User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being so nice in the Discord server and talking farming/gardening with me forever. Thank you for being a good person. Bobherry Talk My Edits 02:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, though the timing is a bit ironic as in about 10 hours I'm slaughtering a pile of rabbits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha Bobherry Talk My Edits 02:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WTF Happened on my talk page?[edit]

Thanks for reverting the user that screwed up my talk page, I haven’t been active on my account. But who the hell was this IP? Wolfquack (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who knows. Vandalism pops up in the oddest places. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s for sure…
Again thank you, I really can’t express my gratitude. Wolfquack (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Glendoremus[edit]

Could you take a look at User talk:Glendoremus. There are edits there that need to be permanently removed. Thanks, Grachester (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was taken care of before I had a chance to. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Grachester (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the names used to describe British people.[edit]

Since the topic ban I have edited other topics and I have tried to make the edits good and I have put in a reference, though I do want to ask you is this edit on the British people Wikipedia page ok, I have added in an appropriate reference to back up this edit I just want to make sure I haven’t landed in any controversial topics, since I have heard the term Britisher used to describe British people. I may also need some administrative guidance so would you be able to review my edits to see if they are good quality and may I be able to have some mentoring guidance on these issues. Salandarianflag (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have much of an opinion on the edit to British people, and I don't believe it's particularly controversial. Anything dealing with that edit should follow normal editorial processes. I do not have time to review your edits, and currently your restriction is to say away from the Arab/Israel conflict broadly construed. As long as you stay away from that you should be good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Salandarianflag (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malthus and scientific racism[edit]

Thank you for your guidance on my attempts to influence this topic/page. My sense is my efforts to date have been imperfect. Perhaps I am sometimes too transparent. I would like to focus the discussion on an objective standard for relevance to the article. Does that seem reasonable to you? JBradleyChen (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like a reasonable goal, although trying to nail down exact criteria can be difficult. Glad to help with your interactions on that page. You stepped directly into the deep-end, and the way Wikipedia works is difficult to grok without experience. I still think you'd be better working on less contentious material to start, but as long as you continue to listen to experienced editors you may end up with a good, or at least not bad, result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I can tolerate a certain amount of people getting mad at me, I want to be sure I am being respectful of the culture and policies, so I hope you will be direct about that.
I am definitely learning from the engagement, on multiple fronts. I want to senseless destruction of cultural equity on the platform. JBradleyChen (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI I have started a new RFC for Thomas Malthus. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Talk:Scientific racism#RFC (take 2): Thomas Malthus JBradleyChen (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is my RFC question malformed (again)? If so I will remove the RFC tag, however it is quite hard for me to distinguish between protocol errors and effective blocking of a legitimate edit by entrenched editors. JBradleyChen (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't had much time to look over this as I've been very busy, but it's safe to assume that if every other person in a discussion is telling you something, especially when there's around a half dozen of them, you should probably accept what they're saying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One problem is that almost all of the people who are engaging on the question seem to be self-selecting due to interest in that specific page. Another problem is that their interpretation of WP:SYNTH doesn't make sense to me, and none of the explanations seem like explanations beyond "just because". WP:SYNTH is not sound scholarship, as they apply it.
You have already gone beyond the call in terms of supporting me as my mentor, so I am going to stop bugging you about this. But this still seems totally broken to me. I was hoping that an RFC would provide opinions from a robust random sample of editors, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Or maybe it just takes more time. JBradleyChen (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of those responding did so based on the bot notification, and supported the speedy close. Many others that get a notification will see an RFC they recognize isn't going anywhere and will save their time and not respond. I still haven't had the time necessary to review the whole discussion, but it's not often a half dozen editors age unanimously to do something. At this point I think closing the RFC in your own is a wise step. You could try a discussion at the no original research noticeboard if you believe that the group is not representative of what community consensus will be. Keep in mind, though, that editor time is the most valuable resource. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Another editor closed it while I was asleep. Live and learn... JBradleyChen (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC close[edit]

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish:

About this RFC, 25 February 2023 you closed, it removed important contextual information from the lead:

  • By 1981, authorities had banned the MEK and begun a major crackdown on the group's members and supporters, driving the organization underground.[1][2]
  • In June 1981, the MEK organized the 20 June 1981 Iranian protests against the Islamic Republic in support of president Abolhassan Banisadr, claiming that the Islamic Republic had carried out a secret coup d'état.[3][4] Afterwards, the government arrested and executed numerous MEK members and sympathizers.[5][6][7] As the Iran regime started to clamp down on civil and human rights, the MEK initiated attacks targeting the clerical leadership that lasted until 1982.[8][9]

