Jump to content

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

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


cand q

[edit]

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles don't, in and of themselves, tell me a lot about infoboxes, other than that most of them have infoboxes. Quick power ranking on their hair, though.
  1. Franz Schreker - Off center widows peak over male-pattern baldness. Wild wings on the sides. Combined with the expression he really communicates "intense Austrian composer"
  2. Alexander von Zemlinsky - always maximum respect for a pompadour
  3. Arnold Schoenberg - I'll always believe that Picard was the best captain, and this haircut communicates that. Middle of the road though, as the default bald guy cut
  4. Gustav Mahler - trying to pull off the "genius that doesn't care about his hair" look, but Schreker did it much better
  5. Erich Wolfgang Korngold - looks like he's going to a job interview at a bank
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places
Thank you for loooking! - November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. - You may be too young (on WP) to know that infoboxes are a declared contentious topic, - sorry that my question was unclear. Do you think they still deserve the label. I found one candidate so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having closed around a dozen infobox RFCs, I think they're still fairly contentious. The CTOP designation serves to let people know they have to be on their best behavior which is important when dealing with an issue that is the subject of strong disagreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder when you closed those, because I don't see many discussions anymore. Most classical composers today get an infobox without a discussion. Mozart was closed in favour of an infobox, for example, almost two years ago, and I haven't seen new arguments since. We still have discussions for a few FAs, usually caused by editors who have no idea of a conflict but get immediately treated as infobox warriors, - that's what I see. - Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today, listen to Sequenza XIV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. The discussion is still on the Sibelius, ending with that he was playing in a league with Beethoven then, in 2018 ;) - We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. - Congratulations to being elected! Could you look at Samuel Barber and tell me if you miss something in his infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antonio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. - I can report happily that the Barber situation was resolved.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUNDING, and enforcing policies and guidelines

[edit]

Apologies for bothering you on your talk page, but I was wondering if you could spare some advice. I am leaving the name of the editor this is about off intentionally.

I had a dispute with a user around a year or so ago who said that they didn't need to follow WP:V, essentially. This wasn't a new user, but a user who has been here for close to 12+ years and who had been warned several times for their edits by other users (no admin warnings from what I remember)

So I went over several of their older edits at the time and realized that they would insert material with citations that didn't mention what was added to the article or said something entirely different, insert links to primary documents in BLP articles, insert links to piracy sites containing pirated software, just a whole mess of things.

I've tried not to hound them since I firmly believe everyone deserves peace when editing here (within reason), but it has drawn their past edits into question. I don't want to go through and edit 75+ edits of theirs for not following correct policies, since as a regular editor that would certainly annoy me. I have for the most part only edited five or less of their edits in that year time frame but am curious when this should be brought to ANI, or if it's better to just let them go about their editing. I occasionally check their edits to make sure there isn't anything super terrible that justifies immediate removal but feel like this is borderline harassment of them, and wanted to ask the proper steps.

Thank you for whatever advice you can give! Awshort (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've spoken with them without positive results and the behavior is continuing ANI is certainly an option, or AE if their editing is in a WP:CTOP and they're aware of the CTOP designation. Really, though, how you handle it is up to how you feel, and if you think it's worth whatever can of worms could be opened. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

awshort does harass and needs to stop stalking me and anyone else. They are not a victim and seldom change anything of value. I saw my “targeted killings” edit was reverted because the allegation was that my sources which said exact dollar amounts of $15,000 and $30,000 paid by Iranian proxies to kill people in the west was alleged to not be accurate. Twillisjr (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twillisjr I removed that in mid November. Since you weren't tagged to this conversation, and no user was mentioned by name, what brought you here?
Awshort (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awshort I am here in an act of self defense from you. Twillisjr (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twillisjr That didn't answer the question - you weren't pinged, and I wasn't specific on who I was talking about. So unless you are following my edits, I'm unsure why you came here or why you specifically believe this is in regards to you.
Awshort (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Serial_Number_54129#TWL_access

[edit]

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, could you explain why you're closing the discussion with 'Sacrebleu' please? Did something go wrong? Or do you have any concerns about it? Kind regards, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't have access because they were blocked on French Wikipedia. I was just exclaiming in French. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge 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 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 1RR violation

