Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Glacier on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 15:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February music

Paul Plishka, a bass who sang 88 roles of all kinds at the Met was interviewed before his (first) retirement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a man who looks like an opera singer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks to Storye book, who finds pics for me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story is about Edith Mathis, who portrayed young women by Mozart. The video of a 1993 interview has videos of her performances. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I point at a composer today, as the main page does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECR violations

After reverting an edit that violates ECR from Alaexis's talk page, Alaexis left this uncalled for comment on my TP. Once I noticed that they actually reverted my edit, I deleted their comment and my response to it. What did they do? They restored my deleted edits on my own talk page (after asking me not to revert an ECR violation on theirs). Your input on this would be appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit of a misunderstanding here. Here I did not mean to restore removed comments from u:M.Bitton's page but rather to ask a question (Also, why did you archive an ongoing discussion in which I was participating at Talk:Hamas? What makes the discussion of an IP's requests by extended-confirmed editors a violation of WP:ARBECR?). What happened here was that M.Bitton removed the whole thread while I was replying and therefore when I hit Reply I inadvertently restored the whole thread. Alaexis¿question? 21:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that was the case, does that justify your uncalled for and totally unnecessarily belligerent comment, followed by the revert of my edit? M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit inadvertently and apologised for that elsewhere. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address what I said about your uncalled for and totally unnecessarily belligerent comment. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking not to remove other editors' comments from my talk page is neither belligerent nor uncalled for (it was called for by your removing other editors' comments from my talk page). Asking about the policy basis for archiving an active discussion is likewise a reasonable question. Alaexis¿question? 06:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the context, here I've requested clarifications on the issue that sparked the disagreement. Alaexis¿question? 21:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed this, and I don't really see anything wrong. Alaexis has copped to the edit-conflict revert, and they can request that you not edit their talk page. Please don't remove other editors' posts from my talk page going forward. I'm perfectly able to handle it myself. doesn't even cross into terse, and is a long walk from belligerent. This is a perfectly reasonable discussion that ask[s] for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban and was not about content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the title of the section (Editing others' talk pages) that I found needlessly offensive, as it suggests that I am some kind of disruptive editor (not something that I would expect from an experienced editor, unless they actually mean it). I admit that I got a bit carried away while reverting the edits that violated the ECR restrictions, but that's only after noticing that the IP, who was using the edit requests as a starting point for their discussions, suggested that I shouldn't answer the edit request because I did not participate in the discussion. In hindsight, I should have left their request for clarification about their discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude it was a mistake move on stop trying to victimize yourself •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberwolf: please don't do that again (I have very little patience for those who cast aspersions). M.Bitton (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I have little patience for people who victimize themselves. I recommend you drop the "this offended me" act and if warnings/notes offend you this isn't your place. You're not better than any of us and the rules still apply to you. •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ, knock it off. Whatever this is, it's certainly not constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I approached an admin that I respect (If I valued the opinion of a random editor, I would have posted my comment somewhere else). Second, I don't need your irrelevant so-called "advice" to move on, I already have, making your comment not only unnecessary, but inflammatory (if that's what you're after, then well done). M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inflammatory is not my goal in fact I don’t really have a. Goal •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This in fact will probably will result in Me being blocked by Scottish •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Indian National Congress on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 21:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:British Pakistanis 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 18:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closing process

Hello. Thank you for comment on the closing the RfC related to Kash Patel. I’m just learning about RfC’s. This one, the question seems so narrow to that it doesn’t promote consensus. How do you expect this one will be closed? Dw31415 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to discuss how I think an RFC will be closed, or how I would close it, as to avoid prejudicing the eventual closer. Narrow questions are generally much better for determining consensus, and additional questions about other ways to present the content can be discussed once consensus is determined in this case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the learning and your assistance with making the hat. In my opinion, there is sufficient consensus for moving it from the first sentence, to somewhere else in the first paragraph. Specifically something like: "... wrote the book _______ which has been widely criticized as promoting conspiracy theories." I'm not asking you to comment but rather attempting to develop some skills in summarizing a discussion. No need to reply and thanks again for your assistance. Dw31415 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want some practice, take a look at WP:CR, pick a couple discussions, and write up a close, but don't post it. Subscribe to the discussion, and when it closes compare your close to the actual close. That will help you develop an idea of how closes are generally written, arguments weighed, and overall how RFCs play out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User making racist comments towards other editors in CTOP discussion

The user Nicodene made the following racist comment towards an IP editor on Talk:Kramatorsk railway station attack in August 2024: "The article simply states that a film was made. What’s the issue, Ivan?" (diff). The term "Ivan" is an ethnic slur used against individuals of Russian ethnicity.