What was the argument that indicated consensus for removing that (rather than just adding information about the bombings in the lead)? Part of that text had been achieved from consensus from another recent RFC (which you could not have known). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus of editors involved in the discussion was to remove that and replace it with something else. Apparently the contextual information was not important enough for a consensus of editors to believe that it belonged in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But nobody even addressed those points, so I don't understand how there could even be a consensus for removing that material. Could you kindly re-open the RFC once again so this can be addressed? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC statement contained Currently we have the following sentences related to the events of 1981 in lede: followed by Should we replace them with the following paragraph? Those responding in support supported that change, and another editor refuted your own arguments in the RFC. If you believe this was closed in error feel free to bring it to WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 206.
  2. ^ "Making Sense of The MeK". National Interest. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
  3. ^ Sinkaya, Bayram (2015). The Revolutionary Guards in Iranian Politics: Elites and Shifting Relations. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN 978-1138853645. The most drastic show of terror instigated by the MKO was the blast of a bomb placed in the IRP headquarter on 28 June 1980 that killed more than seventy prominent members of the IRP, including Ayatollah Beheshti, founder of the IRP and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; four cabinet ministers; and twenty-seven members of the Majles.
  4. ^ Svensson, Isak (2013). Ending Holy Wars: Religion and Conflict Resolution in Civil Wars. ISBN 978-0702249563. On 20 June 1981, MEK organized a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 50 000 participants, who advanced towards parliament. Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1 000 arrested in the area around Tehran University
  5. ^ Katzman 2001, pp. 98–101.
  6. ^ Abrahamian 1989, pp. 36, 218, 219.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Ostovar, Afshon (2016). Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-19-049170-3. Unsurprisingly, the decision to fight alongside Saddam was viewed as traitorous by the vast majority of Iranians and destroyed the MKO's standing in its homeland.
  9. ^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 208.

Modified discussion after close[edit]

Hello! I realize this is a lot of words to explain why I added a single line break to a discussion, but I know editing a discussion after it's closed is usually a faux pas, so I wanted to give you a heads up that (1) I did so, and (2) why. I don't pretend to understand any kind of formatting issue—and I've recently learned that my particular browser might sometimes uniquely struggle with collapsing templates—I'm looking into switching!

After the {{archive top}} / {{archive bottom}} templates were placed, this is what the page looked like for me: (external link) (if you prefer not to click on the link, the archive bottom template ended immediately after the first {{ctop}} template, even though the archive bottom template was well below). I had seen an archive top template successful capture a ctop before, so I looked at the source text, and I realized that, for whatever reason, the fact that there was not a break before the ctop template was the cause of the error. Using the preview feature, I tested adding the break, and I realized that all the other ctops (which did have a break before them) were captured by the archive top template. So I went ahead and made the edit. (diff)--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. Rendering can be wonky. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julian Assange 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 06:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the edit suppression on Talk:Emmanuel Weyi, and those in the article. Ah, WP:TRUTH. Cheers! Geoff | Who, me? 17:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a problem. Tidied up BLPN and the article history as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Piling on here. Thanks for doing what you do and trying to educate users with patience and more importantly, faith. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's much appreciated, thanks. I know not everyone agrees with all the actions I take, but I'm certainly trying my best. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you from me as well. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to remove the material from BLPN, but I'm glad it got taken care of.

Just one comment - you missed one of their accounts at which has been previously blocked. (Sorry I'm on the wikipedia app and it's not letting me hyperlink it)

Keep up all the good work that you do, and we appreciate you! Awshort (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I revdel'd that last edit. Not going to bother blocking because it's unlikely they're still using that IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey SFR, we have a newly minted WP:SPA who has been WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page (making multiple sections that we collapsed into one [1], repeatedly posting the same argument despite others saying repeatedly that they are using poor quality sources and BLUDGEONing [2] across multiple talk pages: [3][4][5]), and has now escalated to casting aspersions, ignoring WP:AGF, and making personal comments about me and my life outside wiki on article talk [6]. Could you look into this? Thanks for all your brooming in general. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It also appears this /64 range was at this exact sort of behavior for a while, and was blocked back in March by SFR and then denied unblock by @331dot (another request denied subsequently by @Yamla). It seems they did not learn much from the block, and have recently resumed that same disruption. — Shibbolethink ( ) 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked for another month, if they pop up again after that let me know.
Also, please try to get your message nailed down before posting. I got 10 alerts for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahhh sorry, I forget that it gives you a new notification every time I edit, unlike article talk. Will do better. Thanks for the brooming — Shibbolethink ( ) 16:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Glass 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 08:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Maliner (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Would you plese have a look at my request for update of the Jan Żabiński article? I have written the request on the talk page of the article on May 29. Regards Szelma W (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not read Polish, so I cannot verify what is in the source. I added an edit request template which should bring edit request patrollers to look at the request, and hopefully one will be able to verify what is in the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete my page?[edit]