[edit]

I believe this is a 1RR violation, right? I'm checking to make sure before I request the person self-reverts. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raskolnikov.Rev, I've requested a self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did too at the same time so hadn't seen yours yet, but that's alright, I also added a response to the edit summary. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove my ban

[edit]

Hi, Please remove my ban of editing Indian subcontinent contents. I am feeling sorry and will not edit contents with Talk. Please remove. Loveforwiki (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be unilaterally removing the topic ban any time in the immediate future. I suggest you edit other topics for at least six months to demonstrate you can do so constructively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's ban for indian subcontinent. Remove ban of these area Loveforwiki (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know you're banned, why did you make this edit? An Indian actor in the Indian film and television industry is pretty clearly under a topic ban for India. Ravensfire (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what should one do when in dispute with a Wikipedia:Unblockables?

[edit]

thank for your assistance 109.67.4.18 (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You might want to start by disclosing previous IPs or accounts that you've used to edit from as this was your second-ever edit from this IP and there is nothing in your edit history to indicate you're in a dispute with the secret masters of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would disclosing IPs or accounts change the advice given for user in my place? if so why is that exactly?
how dose the content matter when requesting advice regarding conduct? 109.67.4.18 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks more like an WP:ECR issue than an unblockable issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but whoever wrote that unlockables essay is some kind of supper insightful genius. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great mystic, tell me what I will have for dinner..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dammit. I recently started using Grammarly because I make so many typos, but once in a while it backfires. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're also unlockable because you're not a steward. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

[edit]

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,

I had a question about a topic ban you placed on Southasianhistorian8. A similar sanction was placed by User:Seraphimblade on another editor. Is this 500 main space edits or 500 edits in any namespace of the project? It seems like a fair sanction I was just wondering what the intent was here. Thanks for clarifying this for me. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for SFR, but my view on it is that it is 500 edits anywhere, not just to mainspace. Of course if an editor is clearly "gaming" that part, e.g., makes 500 one-letter edits to their sandbox, that can be seen as bad faith and the sanction can be extended or made indefinite. But I think if anything, it is even more valuable for a sanctioned editor to, for example, learn to participate constructively in discussions and the like, so I certainly have no problem counting non-mainspace edits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically my view. The whole point is to get them involved in other places, which may involve discussions on article talk pages, BLPN, NPOVN, and similar venues. All of that is good experience and shows that they're expanding their involvement rather than sticking in a topic where there have been issues. The hope is that when the ban expires they have enough experience elsewhere to let them see where they might be making missteps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I wanted to know, Seraphimblade and SFR, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When does WP:GAMING for permissions go stale?

[edit]

I've come across an editor who I believe gamed their extended-confirmed permission and since then has posted almost exclusively within the PIA space, with some attention paid to the war in Ukraine. Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, they made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th; they stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. But they do now have over 1,200 edits, and I'm wondering if this is still something that should be reported. I've searched ANI/AE and their name has appeared for other reasons (you've interacted with them), but gaming wasn't brought up at the time. I don't want to put their username on a report without some input first because there are implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023, but those same implications leave me uncomfortable saying nothing.

