User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Question

I am confused why you deleted my comment “I could see why someone would think waving a Palestinian flag or wearing a keffiyeh in a celebration of the October 7 attack is pro-Hamas and therefore antisemitic (although it is unclear what proportion of those who gathered in France and Germany right after October 7 were doing that). It’s fine to disagree, and that is why it should be left as an accusation. It is certainly not objectively not antisemitic. It’s also not really relevant, as that would be Wikipedia:OR.” was removed from the Talk section of https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Israel–Hamas_war_protests. What rules am I violating? The other commenter is proposing the removal of “an accusation of antisemitism” on the basis that is not antisemitic. I objected to the proposed change as it (1) is subjective and (2) is Wikipedia:OR. If you let me know what I did wrong, I will not do it in the future. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors are who not extended-confirmed may only make constructive edit requests dealing with with Arab/Israel conflict. You cannot take part in content discussions in the topic area. Details are on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still new to the Wikipedia editing process. I thought the Talk section was for discussing and proposing changes to the article, but I will only propose changes on contentious topics in the future. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not even do that, not in that subject area. Not until you meet the criteria outlined. --Yamla (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I may have misspoken here. You should wait for ScottishFinnishRadish to clarify whether or not constructive edit requests (but nothing else) are permitted. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, only constructive edit requests. Further discussion to establish consensus for edit requests may only take place between EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ScottishFinnishRadish. I have one more question (sorry!). Why was my constructive request to include the information that “The union, Starbucks Workers United, posted “Solidarity with Palestine” on social media platform X above an image of a bulldozer operated by Hamas tearing down a fence on the Gaza strip during the attacks against Israel” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/business/starbucks-israel-palestine-workers

(that quote is directly from the CNN article) was removed? Just simply stating “…union for making a social media post in solidarity with Palestine” is misleading.

I understand that I am making several suggestions on Israel-Hamas topics, but they seem to be somewhat biased (intentionally leaving out information) and I would like the opportunity to be involved in proposing changes to make the articles more balanced. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because multiple iterations have already been declined. Other editors can see the request, even if declined, and decide if they want to move forward with some part of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There were a few iterations over the source (but https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/business/starbucks-israel-palestine-workers ended up being acceptable). And the last iteration M.Bitton rejected it for Wikipedia:OR, so I proposed instead of changing it to “…social media post supporting Hamas” (which may be Wikipedia:OR) to “Solidarity with Palestine” over an image of Hamas militants braking into Israel on October 7.” (not Wikipedia:OR). I’m also not the first person on the Talk page to point this omission out. Am I going about requesting the change incorrectly? 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the change, which is why it isn't being done. If you'd like to discuss to build consensus you'll need to create an account and gain the extended-confirmed user right through constructive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I am not that invested. It is a glaring omission that paints a false narrative (Starbucks is suing for “solidarity with Palestine” as opposed to Starbucks is suing because of a post supporting Hamas), and I thought I could quickly recommend fixing it, but it seems to be more trouble than it’s worth. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, my edit request was not contested. It went through several iterations, all of which were constructive (e.g., use a different source or phrase it move closely to the source) and not because they disagreed with the change. I don’t see why I violate Wiki policy to have my request not considered, especially when the article as it stands is non-neutral and intentionally dishonest (as anyone can see from the source). I am not going to jump through hoops, but I hope you reconsider my request to have the proposed edit listed in the Talk section and discussed. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish 84.225.147.49 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy because ma story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

May I point your attention at WP:ITNN#September 5? The first entry is ready, but no admin in sight, - the five who usually do it haven't edited in hours, one not even in days. - It's not by me, I just watch the mood and understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

