This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You closed the Epidemiology talk section of the GBD talk page. Why?
SARS-CoV-2 is most likely a laboratory re-sequenced coronavirus given the CGG genetic splices [1] that do not occur in natural coronaviruses. As such it predictably de-mutated rapidly rendering containment and vaccine attempts futile and counterproductive. The vaccines are harmful, as of today the Covid-19 vaccine deaths in the USA reported to CDC [2] were 20421, and no matter how one tries to discount the reported numbers, those are the worst results for any vaccine type in world history. No one will allow me to present this or any other results on this web site, the vested interests that Fauci and others had in countering the GBD, the futility of trying to close Pandora's box, or indeed any factual content to counter the outright false nature of the GBD article. These comments can be erased, but history cannot be falsified indefinitely, the truth will out. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC) 207.47.175.199 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. Quick question, it's not crystal clear on the topic ban page, but if a person is topic banned, would something like this exchange be considered a violation of the topic ban? Onel5969TT me14:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Clear request for proxying. The editor doesn't believe they should have been blocked and has just decided to try to work around it. I've indeffed to see if we can make them see they're going to have to just avoid the entire thing.
I have to say it's really too bad that darts AfDs and such keep showing up at their talk. I wish there were a way to prevent that. It seems cruel. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a way to prevent it. I just didn't want to be accused of attempting hide anything. Whenever you draftify something or send something to AfD or PROD, there is a box which is auto marked to notify the article creator. If you uncheck that, you do not send a notification. Onel5969TT me15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I've never noticed it. I would say it's a kindness for someone who is topic banned to uncheck the box. Maybe tell them the first time that's what you've done, and that the reason was just to prevent them from inadvertently responding in a way that violated their topic ban, which this editor seems to have done several times. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the template or coding to mention your username to send you an alert that I replied, my apologies. We can speak more in depth on the page wall or either of our walls if we need to. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if you've had a chance to look into what I reported to you previously about Simoooix.haddi, but it's now becoming increasingly clear that harassing me (following me to revert my edits, even when I revert vandalism like in the Battle of Andros (1790) article and constantly pinging me and asking me to explain the obvious as in the Pastilla article, tagging what is sourced, etc) is part of whatever mission they're on, that earned them an indef block in the fr.wp. Please advise. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
1)- talking about the so-called harassment you've been harassing me since my bigenning here in Wikipedia. Last ones were in the articles of Libya, Tripolitana and the new article i created Almohad conquest of Norman Africa (proposing the article for deletion for no valid reasons)
2)-@ScottishFinnishRadish take a look at the talk page of Pastilla, and you can judge by yourself.
Their response here (despite the no ping) is the absolute proof that they are following me. Also their block on fr.wp was amply justified after what they did to the name of the Algerian president. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Also i'm not going to discuss french wiki stuffs right now. As we are now in the english wiki. i have already contributed numerous times here. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I see. Well, we actually do care why you were blocked on another wiki; it appears to be because they thought you were a vandalism-only account? Valereee (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm very busy in real life and haven't had a chance to look into it yet. I got a few projects left, so I'll try to look when I have some time. On the plus side I got my wife's new sink installed, a new backsplash done, my yard dethatched, fertilized, and seeded, and I'm halfway through replacing some light fixtures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
My husband to all intents and purposes appears not to know which is the business end of a screwdriver. It works for him; when my kids were little the tool box was "mommy's things", as in "don't touch mommy's things." Valereee (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: maybe you could have a look at it (now that they admitted following me) as well as their persistent tagging of sourced info. For the record, this is someone whose 3rd edit was a personal attack (despite the fact that I had never interacted with them before, theoretically that is). M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
If you could make it easy by providing diffs instead of links to articles, that would help. And let's take it to your talk. Ping me there. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I have already apologized, I knew what i did is wrong (that was actually because ithought that their edits are biased against Morocco after checking his contribs history 2 months ago). Actually M.Bitton have already personally atacked me numerous times and i can provide diffs if you want. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not nice sure, but It's not like they said a slur. They said they were offended by it, maybe they're a women themselves and they don't agree with it. It only needs to be reverted. 172.78.181.30 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I-ban
I wasn't aware of the I-ban you imposed between Levivich and VM until just now, otherwise I would have just noted this at the ArbCom evidence.