When I discussed this with him, he told me it is impossible to be racist to someone of your own race and proceeded with additional personal attacks now directed towards me. Since the user is anonymous, his ethnicity cannot be verified and in any case it does not seem appropriate to be making ethnic slurs in any context towards other editors, especially in a contentious topic area directly related to people of said ethnicity. I believe the user should be reprimanded. JDiala (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, citation needed for Ivan being ‘racist’. I have yet to find any reliable sources claiming this.
Second, virtually the entirety of JDiala’s contribution history (>90%) consists of two things:
  • Contentious nationalistic edits pushing anti-Israeli/Jewish, anti-American, and now pro-Russian views.
  • Edit-warring with or otherwise bickering with other users - by now perhaps a dozen or two - who disagree with his pro-Russian (etc.) views or his problematic editing associated with those views.
In June 2024 this pattern of behaviour earned JDiala a topic-ban (by @Doug Weller) for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In response to this, JDiala switched - in the very same month - to making edits about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict instead, where he has continued exactly the same pattern of behaviour. See @Ybsone’s comments here (especially the one beginning with ‘glad you mentioned’) and also JDiala’s own talk page for several examples of this, including various threads that JDiala has deleted (cf. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 involving the users @TylerBurden, @My very best wishes, and @Volunteer Marek).
It is clear that JDiala’s first topic-ban has not curtailed the behaviours in question, and so either a second one (for the Russian-Ukrainian conflict) or some other form of sanction seems advisable.
Nicodene (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth mentioning that JDiala recently made no less than thirty seven edits trying to make Wikipedia’s coverage of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist Kevin MacDonald more favourable. (To that end, JDiala even tried to delete cited reliable sources.) Kevin MacDonald is ‘the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic’ and infamous for claiming a supposed Jewish conspiracy to undermine and destroy western nations. JDiala’s (extensive) efforts to defend MacDonald’s credibility are quite an eyebrow-raiser, all the more so in light of his aforementioned topic-ban.
Incidentally, this thread should probably be on the administrators’ noticeboard rather than the personal talk page of one administrator in particular. Nicodene (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nicodene, don't make personal attacks, including calling people Ivan. You can disagree with their POV, or even point out their POV without resorting to that.
JDiala, do you think giving a warning and escalat[e]ing this matter six months after the comment was made is a particularly constructive use of your time? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm not seeing any edits from JDiala to Kevin MacDonald since August 2024. Am I missing something? I mean it looked like a very tedious discussion in August - albeit one that would have possibly been averted by getting additional academic sources - but it doesn't speak to a current pattern of disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it appears that JDiala is resurrecting a grudge from half a year ago here too - so maybe you should all just stop nursing ancient grudges and try to collaborate. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TENDENTIOUS CT editor plays victim, don't see anything else, everything Nicodene says appears to be correct. JDiala went from causing disruption in one CT to another after their topic ban and is not someone that should be going around asking for others to be reprimanded. Claiming ″Ivan″ is an ″ethnic slur″ citing Wiktionary, where it was added without any explanation or source in this edit, is no different than citing unsourced content on a Wikipedia article. Great example of their overdramatic petty behaviour. WP:BOOMERANG if anything. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The real tendentious thing is trying to pretend an ethnic slur isn't an ethnic slur on a sourcing argument. This is not a content dispute which necessitates a source. I am a native English speaker. I know what a slur is. JDiala (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent logic, you are a native English speaker, so you get to decide what is an ethnic slur and demand people you disagree with to be reprimanded over them. WP:BATTLEGROUND sums you up perfectly. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not take it to the administrators’ noticeboard? Last one went in your favour didn't it? YBSOne (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ybsone, that's overkill for a six-month old comment. I'm happy with a WP:TROUT from SFR in this case. The last one did go in my favour because it accomplished the desired goal, which was getting you off my back. JDiala (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is very silly. "Ivan" is hardly a racist slur compared to others floating around for Russians these days and the incident is so far in the past that it's an act of veritable necromancy to bring it back up. Likewise JDiala's rather tedious argument in defense of an antisemitic pseudoscientist were half a year ago. I don't go into the Rus/UKR CTOP often (try to avoid it TBH) but I have seen several pro-UKR users hit ANI and flame out because of their hostility to anyone who tries to act neutrally toward the conflict - neutrality generally being characterized as pro-Russia rather than simply not-pro-Ukraine. I'm not saying this specific hostility is on display here but I would suggest that those people who edit in the CTOP would be well-advised to remember that neutrality is not the same as favoring either side of this war. Considering that most of these events are way in the past I'd say you all need to find something better to do with your volunteer time than nurse old grudges. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thread went entirely against you, but I digress.
Ivan is often used to mean literally anyone supporting the Russian regime. Examples in no particular order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. This even includes soldiers who are not ethnically Russian, as well as the President of the United States, once jokingly referred to by Russian state media as ‘Donald Ivanovych’, which roughly translates to ‘McIvan’.
Likewise, in any case, the British IP that I replied to.
Nicodene (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still commenting on the contributor, not the content. Don't do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll make a note of maintaining politeness in response to drive-by IP spam. Nicodene (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like you said, drive-by. Just ignore it, or if it's actually disruptive and not just unconstructive, remove it without comment. Mostly, WP:DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Ban