On my phone during a work day isn't when I want to try editing something onto the main page for the first time, sorry. If I already had some experience, maybe, but that's out of my wheelhouse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and understand. You may have seen that I told Martin a few things, including that in valid "ready" cases like this, they are not rigid about the limit. And indeed, it got posted this morning. (For Maryvonne Le Dizès, however, there was no such "ready" marking when I had to leave home late on that last day, instead only complete ignorance - after one initial support - for three days.) Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday, top of my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

ps: I forgot how long the thread already is, - look for 11 Sep or "Don't canvass about Herbie!". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. - What do you think of my talk page corner for "help wanted", recently recommended? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a great way to seek assistance with articles. I appreciate you taking the criticism and suggestions on board. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't worked, though. You haven't visited the DYK nom ;) - So far one person arrived there and at one of the deletion suggestions (the same person), and nobody at the RD nom, the second day. I will not panic again, I will not panic again, I will not ... - (I'll travel, that will help. Tomorrow will be the last day, as in the other case.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

She's my story today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to report that all four cases where I said that help was needed have now been resolved. - my story today is about one of the greatest users I had the honour to meet here, mentioned in my edit notice, which often helps me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, written for today, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. - I received criticism from two users and had replied. Did you see that? I am generally open to dialogue, - why not use that first before using a method of "criticism" that left me cold? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How about an answer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I did not see that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - I believe in dialogue ;) - But did you see both criticism and replies (that I tried to post prominently) in the thread that you started on my talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not see that, no. I have 5500 items on my watchlist and dozens of of subscribed discussions. As I've had limited time for Wikipedia recently I missed a whole lot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that very well, but why - under those circumstances - you begin such a thread (that didn't impress me much but caused others trouble I would have liked to see avoided) I still don't know. In case you missed that as well, I felt that you received some questions there (before I even woke up), and I gave you just three questions, with a ping, but you probably receive 50 pings per hour. I'd appreciate if you took some suggestions on board. I'm going to archive the thread with the turn of the month. I looked at my talk page on a mobile today and didn't like the scrolling ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Snow close

Thanks for generally being a balanced admin and doing a good job keeping things calm, but I think the RM close was premature. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia:Snowball_clause#What_the_snowball_clause_is_not: In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of....ut this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous. Andre🚐 18:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If more than half of the editors responding are bringing up good faith concerns of a process issue, including the presented options, as well as several uninvolved admins at AE agree that it is disruptively soon to the earlier RM then it's best to stop the time wasting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more like Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions. There were also quite a few editors who opined that the earlier RMs and move reviews were flawed. I can't agree with your action, as it's not consistent with the historic application of the SNOW clause. Consensus is not a vote. Andre🚐 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that it should be reopened I suggest WP:AN as an appropriate venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that going my way, and I'm not out to ding you. Just wanted to register my disagreement. Andre🚐 21:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• SFR, I don't understand why you felt the need to close a discussion on an article talk page that would normally run for 30 days and undergo a more formal closure process. Would it be possible to engage you and ask why you closed the discussion just a few hours after pinging tens of editors instead of tellus us to post on AN? There is really no rush here and these hasty actions are quite unnecessary. I would like to see you undo the close and let it runs its course. IntrepidContributor (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• SFR, I appreciate your attempts to handle this topic area. I do not think closing it procedurally was a good idea. There is really no other mechanism to "re-argue" a move review, and there is a significant minority (if not majority) of editors who think the move review did not adequately address the concerns in the last move request. The policies and procedures on WP advise that if no consensus can be found, a new discussion can be opened to form a better consensus, and that's actually encouraged. The MR closure, while labeled an "endorse", was more a "this discussion went on so long and there's not a clear consensus here". As such, I do not think either a procedural close or a SNOW close was appropriate. That said, I don't plan to challenge it because I respect that this will be a lot easier to discuss after ArbCom takes action in the topic area. So uh, if you really want to take this in any case, take it as a thank you that you tried, and an apology that it won't have worked/done anything useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  @IntrepidContributor, Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 was an RM, not an RFC. Wikipedia:Requested moves are normally open for seven days, not 30 (also, RFCs are explicitly allowed to run for any length of time, though we suggest that it always be at least one week, and the RFC bot assumes you've forgotten about the RFC if you haven't removed the tag after 30 days). This RM was open for a hair over three days, so about 40% of the usual length.