Just an FYI the community actually tried to work with some of Levivich's battleground behavior in the past that led to an ANI that did bleed over into the Holocaust area.[1] I can't speak for the VM side of the interaction since I'm not as familiar with them, but the two-way sanction definitely looked good given the escalation going (and better for ArbCom to disentangle who did what at this point). On the Levivich side though, I just wanted to give a little support that you sanctioning them definitely did not come out of the blue like it seems to be portrayed on their talk page. The community has been cautioning them to knock it off for quite awhile now like at that ANI, so it's worth a read or chat with TonyBallioni if you weren't familiar with that background. KoA (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, it's appreciated. No one likes being sanctioned or seeing a pal get sanctioned, so I understand the pushback. I am a bit familiar with some of Levivich's history, but when I placed the iban it was based on the escalating back and forth between them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Be well
I just saw at the Arb Evidence page that you said that you were sick. So I wanted to stop by and wish you a rapid recovery! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying a new therapeutic method to get over an upper respiratory infection where I do as much yardwork as I can between coughing fits. Good news is I got my front door scraped and repainted, and got some of my wife's juniper bushes planted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking for edits
HiScottishFinnishRadish, I hope you're well! I'm a wiki newbie and have made contributions to the Fan Activism article, specifically the K-pop section. I'm looking for feedback and tips to make sure the article is up to par. I saw you made edits and gave feedback on the Fandom talk page and am hoping you might leave me some feedback on my contribution! Thanks so much Alise boal (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Hello there! Thank you in advance for helping me participate constructively on Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia all the time, but today am specifically concerned about the page for Immanuel Kant, and how certain material in his biography seems to decontextualize his work in a way that could be misleading.
Rather than simply proposing edits, I thought I should try to understand the community supporting that page first, and the history of the details that interest me. It appears to me that PatrickJWelsh is the most active recent maintainer. I'm hoping you can confirm I am using the history resources properly, and otherwise suggest how to engage constructively on what could be some tricky questions. --Jbradleychen (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Jbradleychen, your best bet is to outline your concerns on the talk page of the article and see what responses you get. After you outline your concerns on the talk page you should expect it to take several days to over a week before other editors respond, so don't be concerned if others don't respond right away. If no one is responding after a week or two WP:BEBOLD and edit the article to address your concerns. That would normally be the first step, but as you seen too think the change might be contentious, I suggest an attempt at discussion first.
Thank you for helping me get started. I started a discussion on the Talk page in question; you can see it on the Talk page for Immanuel Kant, with some engagement from one of the users supporting the page. After spending some time on the tutorials for new users, I also realized that the edits I want to make are related to a neutral point-of-view concern, so I flagged the relevant section in the article with a POV-section tag.
I hope I am not being too brash, and that the people who have a stake regarding this material will participate on the Talk page. I am going to try to spend more time this afternoon trying to figure out the editors that contributed to that specific section.
Tagging it is reasonable, though if another editor removes the usage I wouldn't replace it at this point. Right now you'll just need to wait for more engagement. Many editors do not edit daily, so it can take some time for a discussion to proceed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
102.156.104.58
Thank you for blocking the IP. However, WHOIS wasn't working for me at the time I reported, so I only reported the single IP. It is now working for me, and this is actually a resumed range: 102.156.0.0/17. Has already been blocked twice, most recent for 3 months this past December. Seems like a new block on that range may be needed. Magitroopa (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Well...nevermind then. I assumed RD2 covered most grossly offensive material, but it appears as though we both invoked the Streisand effect that was said to be avoided at WP:REVDELREQUEST.
I just don't see a dude standing around in a non-sexual situation with his wang out as "grossly offensive," and certainly not enough to revdel. Another admin might think differently, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Pecker isn't as funny sounding as wang and dong. Pecker is what I call a screw that fell into a difficult to reach place while I was working on something. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Generally they'll need to edit based on their name, in a way that makes it clear that they're that company and not just using that name. See WP:CORPNAME, A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and are often blocked much sooner than users who engage in only one of the two behaviors.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I am in need of clarification, are your comments there to be construed as a participant, or as an admin? DN (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I bring this up because it is not the first time you have participated in a discussion on a political topic and concurrently acted as an admin, closing RfCs, giving warnings etc. To be clear, this is not an accusation, I am only noticing patterns. Please feel free to alleviate my concerns. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it administrative, but I expressed no opinion on, nor do I really care one way or another about the question at hand. My concern is that a discussion that is currently at 5 decitomats is growing larger with unconstructive back-and-forths between users. Many of those involved in the discussion have dozens of replies, mostly to each other, which are repeating the same arguments or just plain arguing with each other. In order to achieve consensus on a topic like this we need a focused discussion with significant participation by uninvolved users. That doesn't happen when there are thousands of words repeating the same arguments between the same editors. If someone uninvolved wanted to catch up on the discussion as it stands now it would take roughly an hour just to read the text, nevermind absorbing arguments. It is disrespectful of other editors' time to continue to expand the discussion repeating many of the same arguments, yet expect uninvolved editors to weigh in or an uninvolved editor to assess any consensus and make a close. In contentious topics, or really any heated discussion, it is best to keep things focused because uninvolved editors have limited time to review literal novels worth of arguments and discussions, and without their input it can be very difficult to establish a consensus.