I'm also wondering if you know whether gaming like this is (discreetly) monitored; I've been looking at Quarry and I think a query could go through the list of EC perming over the past year or two and find users who made many edits of a single type within the month prior to their perming, who then went on to be mostly active in specific contentious topics (maybe even show trends in volume), but I don't have the expertise to write this myself. Thanks for advice in advance! Safrolic (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's a stale time for permissions gaming, and it will also draw more attention to their ARBPIA edits. Gaming is a bit nebulous though, so unless it's solidly obvious I prefer to take them to AE or AN.
That query could certainly be helpful. I check the contributions of most editors in ARBPIA that I don't recognize, but I'm sure I've missed plenty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll take this to AE then. Safrolic (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safrolic, for interest, I've been thinking about this kind of thing too. Signal shapes for the first 600 revisions can be illuminating. But even for the same person (with many hundreds of sock accounts) there can be a lot of diversity in those first edits, even though the objective is the same, to tunnel through the EC barrier. Also, many tools are provided to help editors get started now, so it is pretty trivial for someone to make perfectly legitimate edits to reach EC within a few days. Here's an especially impressive example of efficiency.
As for extendedconfirmed grants, far fewer accounts acquire it in a given year compared to the total number of new accounts than I expected so that might help. See here. And the speed of acquisition does appear to tell you something about the likelihood that the account will be blocked later (or even before they get EC) for ban evasion or some other reason. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could imagine looking for a change of slope in the cumulative bytes around the 500th revision mark as the user changes from gaming to normal editing, but so much of 'gaming' relies on intent, which you can't see with SQL. You can see whether a user suddenly starts making edits in the PIA topic area though. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some very pretty pictures (and illustrate the complexity of the question), thank you. My proposed query probably wouldn't catch anyone deliberately trying to conceal their game, I agree with that. I see that you're using Quarry to collect the initial data, but what tool are you using afterwards to compile the graphs? Safrolic (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to only use Quarry if I need to share a query or the results with another editor. I have a toolforge account so I can do stuff from the comfort of VSCode on my laptop through an SSH tunnel to the databases. Those plots use the matplotlib Python library. But you can do this kind of thing without a toolforge account using the PAWS cloud service. There's also an Apache Superset sqllab service here which I think has charting functionality. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tips, I'll try to learn the rest of these words! Safrolic (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECR

[edit]

Hello! I've had to 2RR a WP:FORUM comment on Talk:Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) by non-EC accounts including an IP sock. Do I have to self-revert or is it justified per ARBPIA? Borgenland (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECR enforcement is an exception to edit warring, and the 1RR sanction doesn't apply to talk pages so you're fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hope that my latest edit summary there could further explain why. Borgenland (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also leave {{welcome-arbpia}} on their talk page which explains the sanctions in plain language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new user ignoring WP:ARBECR after warning

[edit]

Hey, not sure where is should bring this up, but i noticed you and a few others have warned Special:Contributions/Fyukfy5 about editing in the Arab–Israeli topic area and Fyukfy5 seems to be ignoring these warnings—blindlynx 19:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look please

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Joyner (business executive), apart from the many comments not assuming good faith, this [1] has been posted by a new user. It seems like a threat to out the nominator? Or maybe not. Thanks in advance, Knitsey (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more likely that it's just bullshit. I would just remove it, but you've already replied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. Knitsey (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel?

[edit]

1 & 2 jellyfish ✉ 02:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back again jellyfish ✉ 02:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Re-open Requested move 6 December 2024

[edit]

Discussion of changing "Gaza genocide" to "Gaza genocide accusations" was closed and archived before adequate discussion could take place. Please re-open the discussion and restore the archived comments, including my own:

  • “Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of a group that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. Immense suffering and civilian toll in Gaza have resulted from the war started by Hamas, and from specific actions by Hamas that put Gazan civilians in harm’s way.
  • Hamas does not separate fighters from civilians in its Gaza health ministry numbers. Hamas does not specify whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups; for example, the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.[1]
  • Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza. When Israeli officials have made statements reflecting callous disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, they have been disciplined.[2]
  • The goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel and Jews off the map, an example of genocidal intent. Israel directs its force at legitimate military targets, which Hamas has intentionally placed under and within civilians’ homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools.
  • The Israeli military sends Arabic-language warnings to Gazans prior to its airstrikes on military targets, and indicates routes for Palestinian civilians to relocate. Hamas has repeatedly called on Palestinian civilians to ignore Israel’s warnings about impending strikes and reportedly forced civilians to remain in the vicinity of military objectives, using them, like its hostages from Israel, as human shields.
  • Hamas has continued to launch missiles into Israel, not from military bases, as international law dictates, but from civilian areas in Gaza. International law allows legitimate military targets to be attacked when the anticipated military advantage from the attack exceeds the expected civilian harm. Hamas has inflated the number of civilian casualties. Harm to Gazan civilians is a horrible outcome of war, but it is not genocide.

Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allthemilescombined1, for interest, why do you appear to believe that it is okay to use talk pages in the topic area for what appears to be advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world? I don't understand why this happens so often in the topic area or what can be done to ensure that editors don't need to filter it out when they read talk pages or participate in consensus forming discussions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saving everyone the time of coming to the same conclusion and lowering the engagement at the next discussion even more. Wait until something significant has changed or a more appreciable amount of time has passed. There will be more outside input and a better representative consensus of things at that point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Gaza: Findings on October 17 al-Ahli Hospital Explosion". Human Rights Watch. 2023-11-26. Retrieved 2024-12-08.
  2. ^ Williams, Dan (2023-11-05). "Netanyahu suspends Israeli minister over Gaza nuclear comment". Reuters. Retrieved 2024-12-08.

Condolences er I mean congrats.... you gon' be an arb

[edit]

Looks like you got in, right in the meaty part of the pack. I will not be joining you. That's fine though, you got a hell of a great group coming in with you, I'm suddenly far less worried about the committee's ability to get shit done. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Extends my congrats to you) Happy tears yet? You have a right to. Now, with that out of the way, my recommendation for your first order of business as part of the ArbCom: What are your thoughts about KevinL's 4 motions for improving Arbitrator workflows (which include Correspondence clerks, WMF staff support, Coordinating arbitrators and grants for corresponding clerks)? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about that, but I don't have any solid input. It's difficult to comment on how to fix a process you've never seen up close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First root vegetable Arb? Congratulations friend. Star Mississippi 02:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: We're making plans for an eventual root vegetable majority :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That arbcom will be the best ever! at remaining edible when kept in a cellar over winter ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, everybody, for the congratulations. Here's to hoping I don't bollocks the whole things up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be accused of it regardless. And in case nobody told you, next month is a sort of hazing ritual where tons of banned users try their luck with the new committee, so enjoy that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You managed to swim through the rapids of PIA, so I'm sure that the rest will be a doddle. Well done. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A raise in blood pressure, guaranteed.-- Ponyobons mots 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know WMF has a legal assistance fund, what about medical assistance? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an option, but they only dispense one thing. You need to be available 24/7 now!-- Ponyobons mots 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it comes with something else I might just be able to make it work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel inquiry re BLPN

[edit]

Greetings! At WP:BLPN we have this from an upset subject whose mind works differently and saw fit to name names of other presumably living people. Is it worth a redaction? Along with a tall glass of calm the hell down for OP? This seems like someone who could maybe be a wider problem, per her post. I'm looking at WP:Articles for deletion/Judy Singer and missing User:DGG... thanks for your thoughts. JFHJr (㊟) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to dig into this right now, but I'll check it tomorrow if no one else has handled it ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JFHJr, I don't think this needs a revdel, but I did redact the names. Looks like there are some eyes on the article now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ossum, possum. Thanks again. And congratulations on arbor-trader stuff. Trees are friends. JFHJr (㊟) 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost two of my apple trees in recent years, so I'm hoping with my election I'll be better equipped to take care of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2025 Arbitration Committee

[edit]

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2025 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the VRT users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45). Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed them. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee

[edit]

The Electoral Commission is pleased to announce that you have been appointed for a two-year term to the Arbitration Committee effective January 1, 2025. Congratulations on the appointment.

On behalf of ElectCom: —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 14:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Maliner (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide 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 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a couple blocks

[edit]

I'm looking at a bunch of old talk page archives and blocks for a ... project (we all have our hobbies) and I saw that, in June, you blocked two accounts for sockpuppetry User:7goldfishglory and User:CG52110. The problem is... I don't think they were socking. Basically, a somewhat popular youtuber made a series about micronations, and then made one of his own for fun. It's called "Ironland" and it's not notable by any stretch of the imagination, but it was a pretty popular series (Youtube kept trying to push me into watching it, and the Romanian government's tiktok acccount had some fun with it). It's hardly surprising that a few fans tried to write a Wikipedia article for it. (Again, we all have our hobbies) I poked around on reddit and a few fans tried to work on a draft together[2], but they seemed to accept the decline[3][4]. Somebody made one on the micronation wiki and fandom, in the end, thank goodness. But that still leaves the issue of these blocks. I know they were made in good faith, and to be fair, I can't see the draft- but I do have additional context.

