-heat topic areas and dramaboards no one else wants to, and making the hard sanctions that occasionally comes with it. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That mess at/around I/P might get worse in the long run, as it was posted on a major subreddit[edit]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, this is more rude (and partially wrong, to add insult to injury) than something acute like doxxing, but there is a somewhat prominent post on a major subreddit directly linking to edits and users in the I/P area, and making disparaging statement (and also partially inaccurate ones) about pro-P users and their conduct.

It’s not possible to discern who, but it’s likely someone vaguely (but not truly, based on errors) familiar with our policies. I’m happy to link to it (or tag the affected editors), but I’m honestly unsure if that would be appropriate. What would you like me to do? FortunateSons (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the destiny one? There's really not anything we can do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one. That’s unfortunate, but glad you’re aware FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcome-arbpia[edit]

Template:Welcome-arbpia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Awesome Aasim 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a relief[edit]

Thanks for blocking that IP, Scottish. I was already getting extremely fatigued trying to revert their vandalism edits, and you stepped into the rescue. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I dropped a short protection too, since another IP was at it yesterday. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Spencer blocked that IP as well this morning. I was at a concert and I used whatever battery was remaining on my phone to revert it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with new editor's sourcing problems[edit]

There's a new editor, Wish l, who is persisting in "citing" something to a Quora post from a self-proclaimed "Owner of Gift Street Shop at Gift Street Shop" for information about human biology, even after they've been told that that's not a reliable source several times. They have continued doing so after a final warning, have insisted that the sources are adequate and have asserted that they will do this as many times as necessary. Could you assist? I'm hoping that if someone with access to a block button explains to them that what they have been told is correct, they might actually listen. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinwar userpage quote[edit]

Would you be so kind as to respond to this? No active admin action is required, but a quick decision if the content is a user page violation would be a really helpful, as the user agreed to comply with any admin request. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my call alone to make. Bring it to AN if you believe that it violates acceptable leeway given on userpages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Would you say that success with this is implausible (meaning that it’s frivolous)? FortunateSons (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read those quotes as advocating, encourage, or condoning acts of violence, as opposed to statements of support for groups that some may interpret as condoning violence? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the reading of all 3 quotes together, particularly in the context of the person quoted, are justifying ‘violent resistance’, yes. Do you read it differently? FortunateSons (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think justifying violent resistance is different than condoning violence. Again, I'm not the arbiter of this. I have no idea how the wider community would see it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made an AN thread, thank you for your help.
In addition, I feel like I’m somewhat overburdening your talk page with admin issues, but am unaware of anyone else regularly engaged in admin activity in the topic area. Would you be willing to direct me to some of your colleagues? FortunateSons (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no one else, as far as I know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I am genuinely grateful for all your tireless work. I know it must be quite a lot, and I’m sorry insofar as I contribute to it. FortunateSons (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appealling my ban and block[edit]