I have a long history of requesting that people seriously consider adding to a discussion when it would not be productive. I also closed the last enormous Fox News discussion. None of that constitutes involvement in a topic, even in the tightest sense of WP:INVOLVED, Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. In your example above, I was attempting to get an editor to see that replying complaining about discussion continuing only continued the discussion, and did not express any views on the topic. I also told people to stop arguing on the talk page and instead take complaints to the right venue. I had also closed an earlier RFC on the laptop, but I don't believe assessing consensus in a discussion makes one involved either, as then we'd have a situation where an administrator who closed a discussion about a topic ban become involved in regards to that user and the topic. You may note that the in ANI thread I linked to my closure of, I also linked to my asking people to seriously consider adding more to the discussion. The closing statement included asking people to consider if repeated contributions to the discussion would be productive. If anyone believes that makes me too involved for closure, feel free to reopen and the closure was reviewed at AN. No participant expressed concern about my asking editors to slow their roll and also acting as an uninvolved administrator.
I appreciate the reply, and willingness to take the time to do so. I have only a faint idea of how admin's are required to function, so your response has been very helpful in enlightening me on that. Thank you. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hmm
I saw a post of yours on Wikipediocracy--I assume it was you--with a picture of an old dude with a hat, behind one of these water pitchers they have in conference centers. Is that you? I'm very disappointed: I thought you were young and all that, drinking IPAs in a gentrified bar... Drmies (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
In pretty sure I haven't posted any pictures of myself on wikipediocracy, just pictures of some animals and the bed I made. I'm not an old dude, but I'm certainly not young anymore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I wanted a number. I don't eat at McDonald's. I don't drink coffee, no matter what the temperature is outside, although they say that it's good to drink hot fluids when it's hot. But I do like discounts - of any kind, age-related or otherwise. Some places give discounts to people 50 or over, and yet I'd call 50 middle-aged. For some 20-year-olds 40 looks old, whereas for some 50-year-olds, 60 does not. The good news is, unlike other mere mortals, I don't age, at least not as long as I wear my ring of power.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I think people reach old at different ages, depending on what they do and how they behave. I think the the earliest one needs to worry about being old is 60, especially now that we live in the future. Looking at pictures of 50 year olds from the 40s and they look like 70 year olds today. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a pretty common phenomenon - people looking older at a given age in the past than they do now. Probably due to a number of factors, including increased sunscreen usage, decreased smoking, etc. Useight (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I blame preservatives in food! All I know is that I smoke, seldom wear sunscreen, get sunburned often, and I'm roughly the same age now as my grandfather was in my earlier memories of him, and I look aces compared to how he looked. I might as well still be a child.
I was out ice fishing last year with my father, and we got to chatting with some younger guys who were on the same pond. I mentioned that I had gone to the same high school they did, and they asked if I graduated in 2017, the year before they started high school. Made me feel good that they were off by almost a couple decades. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
By my calculations, you are probably in your early 40s. At the risk of sounding like a patronizing health freak, I wouldn't be as proud of your bad habits as you seem to be. I tried hard not to graduate high school, but I failed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not proud of smoking, but I do enjoy it, and I'm a lot more likely to wear sunscreen now than in my younger days. Didn't stop me from getting burned twice already this year, as I thought I should be safe from the sun until at least mid-April. You should also see my fishing hat, it's tremendous. I have enough good, healthy hobbies and habits where I'm sure I'm offsetting some of my bad ones. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That's the excuse I use for having a fondness for sweets. I don't think it works that way, but it sounds good.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey, SFR...I don't understand what this is? I've seen it on multiple of the Indian IPs that are editing around the Tata conglomerate, a complete mess of clearly-UPE sock or meat contributions on dozens and dozens of articles, mostly unsourced updates of things like gross profits, numbers of outlets, etc. (and personally I'd love to see rangeblocks on article space because of it) but I don't understand why these namespaces? Er, this is a "I truly don't know" question, not a "Please explain your reasoning" question. :) Valereee (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Because there was a bunch of disruption to project space by those ranges. Since the range is so broad and it's not all bad editing, I think there's hesitancy to block the entire /22, so it's an attempt to allow some of the mainspace editing while preventing most of the disruption. To be honest, it might end up being a tmobile situation where the whole range is just anonblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised to see your intervention at IH's talk page. My statement was not antagonistic. I don't think it was appropriate to remove my response as if it were an attack or anything other than a clarification of what IH appeared not to understand or accept about my first comment. In fact, his "deal" was an example of the kind of strange disconnected participation that I referenced wrt the comments of numerous editors and Admins in the past. SPECIFICOtalk12:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