CG52110 has filed several unblock requests, admitting they had one other account, and promising to abandon its use- but because they were tagged as a sockpuppet in control of at least nine accounts, they're not getting unblocked anytime soon if ever. As far as anybody working in cat:unblock is concerned, not only did they sock, they're also lying. One admin even accused them of being the person to create the micronation- which knowing what I know about the YouTube series, is highly unlikely.

The other block, of 7goldfishglory, is also something I'd like to ask you about. They made a draft, it got rejected, they asked why- and then came back to say they did their research, understood why, and that they'd wait until it's more well-known. [5] Which, at the end of the day, is sort of what we want to see. They were acting in good faith and they were respectful of our norms, once they realized what they were. I'm not seeing anything blockworthy. They could have used the exact same text in their draft, in fact, and I'd merely assume that they copied it from another fan, or the micronation wiki or something. Bad in terms of copyright, but, again, not blockworthy until they do it twice. They haven't asked to be unblocked, but to be fair, but if they're used to dealing with reddit or discord mods, they probably thought "why bother?" and disengaged.

Anyway, just thought I'd ask to see if my context helped, or if you had any context I'd missed. And, because I've seen your talk page archives and I don't want to feel left out: <insert long, vaguely off-topic ARBPIA-themed rant/interrogation here>. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that, normally, nine accounts show up to write an article about an obviously non-notable subject is a pretty clean sockpupping block, 98% of the time. But that remaining 2% of the time.... GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that WP:SOCK also covers WP:MEAT, specifically A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.
I blocked a lot of accounts creating ironland drafts, and after salting accounts were recreating the draft at the same unsalted title. That, combined with matching prose, led me to the conclusion that it was sock or meatpuppetry. Quite a few of the blocks were noted as sock or meat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't worry, I do actually know those guidelines, and I completely get how, with the evidence and knowledge you had, you came to the decision you did. WP:MEAT is very useful for when you just can't quite prove an account is socking or canvassing, but they're causing just enough low-grade disruption that we'd rather be rid of them. I'm not fully sure that applies to all the accounts here though, that's what I'm trying to get at. Some of them, yeah - but 7goldfishglory was blocked after they went out of their way to clarify that they understood why the draft wasn't going to be accepted, and said they'd stop working on it until they found sources that could prove its notability, so I don't exactly know what their block was meant to prevent. At worst, they're a fan of the Youtuber who probably saw a fully formed article at the micronation wiki and copied it over in violation of our copyright policies. Your call though. I just think blocks like these are the equivalent of blocking everybody who tries their hand at creating something related to BFDI as an Brandon1998 sock, and that our regular policies of dealing with this kind of stuff - liberal salting and a few polite warnings about what what Wikipedia is not - tend to work just fine. Again, YMMV, and I've been known to use quick and dirty solutions like that on occasion. I just figured you'd find an alternative explanation interesting. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Arbitration Committee

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 1 January 2025:

The one-year terms of these members also begin on 1 January 2025:

Upon meeting the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and signing its corresponding confidentiality agreement, all incoming members will be subscribed to all Committee-managed email lists, assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office, and given access to the CheckUser and Oversight queues on the VRT system.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues, whose terms end on 31 December 2024:

Outgoing members are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their terms on the Arbitration Committee. To that effect:

  • Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing members, who have not chosen to retain them, after 31 December 2024:
    CheckUser: Firefly, L235
    Oversight: Firefly, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees
  • Outgoing members are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. That will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
  • All outgoing members will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
  • All outgoing members will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Firefly, Guerillero, and Moneytrees, who have chosen to remain subscribed.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2025 Arbitration Committee
Congratulations. Crafterstar (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential myopia of PIA-centric RSN discussions — thoughts?