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I have decided to appeal my block and ban on the Tim Hunt article. I'm drafting a statement in the sandbox[2], and I thought I may as well ask for comments already now. If there are any statements of fact that you think I'm getting wrong, please let me know. I expect to post it at ARBREQ in early May. Thomas B (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas B, there is a zero percent chance that will be successful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But I've got to give it a shot. The article is in bad shape, and no one is doing anything about it. For my own peace of mind, I need to be sure that this really is how things work around here now, in which case, like you say, there's no hope. That's not the end of the world, just of my involvement with Wikipedia. Thomas B (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your plan is to appeal to arbcom, which addresses things the community cannot after the community just handled it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's dead in the water. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand WP:UNBAN this is my last resort. If you're right, you're right. We'll see. I've basically just stated the facts of the case; I take it you either haven't read my statement or don't have any criticisms of it? Since the first block, I've been mainly puzzled that it was possible to get blocked this way, i.e., by simple community vote without grounding in an admin's interpretation of relevant policy. You said it yourself: with 75% against me, your hands were tied. I just don't remember it working that way. So I need to find out if this is how things are now. Thomas B (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas B, if you have any interest in continuing to edit and having this topic ban removed after some time I strongly recommend that you don't take this tack. The most important thing you can communicate during an appeal down the line is that you understand how your behavior was disruptive. Going to arbcom with an appeal that will, with all likelihood, be declined as already handled by the community will only serve to make other editors believe that you don't recognize any issues with your behavior. That said, you're your own person, you can do what you like. It's just not going to turn out well and only harms your chances of an appeal in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood your closes, they were purely summaries of the discussion, not evaluations of my behavior. My appeal is stated the way it is because you at no point censured my behavior; you said that wasn't your role, that you were just noting the "consensus". I am asking the Arbitrators whether it is standard practice to let a group of editors block and ban users they disagree with simply by voting them out of the discussion. In the old days, as I remember it, an administrator like you would issue a policy-based warning (I wasn't the only one who deserved one) and most blocks would be very temporary (like a few days). Admins would try to find ways of keeping people like me (who know something about the subject) in the conversation, but cool the dispute down, using page locks and advice.
The underlying issue, of course, is that I don't believe it was my behavior that was disruptive. I had been maintaining a stable version of the page for five years and it was disrupted by an aggressive group of editors who wanted to implement a change without persuading those who supported the longstanding consensus. By pushing us out of the work and forcing their version through using ANI, they have produced a substantially worse article. If this is how disputes are now normally resolved (getting blocked in under three weeks because I haven't yet changed my mind and, in generally, having to deal with this as "behavior" rather than content disputes) I don't want to contribute. I had already reduced my contribution mainly to BLP issues like this. So if I was out of line (if ARBCOM doesn't have my back), I'm pretty much done. Thomas B (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird talk page of ip user[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2603:7000:B500:70D:B809:9940:FB02:30F8
So this has to be the weirdest page i have seen I’m not sure if I like it or not uh several different ips posting a Timeline not sure where to put this but •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is incredibly strange Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a range block and some other blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad[edit]

Re: Talk:2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. Based on the contentious topics guidelines, I shouldn't have reverted you. [3] I reverted as I didn't see anything wrong with that particular comment, and thought it would be better to simply respond. Should that entire topic not be removed based on ECR? Should I otherwise be reverting my revert, if that's allowed within 24 hours? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can always self-revert. Editors that are not extended-confirmed are not allowed to make any edit related to the topic except for clear edit requests, which that edit was not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good to know thanks. Yes I realise that now, the misunderstanding/confusion was to why that comment from an IP user was deleted but not the thread itself that was created by an IP. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barkley Marathons 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 14:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming?[edit]

Can you make assessments that quickly? (Idk) Also rating IP topics. Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Selfstudier My understanding is the rater tool provides an automatic assessment, obviously the assessor should do more than just use the rater tool. Given the context of the ARBECR warning you nudged them about, gaming is in the realm of possibility but they still lack ~142 edits before hitting the threshold. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as rating pages in the topic area subject to ECR, I have no clue how that works or if there's precedent. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear, the editor is limited to edit requests on the talk page. Also you seem to be saying that the edits are de facto automated? Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's semi-automated. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier See WP:RATER. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an open invitation to game ECR. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Nice catch. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed restriction[edit]

re: this revert

I am a "drive-by editor" and asking out of curiosity, because in my watchlist I noticed that this editor was blocked. So, my question is: ECR says Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. The reverted piece does not look disruptive to me. Can you clarify the reason? (I understand the person e.g., could be engaged in disruptive behavior in general). - Altenmann >talk 00:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are not edit requests, and although this is closer it's less requesting an edit than complaining about bias. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now: they are of WP:NOTFORUM type. I understand that idle grumbling in sensitive areas is unconstructive: one must suggest specific improvements to text (in their opinion). - Altenmann >talk 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In the article I mentioned I casually wikilinked a rather uncommon term, but I was reverted. Can you explain this as well? I don't want to talk to the reverter, whose behavior I consider rather rude (including not responding in article talk page). - Altenmann >talk 01:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain that. Philipnelson99, what's the issue with that wikilink? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness. That was totally my fault. I really didn't mean to revert but I was browsing diffs and must have hit the revert button by accident. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann it's fixed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Philipnelson99: Thank you for classification. There is another torture mentioned there, shabeh with no article and inaccurate description. I was going to write up shabeh (torture), but was placed in a limbo with this revert: who knows what kind of middle-eastern taboo I run into :-) - Altenmann >talk 03:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&oldid=1220984761"