If you say I have no interest in further participation with you here or elsewhere. on a user's talk page, and they reply Deal. then you should probably have no further participation with them, especially on their talk page. Also, if you don't see how a message saying Your reply was unresponsive to my statement. after your statement was ...your participation is "disruptive" -- your posts are frequently incomprehensible and incoherent, as if you were not fully aware of what you are writing. would be antagonistic I'm not sure how better to explain to you other than by saying that telling someone their participation is disruptive and frequently incomprehensible and incoherent as if they're not fully aware of what they're writing, then returning to complain that they did not address that after you told them you didn't want to interact with them anymore and they agreed is unnecessarily antagonistic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't you think IH is capable of handling their own interactions and talk page? You're entitlled to your interepretation and opinions. That does not mean that my post there was Vandalism, as the link in your edit summary suggests. The reason I returned is because there's been a new development, namely that their appeal if any will apparently be at a different venue at which I will need to reiterate my comment. IH's response to my statement about their longstanding behavioral patterns indicated that IH did not understand what I said. They replied as if I were making some personal gripe about some comments they made about me at two pages. That seemed to me to reflect that they had not considered the many complaints from many editors on their talk archive. I presume you have read their archive before involving yourself in this, so I think you will understand this. IH's appeal if any will be weakened if thtey are not prepared to address that record. SPECIFICOtalk13:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
If you believe that your communication is constructive and welcome at the talk page, go ahead and restore it. I don't plan on edit warring over it, and it was a normal editor action. I'm not sure why you'd think the edit summary labels your edit as vandalism, other than possibly the link to the user script I used to make the edit? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, if you cannot stay off a user's talk page despite being the one to float the idea in the first place, that's a pretty good sign you should disengage. You are not helping anything with your contributions there. Do something else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk15:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@David Fuchs and ScottishFinnishRadish:. I had no interest in prolonging this, and would not be returning here, except that another editor pointed me to look back at this diff on IH's talk page. That's a substantive breach of WP:TPG that would misinform anyone who stumbles on this little flap and tries to decipher the chain of events including whether I violated a request to stay away, misrepresented things to SFR on this page, or any related misimpressions. That's a cardinal rule of talk page threads not to change a post after its been engaged by other editors, and as we often do in such amendments it needs a timestamp added to the additional text or better yet, the addition could be posted separately in normal sequence. I request one of you would address this concern on that page. Thank you. SPECIFICOtalk16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I've made a note below so anyone who happens upon this will see the fairly clear chain of events. I'm not going to ask them to alter a reply on their talk page based on a reverted reply that they didn't want on their talk page in the first place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
both have made the same type of edits, to the same targets, from the same geolocation as the IP you've just blocked.
Just in case you can do a range block. --DB1729talk00:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
They can be disrespectful and disruptive on blocked users pages. (I’ll be honest, I just about filed a Sockpuppet investigation, but then I looked at your contributions! :) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Yo mama jokes are ok, but your butt jokes are way better. Most times my wife asks if I know where something is my first response is "have you checked up your butt?" The constant repetition of the joke only makes it better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Some Money
The Big Bucks
While I admittedly haven’t interacted much with SFR, every interaction I have had has been positive. You are always very helpful, and especially kind in your responses. You use the admin tools well, and now you actually get the big bucks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Because it was so obviously not going to be accepted that I figured I'd save Yamla or 331dot some time. If you'd like I'll revert the decline and leave it for someone else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it's best for you; I don't much care about the blocked editor in this instance. It was a good block, although possibly too lenient, but why open up the potential for trouble for you or the block by declining? It doesn't hurt for it to sit there for a while longer before someone addresses it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Mostly it takes away from someone else's limited time to have to look into something that is obviously not going to be accepted, but I understand that best practice-wise I should stay away from declining unblocks of my own blocks. Was just trying to lighten the burden on the unblock patrollers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the reason that some admins patrol unblock requests is because they enjoy it. Therefore, you are depriving them of their favorite dessert. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
+1 on too lenient. I was actually going to ask you if you minded if I increased it to indef, but then I noticed the socking. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I had looked at their history and it seemed like they may have been trying to edit in good faith originally, and got mad because of the AfD, so I was assuming good faith, and hoping a week would get the point across. Didn't see the socking stuff until after. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
They definitely got mad because of the AfD. :D I'm actually kind of surprised they requested unblock, I thought the vandalism was their going out in a blaze of glory. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
There's the indef I could feel was coming. I only have one thing left to say. NOw who is intensely using wrong power , and affecting others genuine person profile, really its bad, i was thinking Wikipedia is fresh genuine platform but i understand some group of people using wrong power game .... please answer me all ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Ummm, I'd raise my fist but I might poke myself in the eye. All those vandal socks you blocked (different "case")...--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)