[edit]

I’m sure you’re aware of the recent trend of news outlets being RfCed primarily for PIA-related topics

However, one of the most irritating things about it (apart from, y’know, the very incursion of mud-slingers onto RSN, the taurine tunnel vision of both sides, the non-policy-grounded biases nakedly displayed, and the systematic coordination on at least one side) is that both sides tend to forgo any discussion of the given source for its non-PIA coverage. This is detrimental and inconvenient for the broader editing community because it muddies the waters about the usability of these sources for everything else in this big world we live in.

For example, Al Jazeera tends to take a fairly detached, professional view of Ukraine and certain other hot topics, but at the polar opposite end its quasi-coverage of Qatargate in Europe and the Menendez trial quite frankly puts RT and the Global Times to shame. The nuanced usability assessment that a rational, civil discussion would be likely to produce is instead swept aside by a circus in which the majority is spouting distorted applications of policy while the opposing side basically just does variations on “nuh-uh!”

In another example, I recently argued against the Jerusalem Post being tarred and feathered because of the inevitable effects on its non-PIA coverage and in particular that it could mess with the diversity of the source basket for domestic Israeli politics and society/culture stuff. Oh wait why would they even care

Do you think there’s any grounds to expect forthcoming changes to the situation due to recent formal proceedings at arbcom and AE and stuff, or that there’s any way to help keep project-wide discussions from turning into spillover from the ungodly cesspool that is high-traffic PIA talk pages? I feel like part of the problem is the self-selection of anyone who wants to make big edits in that topic area.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no. The longer answer is nooooooooooooooooooo. As long as the real-world conflict is at high intensity there will be spillover on to en.wiki, and part of that means that there will be an increase in NPOVN, RSN, NOORN, and other spillover from the topic area. The topic area has a great need for these venues of wider participation, both for regular dispute resolution and to establish wider consensus than a local talk page consensus. This does lead to a lot of large discussions, but the recent 1000 word limit sanction should keep things a bit tighter and hopefully avoid huge spirals.
Despite the added stress on venues like RSN, this is Wikipedia working as intended. There are real conflicts over the use of these sources, and rather than have editors argue back and forth on an article talk page they need to be able to seek a community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Actually, I get the impression that it’s mostly the same set of editors who participate in such discussions even though it’s on a noticeboard.
My surmise is that the toxicity of the topic area is still turning off general-purpose editors even in project-wide spaces. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The data suggests that the topic area is more attractive to editors than Wikipedia in general. I don't know whether there is also more participation in noticeboard discussions related to PIA compared to the background level. It is not possible to say without measuring the background level. But it's clear that noticeboard discussions are not sampling the editor population very effectively. This might also be true of discussions unrelated to PIA. So, it could be related to systemic problems with participation in general rather than something topic area specific. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

[edit]

To differentiate from everyone else congratulating you on the promotion, I decided to do it in your three languages.

  • Scottish: Mealaibh ur naidheachd!
  • Finnish: Onnittelut!
  • and Radish er, Wikipedian:

(I just looked at the list of articles you have on your user page, and hoped you might appreciate having them illustrated. I do that occasionally.) The last isn't perfect, but better than what was on the article already, I hope you'll agree. BTW, any objection if we move that to just Linda Morra, since there isn't anyone else in Wikipedia with that name that we need to disambiguate with the middle initial? --GRuban (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, and go for it. I rescued those all from WP:WPWIR declined drafts so they got stuck with whatever name they were created at. Same with Rosetta Lawson which was at Rosetta E. Lawson, but I actually remembered to move it. Again, thanks, I really appreciate the images. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of. I would hate to break it, since it's a GA and all, and my skills are more in finding pics than in editing them, but what do you think of:
  • before
    before
  • after
    after
? --GRuban (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the after is a bit over-processed, which makes the image artifacts stand out. Somewhere in the middle would probably be an improvement. What really irks my taters is that I know there are other images of her in old newspapers and other documents, but I haven't been able to dig them up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better? (I used the same file, so if you don't see any change, hit shift-reload.) --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's better. Keeps the skin tone from getting washed out while still improving the visible details. Thanks again! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Now the second part, finding more images. I think I did that. Here are a few versions to choose from. Say which you like, or whether you want me to try to take off the oval frame.
  • Fannie J. Henderson ; Fannie Elliott ; Cora Everette ; Rebecca J. Carter ; Annie Witherspoon ; Carrie Morgan ; Rosetta E. Lawson, 1906
    Fannie J. Henderson ; Fannie Elliott ; Cora Everette ; Rebecca J. Carter ; Annie Witherspoon ; Carrie Morgan ; Rosetta E. Lawson, 1906
  • Rosetta E. Lawson
    Rosetta E. Lawson
  • Rosetta E. Lawson, brightened, de-spot-ified
    Rosetta E. Lawson, brightened, de-spot-ified
However that leads to an awkward bit, which is why I'm not replacing the image in the article quite yet. I'm reasonably sure this is the subject of the article. However, your image had middle initial C, and this one, and your article, has middle initial E. Er ... was that a typo? If not, are you quite sure that first image was the subject of your article ? --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her maiden name was Coakley, so I probably just mixed it up when titling the image. I think the original image is better because it captures her "I don't take bullshit" expression. I think the lightened image would be great in the advocacy section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you put them both in, thanks. I made https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rosetta_Lawson and gave her a middle name, cited: Evelyn. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your work, it's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence at PIA 5

