Infinity Knight (talk | contribs) →Greetings: Reply Tag: Reply |
Infinity Knight (talk | contribs) →Greetings: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:::::In the case of this IP, of there were any hint of their understanding the issues with their editing an early unblock could have been in the cards, but the immediate attacks and battleground mentality reinforce my belief that the sanction was correct. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#top|talk]]) 17:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
:::::In the case of this IP, of there were any hint of their understanding the issues with their editing an early unblock could have been in the cards, but the immediate attacks and battleground mentality reinforce my belief that the sanction was correct. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#top|talk]]) 17:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::To be fair, we did notice a constructive contribution from this IP before the block. While I agree that their response to the block wasn't appropriate, when it comes to the dilemma of whether to see newbies as a "waste of editors' time," I'd lean towards administrators trying the "let's provide them with guidance" approach. If we see new editors as a waste of time, how is the topic area gonna attract any fresh contributors? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
::::::To be fair, we did notice a constructive contribution from this IP before the block. While I agree that their response to the block wasn't appropriate, when it comes to the dilemma of whether to see newbies as a "waste of editors' time," I'd lean towards administrators trying the "let's provide them with guidance" approach. If we see new editors as a waste of time, how is the topic area gonna attract any fresh contributors? [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::What I'm getting at is that if we spot a helpful contribution from a new contributor, perhaps it's worth giving it a second look. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 04:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You should also review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom]] for an idea of where it's likely that the sanctions are headed. Non-EC editors shouldn't be contributing in the topic area other than to make constructive comments specifically dealing with article content. They should not be engaging in discussion to establish consensus on content. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#top|talk]]) 17:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
:::::You should also review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom]] for an idea of where it's likely that the sanctions are headed. Non-EC editors shouldn't be contributing in the topic area other than to make constructive comments specifically dealing with article content. They should not be engaging in discussion to establish consensus on content. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#top|talk]]) 17:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::Thanks for sharing the link. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
::::::Thanks for sharing the link. [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:57, 29 October 2023
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre 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 12:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Question from MrHistoryH (22:54, 18 October 2023)
Hello, I'm asking how can you give barn stars (are whatever you call them) --MrHistoryH (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Please block TPA of Iphone 97 for blanking the page repeatedly
Technically they are allowed to blank their page, but a blocked user blanking warnings and notices on it seems to be an abuse of the purpose of them retaining access to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is perfectly acceptable to remove warnings and block notices. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I understand, I wish it were not so or there were some way to apply discretion to it. The vast majority of cases I see of people removing warnings from their talk pages are ... misbehaving editors. It serves to hide their history from the casual observer. I don't remove anything from my talk page (that I can remember, aside from automatic archival) whether it's abuse, trolling, wrongful notices, whatever. It's part of the record. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect presentation of profile data.
Scott, the data presented upon the page set for me is inaccurate and/or incorrect. This false presentation of me is gravely concerning, a violation. I've tried to edit it to make it more accurate yet have been obstructed from making the changes permanent. If my profile can't be accurate & truthful, I would rather the entire entry be deleted. Thank you... TRamthun (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @TRamthun: I would suggest you explain what changes you want made on the talk page and what exactly in the article is inaccurate. As you have been elected to a state legislature, it is almost impossible that your article would get deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's unlikely the article will be deleted, as state reps have presumed notability. I suggest that you use the article talk page to discuss changes and WP:Edit requests to request specific, sourced edits. If there are specific issues with the article or falsehoods that need to be addressed they can be brought up on the talk page or the noticeboard for biographies of living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Some maklube for you!
Some maklube for you! | |
I think you and your friends will love it! Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar | |
You've earned another pair of stripes. Andre🚐 03:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
- Much appreciated, as usual. This is literally impossible to stay on top of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Clarion Fracture Zone 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 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I was just stalking your contributions to see if you had actually gone to BN (slightly disappointed that you didn't, by the way - a true loss for Wikipedia Humour and our collective habit of Taking Things To Far™), and saw your recall conditions.
I wanted to thank you for such a straightforward and clear criteria; they are among the best I have seen.
BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, I've been meaning to respond to this for days, but every time I check Wikipedia there's another spill to mop up and it slips my mind. I appreciate it. I figure it's easy enough, and if I fuck up enough where editors I respect are think I'm a negative and are telling me to drop the mop then I probably shouldn't have it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning
I thought that pointing out the obvious to a user - about assuming good faith - was constructive. I know I'm not allowed to vote on a request for comment proposal, but didn't think that trying to remind someone about how their (somewhat negative) comment comes across would be worthy of a block. Oh well.