  If any of you believe the summary does not accurately represent the discussion, then Wikipedia:Move review is the place to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, move review is a better idea than AN, which I mentioned above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I believe what you are doing is improper. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent rangeblock

Hi, you have recently range-blocked the IP 2003:EE:9F20:1D00:7119:4EDB:AF14:6EDB (via 2003:ee:9f20:1d00::/64) for 31 hours (thank you for that). I noticed that similar (mostly even the exact same) edits to the some of the same pages were made by 2003:EE:9F1A:5800:B8EF:5D09:8896:BD76 (see, for example, Alliance 90/The Greens, Sahra Wagenknecht, or Pierre Woodman), who was range-blocked yesterday (via 2003:ee:9f00::/43) for two weeks. I'm not sure if there were other blocks to similar ranges before that, but, for example, the range 2003:ee:9f08::/48 (also with similar edits) was blocked yesterday as well, for 72 hours. If we believe that those ranges belong to the same person, a longer block of 2003:ee:9f20:1d00::/64 would be warranted, wouldn't it? Could you perhaps take a look at this situation and check whether a longer block of 2003:ee:9f20:1d00::/64 would be warranted (if you didn't already do that after seeing this piece of information in my AIV report)? (Perhaps a block of a different/larger range, encompassing all of the mentioned ranges, would also be an option, I'm not sure.) Thanks! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just came across another recently blocked range with the same edit pattern: 2003:ee:9f0b::/64 (blocked two days ago for 60 hours). The IPs 87.171.174.211 (blocked yesterday for 31 hours) and 176.7.4.10 (blocked yesterday for 60 hours) also show the exact same pattern, but those are obv not in (or similar to) the mentioned ranges. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked a larger range for a month which will hopefully take care of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully :) Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If you see anything else feel free to drop me a note. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Content block appeal

Hello, I was indefinitely content blocked for some inflammatory statements and edit warring regarding the Israel/Palestine war and would like to appeal this decision or have it downgraded to a timed ban. I fully accept my comments and warring were not in line with Wikipedia's rules and philosophy and accept the judgment that was made and have not attempted to circumvent it. I am not super interested in editing Israel/Palestine articles directly but I would like my account to be in good standing. In addition, I would like to be able to contribute to I/P talk pages. I believe I have contributed to Wikipedia earnestly and have made a good faith attempt to respect the rules in my editing history---with the exception of this topic, which I agree brought out the worst in me and I regret it. Thank you for your consideration, if you reject this appeal I will continue to respect it and drop my appeal attempt. Tobyw87 (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to remove the topic ban, as you haven't edited since it was placed. If you want the opinion of other admins feel free to file an appeal at WP:AE. Any admins that see this here are also welcome to weigh in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Metrication in the UK

Please can you help me with Metrication in the UK, and the talk page, and Lead photo discusion, or how to stop a disruptive user. I have gone to a 3rd party and they have advised they agreed with the submission 2 meaning, which i agree with. We now have consensus of today of two users. What should I do now? Friendliness12345 (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Start an WP:RFC with the options for the lead image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Or you can post a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom. Be sure to include a link to the exact discussion: Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#The lead photo WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

Could you please talk to Amayorov about bludgeoning at this RfC?