I did not in any way attack or cause any flame war. Users stated in the talk page did several "undos" without any fundamental input, and in return, I am being silenced... why exactly??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pescaterian (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pescaterian, you were edit warring (while violating 1RR), along with making and restoring personal attacks after being made aware of the CTOP designation that covers the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring in Yasuke Page related

Good afternoon. I have written my comment regarding the topic ban I received, but I wrote it directly in my Talk Page which probably was wrong place to write. Sorry about it but can you visit here and read? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KeiTakahashi999#c-KeiTakahashi999-20250220020600-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250219182100

I do not expect further change in my sanction. The user who tried to re-insert what had been agreed on removal is not only the user Bladeandoroid (who is topic-banned also this time), but was the user NutmegCoffeeTea who evaded the sanction this time, to me the user was disruptive as much as Bladeandoroid was, in fact they had been suspected as sockpuppet of already banned user : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Symphony_Regalia/Archive#Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments_4 and some users who never participated in the discussion reverted my removal too, to me is strange behavior.

It seems that you are still around the Yasuke Page for alert, all I ask is please keep eye on editors there. Thank you. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the situation until now but I would like to briefly state that my initial warning to KeiTakahashi999 on their page was because I was mistaken. I thought it hadn't been discussed when it was. Gitz6666 confirmed they had assented to it in an earlier discussion. Despite my many disagreements with Kei, I want to clarify this as my warning was misreported without this context. I have no other input regarding conduct. Relm (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI now makes the above comment moot, apologies. Relm (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yasuke, Broadly Construed

Does the page Black people in Japan fall under sanctions for Yasuke, Broadly Construed? Emm90 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was not related, but I blocked them for continuing to edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! I just wasn't sure how far "Broadly Construed" extended in this case. Emm90 (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Siege of Masada on a "Religion and philosophy" 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, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Second Vienna Award 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 20:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Editor returns...

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Return of that multiple account abuser (mentioned here & here) making Subtle/Silly edits, this time as Legal2341 & Illegal536. I've been aware of the accounts for a while but they had been dormant until I came across this edit messing with the gender of the dog Woofster from Super Why! (something they have tried doing in the past). For confirmation you can see both those accounts previously making vandalism edits along with their other, now banned, personas here. Legal2341 has also done their usual multiple edits of their sandbox to boost their post count high enough to post on protected pages. Could you please block these two before they cause more damage & waste people's time? Of possible interest, when I was back tracking their previous edits to tidy up their vandalism, I found they have been doing this for quite some time. Thank-you for your time & effort! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found another: AC65536. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Your reputation for swiftly dealing with pests remains intact, super quick response! :) Thank-you kindly! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, always glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satie

So you're okay with trolling and bad faith interjections into an area designated by ArbCom as contentious topic, but trying to defuse toxic stirring by closing off the bad faith noise is now a bad thing? Wonders will never cease. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SFR, for the record, this comment from Dronebogus implied bad faith regarding SchroCat's argument, yet is a stand alone comment, not part of any other "tangent", which makes it impossible to hat "all of the tangent" except for that one comment: thus the hatting was sound and should be restored. It's probably also worth reminding DB of our bludgeoning guidelines. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an appropriate edit?

I noticed you were recently on the affected talk page and was wondering if this is really acceptable. It seems like it’s the same involved editor adding non-neutral “clerk”-style edits to nudge the discussion a certain way. Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, or at least not worth arguing over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering, AITA in this discussion? Because I know I haven’t been super polite but wasn’t sure if I actually crossed a line with my remarks. Dronebogus (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're almost always needlessly aggressive, and your interjections there probably aren't going to help anything. You've started the RFC and said your piece, now just let it go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an adequate secondary source?

Earlier I edited the page for Richard Hanania citing one of his own Substack posts. Would someone else's Substack post analyzing Hanania's (https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/enough) be an adequate secondary source? Jade Ohrlaff (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Substack posts are self published sources, so they shouldn't be used, especially for biographies of living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for explaining. Jade Ohrlaff (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on the reason for this a bit, the idea is that reliable sources independent of the article subject are what determine the amount of coverage (if any) that something gets. This is to avoid editors picking and choosing what is included based on what they think is most important. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Editor returns... Part two

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Sorry, same pest again: Hikil9. See two edits here I reverted, same page as the blocked editors I mentioned above & same editing their sandbox to make it to autoconfirmed. If you could please block. With all this effort making silly/subtle edits, they could instead make actually useful edits. Such a waste. Thanks for your time! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Super Why…[sarcasm] 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:2601AC47!Yes I'm afraid Super Why, they seem to have a particular interest in changing Woofster's gender. :) Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I wonder is... super why? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may not know it: It's one of those PBS Kids shows in the US I used to watch about 15 years ago. Arguably one of the more literature-based shows. It never really helped me with that reading and writing stuff, but there's a cult following and it's worth a good watch (for a pre-primary to 4th grade school audience). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, added that and another fancy series that would teach kids how to spell big words to my watchlist, just in case there's something amidst in either article. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All set. Thanks again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Thank-you kindly for the very swift response! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish
No tags for this post.