I will steer clear from now on. Maybe someone else can let them know about not making assumptions about the intentions of other editors, especially in a contentious topic area like this. 133.106.40.60 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Question from Unnikrishnan07 (11:01, 26 October 2023)
Hi my name is unni krishnan, i am new to this may i know how i need to start ? --Unnikrishnan07 (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Nothing about my TALK page addition was WPwrong
Your https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Lewiston_shootings&diff=prev&oldid=1182082232 is rubbish. Here comes the revert. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you continue to violate WP:BLP you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your UNDO tag of "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" is wrong, unless suddenly CNN is "unreliable" along with the two big-city newspapers. Shutting down a sourced opinion on a TALK PAGE is pretty imperious. But you threaten to block me, so I sit down now in my place. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- That tag was applied automatically to your edit because it contained a link to the Daily Mail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Daily Mail is URS? Okay. Well, there's the CNN. You'll add his name when the appropriate RS threshold is reached, right? You and your bot aren't just reflexively against the name until after conviction, right? At this point, "police are searching for Robert Card" is already a sourced and true statement. Myself, I'm not going to talk in that talk page any further. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- The name can be added when there is consensus to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Daily Mail is URS? Okay. Well, there's the CNN. You'll add his name when the appropriate RS threshold is reached, right? You and your bot aren't just reflexively against the name until after conviction, right? At this point, "police are searching for Robert Card" is already a sourced and true statement. Myself, I'm not going to talk in that talk page any further. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- That tag was applied automatically to your edit because it contained a link to the Daily Mail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your UNDO tag of "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" is wrong, unless suddenly CNN is "unreliable" along with the two big-city newspapers. Shutting down a sourced opinion on a TALK PAGE is pretty imperious. But you threaten to block me, so I sit down now in my place. NelsonExpression (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hickory Wind on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Greetings
Hey there, @ScottishFinnishRadish:! I hope you're cool with me dropping a note on your talk page. I ran into something interesting. I used a reference from this IP editor's contribution, and it looked pretty legit to me. But I might've overlooked something. Can you spot any sketchy edits they made? Infinity Knight (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- [1] [2] right from the top of their contributions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second one seems cool, talking about sources. But for the first one, I would point the new user to WP:NOTFORUM, in my humble opinion. I'm usually down with welcoming contributors who make constructive edits. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second is asking for the sources of the sources. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to look for the evidence used in sources, and it becomes another time sink for extended-confirmed editor to deal with. There has been more NOTAFORUM, and clear battleground mentality. That second diff I find amusing because it came a few moments after a different editor I blocked called me an islamist. The area is under EC restrictions to prevent this type of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- In any big project, whether it's on the web or in the real world, there's gonna be some lingo, an inside vibe, and a learning curve. Fresh faces need some guidance, 'cause what's clear to the pros might not be so obvious to the newbies. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- However, in this topic fresh faces should not be editing unless it is constructive contributions to talk pages. This is unconstructive, uncivil, and a waste of editors time. The ECR sanction was called draconian by Arbcom when they implemented it, but did so anyway because the community was at its wit's end dealing with the disruption. I'm not surprised that it looks draconian to other editors.
- In the case of this IP, of there were any hint of their understanding the issues with their editing an early unblock could have been in the cards, but the immediate attacks and battleground mentality reinforce my belief that the sanction was correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, we did notice a constructive contribution from this IP before the block. While I agree that their response to the block wasn't appropriate, when it comes to the dilemma of whether to see newbies as a "waste of editors' time," I'd lean towards administrators trying the "let's provide them with guidance" approach. If we see new editors as a waste of time, how is the topic area gonna attract any fresh contributors? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- What I'm getting at is that if we spot a helpful contribution from a new contributor, perhaps it's worth giving it a second look. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, we did notice a constructive contribution from this IP before the block. While I agree that their response to the block wasn't appropriate, when it comes to the dilemma of whether to see newbies as a "waste of editors' time," I'd lean towards administrators trying the "let's provide them with guidance" approach. If we see new editors as a waste of time, how is the topic area gonna attract any fresh contributors? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- You should also review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom for an idea of where it's likely that the sanctions are headed. Non-EC editors shouldn't be contributing in the topic area other than to make constructive comments specifically dealing with article content. They should not be engaging in discussion to establish consensus on content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing the link. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- In any big project, whether it's on the web or in the real world, there's gonna be some lingo, an inside vibe, and a learning curve. Fresh faces need some guidance, 'cause what's clear to the pros might not be so obvious to the newbies. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second is asking for the sources of the sources. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to look for the evidence used in sources, and it becomes another time sink for extended-confirmed editor to deal with. There has been more NOTAFORUM, and clear battleground mentality. That second diff I find amusing because it came a few moments after a different editor I blocked called me an islamist. The area is under EC restrictions to prevent this type of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The second one seems cool, talking about sources. But for the first one, I would point the new user to WP:NOTFORUM, in my humble opinion. I'm usually down with welcoming contributors who make constructive edits. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Please explain why you abruptly indefinitely blocked me from 2023 israel-hamas war page?
Please explain why you abruptly indefinitely blocked me from 2023 israel-hamas war page? i was only active on talk page and i didnt violate any policy.it seems more like a case of WP:idontlikeit Mindhack diva (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- [3] [4] [5] all demonstrate unconstructive edits in the ARBPIA topic area. Editors who are not extended-confirmed are prohibited from editing in the topic area except for constructive comments on the talk pages. As you have violated that, you have been blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)