I notified them about my concerns that they may be bludgeoning here, and they were told by another editor at the RfC itself but they don't seem to be getting it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit that some of my commenting in the first hours after the RfC was opened might have been overzealous. I disagree that any of my later contributions can be characterised as bludgeoning. In one place, I reviewed two newly linked research articles by Khalidi. In another, I acknowledged that Morris doesn’t himself make an assertion as to the causes of the orders, but quotes from a primary source verbatim. I also asked an editor how they would incorporate multiple viewpoints using Wikivoice. I don’t see how that is “repeating the same argument” or “ignoring evidence” that characterises bludgoening. Much conversation currently happens without my involvement, and of which I’m a silent observer. Amayorov (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Amayorov, you've made 29 of the 96 comments, and used 1855 of the 6100 words so far in that discussion, including replies to every no !vote. Please disengage from the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok Amayorov (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I suppose I can still respond to people who ping me with direct questions regarding the RfC (e.g. asking me to amend the phrasing, etc)? Amayorov (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Just please don't fall back down the thousands of words rabbit hole. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay :) Amayorov (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Full protection at Zionism

Hi SFR, Just a note that consensus for the section of text was arrived at in the discussion at Talk:Zionism#Revert. This was confirmed with @Theleekycauldron prior to the current wording being restored by me at Special:Diff/1243007031 on 30 August. So the changing of the material by Profavi1 and then the reverting back to consensus wording by Onceinawhile isn't necessarily something that requires full protection. I've now advised Profavi1 of the discussion in which consensus was arrived at. TarnishedPath^talk 04:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I dropped the protection and added a hidden note before the sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks for your efforts. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked through this earlier discussion. It seems that there may have been more agreement about the text which was proposed by Levivich, which refers to the ideology of "Zionism" not collectively of "Zionists" as currently shown on the page. And there is now an active discussion about the sentence indicating that there isn't consensus at all, and that the sources need to be trimmed down.

Are you okay with either removing your hidden comment about consensus and/or allowing the change to "Zionism" an ideology instead of "Zionists" all of the people. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This would be better worked out on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Keep the good work. Beshogur (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I too would also like to thank you. 500 edits, here I come. Wikipedious1 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Abusive account

Hi! The account Howdysalmon seems to have been created with the sole purpose of harassing me over an AfD. I notice they're now banned (thank you!) and I was wondering whether I can revert this reply. It's completely unrelated to the article at hand and I have no intention of interacting with that account. I don't know whether removing replies from other editors (even if they're off-topic replies from banned users) is acceptable, so I thought I'd ask to be on the safe side. GhostOfNoMan 01:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, but in the future you can remove that type of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much! And good to know. :) GhostOfNoMan 01:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you kindly, it's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator 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 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive editing from User:Makeandtoss

Following up the unconcluded issues with the editor we discussed a few days ago here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:PeleYoetz#Communication_is_not_optional The issue is continuing. Now I saw this extremely problematic editing: (1) Removing completely the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization from the lead, under the claim it does not suit the first paragraph (if that's the issue, why totally delete it from the entire lead? this is a misleading edit summary). (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=prev&oldid=1247673123) (2), when they say they "trim to reduce size of lede which is now bloated", they removed only one aspect - the ideology of the group, nonetheless a main aspect. (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Hezbollah&diff=next&oldid=1247673123).

This just joins the battleground behavior, casting aspersions and other problematic conduct presented in the above discussion, all happening after the last warning they received, which the closing admin said "is very final, and anything else like this is going to mean sanctions." Isn't it time to resolve this? ABHammad (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• "I say it is a witchhunt, sheer McCarthyism, Big Brother, guilt by association, collective punishment... That I have done nothing wrong and that I am being persecuted for my POV. I think the whole business of banning in these conflict areas ought to be looked at very closely. It becomes a weapon to be used by others who are --in fact-- using wiki as a battlefield." Juanita (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CAMERA_lobbying Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there something preventing you from just following the rules, all of the rules? If you disagree with an edit the way to resolve it is through discussion on the talk page. If that doesn't work, there are RfCs etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please bring this to AE if you believe it needs to be addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Are you aware you semiprotected ANI claiming sockpuppetery? Luhanopi (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like somebody protected wrong page :). You know it prevents IPs from adding topic to ANI? for sure i think Luhanopi (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

could you just go and semi-protect WP:RS/N? i put the request in but ip user is annoying Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)