[edit]

Your example:

the link is dead/wrong? Huldra (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Should be fixed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel question...

[edit]

So, what should we do about revdel if the plot section on a film's article was a copyvio since the article's creation? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. You had me worried, but the article only had like 9 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was expecting to happen, that's why I just left you a message and then left a copyvio warning on the user's talk... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request for block an user

[edit]

Hello, I'm Quangminhvilla, one of the editor on Wikipedia. I hear that you are one of the admins on Wikipedia, so I want to ask you for help. In the few months before, the article 2023 AFC Asian Cup had an user name RealLifed was vandalism the article so many. Since the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, there was no third place match. But he always edited the third and the fourth ranking on the 2023 article, which lead to many user have to reverted the article many times. He always said that the reason was he used it from the AFC website, although there was no source about it. I have already gave him a warning for this, but he said threatly for me and always said by using CAPSLOCK to tell many user when they said to him politely. I think this user not only used incorrectly sources but he also one of the dangerous user that threaten anyone. So this message today is can you help me block this user please? Because if anyone warning to him about it, he will not change and still violated to them. Thank you for reading this message. Hope you have a good time during this week. Quangminhvilla (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

[edit]
Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays to you and yours as well. I hope you don't have any winter problems on the farm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible 1RR violation

[edit]

Once again I may be wrong here, but I think this is a 1RR violation: https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Deif&diff=prev&oldid=1263475889

If so, can you take appropriate action?

Thanks. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've remedied the violation and made them aware of the CTOP sanctions on the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:TBAN violation by Bohemian Baltimore

[edit]

Good morning,

I have just reverted an edit by Bohemian Baltimore, who has a topic ban on self-ID articles for BLPs, broadly construed. This editor has made a number of small edits that seem to test/skirt the TBAN, with the text I reverted today seeming to be a more obvious violation of the ban. The editor disputes whether this applies in this case.

Details as follows:

  • The editor edited the intro to the Taíno article to change the wording around how these people are identified.