Needs no body text GFGearestFunk (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because Wikipedia isn't the platform to advertise your TikTok. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Singh harwinder9878 (15:17, 2 June 2023)[edit]

hello how can upload my articles on wikipedia? --Singh harwinder9878 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Singh harwinder9878, check out WP:YFA for a detailed guide on how to create articles on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About blocking sockpuppets and other Bulgarian IPs.[edit]

Maybe you should tag that vandal as a sockpuppet of DiscoveryTeenHD, because this is the same guy from Bulgaria who vandalised articles about TV channels and radio stations. See here: LDM2003 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll have to tell me which vandal you're talking about, as I've made a lot of blocks recently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am talking about User:AlfaTVBG1 who used to evade blocks and vandalize on TV-6 (Russia). Because, I believe he is the same guy who persistently hijacks articles and adds unsourced content. Today, he vandalized on Alfa TV (Bulgaria) by using multiple Bulgarian IPs with the same thing about the so-called launch of TV6 Bulgaria and closure of Alfa TV which doesn't appear on news pages. LDM2003 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tagged. I often block as socks based on ANI reports where the socking is obvious, but I don't know the master. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to handle that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No rush, but I wanted to know if you have yet considered the possibility of a POV tag (ping from the other day). The claim that the neutrality issue was resolved in the RfCs, when neutrality was not mentioned, is concerning to me. If you have already thought it through and decided against it, I would like to know. I do not wish to overstep, I'm just trying to be courteous and not waste anyone's time, including my own. DN (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that was discussed months ago, and consensus was it was a backdoor way to circumvent the RFC consensus. I can try and dig it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will take a look as well. I remember when I first added a tag it was taken down, but I don't think any of the RfC discussed neutrality, just use of the terms alleged, "belonged to" etc...IMO denying the tag or any discussion of neutrality seemed like a backdoor way to prevent uninvolved editors from chiming in about the overlying issue of conflicting RS (some with qualifiers, some without). DN (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Darknipples, Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 5#A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text discusses a disputed tag, but a NPOV tag over the same language does the same thing, and as Awilley said There was no RfC consensus against adding maintenance tags, but the [disputed – discuss] tag could also be considered prohibited language depending on where it's placed. I'm sure this was also discussed in some of the ancillary threads, as this has been on every noticeboard, including this npovn thread. Some fetching chap there said back in February At some point there needs to be acceptance of consensus until something significant comes up that makes another discussion worth the effort. The more this comes up over a short period of time the fewer uninvolved members of the community will take part in the discussions, and the same entrenched users will continue to go back and forth. I believe that's the stage we're at now. The one new editor that took part in that discussion said I believe if you look at the talk page of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy you can find most of your answers. This topic about the specific lines you are questioning has been discussed at great length.
So no, I don't think at this point an NPOV tag would be a reasonable compromise based on all the earlier discussion, and falls into that grey area Awilley was talking about, where it's basically circumventing the consensus of two RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words it's a waste of time in your opinion. Thanks for the heads up. You might want to go ahead and stop the discussion there, so others don't continue to waste their time as well. If evidence does eventually show up one way or another, I think our actions here will make a good road map for the future. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's also a waste of time because with consensus required it'll be immediately reverted then there will be a 200kb discussion about that that won't have consensus for the tag.
I'm hoping the discussion dies down on it's own, but we'll see where it's at after a while longer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly I am a bit confused by the requirement for a CONSENSUS for the tag. I was under the impression that any one editor could add a tag as long as a reasonable argument was made with clearly explained issues and how they could be addressed. Could you point out where that is stated? Not that I don't believe you, I just can't find it. DN (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like everything else, content tags are based on consensus. If every available step has been taken to address concerns, including 2 RFCs, adding tags to protest that consensus doesn't fly. Imagine how many tags would be on every politician's article after every RFC? RFC shows consensus for labeling someone far right, can those that opposed the label then add an npov tag to the article? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but the RfC wasn't about neutrality. It was more or less about what context should be used. I'm not trying to argue, but I still don't see where it explicitly says that consensus is required (to ADD, not remove). No worries, I promise to do my best to find out without violating canvas or any other such no-nos. DN (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every edit to an article requires consensus, be it a tag, prose, or an image. When something has been discussed to death at every available venue, including two RFCs and a close review, it's clear that the community doesn't believe any tags are necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, but I think you may not completely understand what I am asking, or maybe I don't completely understand the answer. Either way I can take it from here, no worries, have a peaceful day. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please immediately protect this page? Thanks. (Roundish t) 14:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it was taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! (Roundish t) 15:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it was twinkle lying, so I protected for a couple more weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]