It might be that these don't fall under the "broadly construed" clause, but I thought it worth raising the issue now before a future edit does. I saw that you implemented the ban, so thought I'd reach out to you first. Lewisguile (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore, pinging you for transparency. Hopefully we can get an answer. Lewisguile (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile There is no testing or skirting. I was told to stay away from BLPs related to self-identification and citizenship due to controversy over Native American BLPs. And that is what I have done; stayed away from editing those topics on Indigenous BLPs. None of those edited articles is a BLP. I am not aware of any total ban on editing Indigenous topics. If there is, I was not informed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-ID is a major topic of most of these articles. Or are least of the edits you have made. It's worth noting that some of the info is also inaccurate—Taíno groups in Puerto Rico and the USVI are in non-sovereign territory (i.e., colonies), so they have no route for formal recognition. Your creation of the Taíno heritage groups article and the related Category:Taíno heritage groups therefore seems oddly WP:POINTY. Lewisguile (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this seems like grasping for straws. If a topic ban for BLPs were to include non-BLPs, I would have been told this. Innocuous edits like creating a parent category for Nahua or adding Taino to the Native American identity article, in addition to not having anything to do with BLPs, doesn't even have anything to do with citizenship or self-identification. The information on the heritage group article, also, was not inaccurate. Not that that's relevant to the BLP question though. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I am misinterpreting the decision, then I am happy to apologise. It's entirely possible I'm looking at this too rigidly.
But either way, clarity would be good going forward. It seems to me these articles all have self-ID in common, either as an explicit or implicit element, and often involve the self-ID of people or groups of people.
If these articles are too tangential to the topic to count and it's too non-specific for the BLP element to count, then that's also useful to know for you as well as anyone else. Lewisguile (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile I think it is clear that it is my intent to adhere to the topic ban and that is what I have tried to do since I was T-banned. If we are going to quibble over broadness, then that needs to be clarified by the administrators and then I can adhere to whatever their determination is. But it seems like you are arguing for my topic-ban to be broader than what it was originally stated to be. If the goal posts are going to be moved, well okay, but I need to be informed of where they are now. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are broadly in agreement that it's helpful to know where the boundaries lie. I read "broadly construed" as meaning anything related to the matter of Indigenous identity. What's a BLP or not is also relatively broadly construed in its own right. If that's not the case, I am happy to retract and strike my comments. Lewisguile (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More edits here:

  • Created the article Taíno heritage groups – using the language of your prior self-ID articles to say these aren't recognised. (Note that Puerto Rico is a colony, not a state, so there is no formal route to recognition.)

Re: BLPs, also see WP:BLPGROUP: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.

I take your point that some of these are probably not violations, but the point is that they're skirting the issue "broadly construed". As for the Taíno, I have added text to the page you created to clarify. You'll see what I mean. But creating a category to call groups out for not having recognition they cannot obtain does, again, seem to be pointy. Lewisguile (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewisguile So you admit that there probably aren't any violations and everything is only tangentially related if at all, but are still making an issue out of this. Well, that's interesting. The category for Taino heritage groups was actually created before my topic-ban was instituted, not that it matters, because it isn't a BLP anyway. Puerto Rico is a territory, not a "colony". I'm not sure that you are correct that a territory cannot give recognition to a tribe (Why are we debating this here?). But your quibble there is not I didn't give enough context on a newly created article still being worked on, not that there is anything false, because there wasn't. None of the edited articles pertains to "small groups". Name one, if so. It is my understanding that "broadly construed" pertains to BLPs, as I was topic-banned from BLPs. I didn't create the Taino category, by the way, to "call them out". That's a bad-faith accusation. I created the category to make it easier for readers to access articles related to Taino orgs. I think my editing over the past month has demonstrated my intent to adhere to the topic ban, as I have stayed away from the BLPs. I supposed it would be possible to quibble broadly enough to make the argument that any Native-related edits "tangentially" relate to BLPs in some way. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that there probably aren't any violations I didn't say that. I said some may be tangential. I stand by statement that it's helpful to get clarification either way, and have offered to apologise if I'm proven wrong.
As for the Taíno stuff, I have added sources at the relevant article. You will see what I mean there. The legal framework for recognition only applies to the 48 contiguous States and Alaska (and the latter only because they brought in specific rules to do that). Puerto Rico and the USVI are non-sovereign territories with limited ability to officially recognise groups, which is why groups from those islands have been pushing the UN to intervene on their behalf. But I agree we can drop that discussion here.
ETA: Also, it's early and I'm particularly grumpy today. I apologise if my tone in general has caused an escalation. Lewisguile (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this looked at in detail I suggest you bring it to WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Having thought about it some more, I'm happy to leave this for now. I don't have the energy for it and don't want to get into any wikilawyering. @Bohemian Baltimore, I'm sorry for any bother caused. Lewisguile (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bear for you

[edit]
Cmrc23 has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I see you working hard quite a lot. Have this bear as a token of appreciation Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Thanks for the bear, I appreciate any animal in goggles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure what image to use when I made the template, but when I saw this on the commons, I knew it was perfect Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very TaleSpin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.eso.workers.dev/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&oldid=1263787145"