User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk (and below there I have another call for collaboration) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Another cantata turned 300, Mache dich, mein Geist, bereit, BWV 115. Another bio is nominated for RD, Walter Jacob, a rabbi who created the first rabbinic seminary in Central Europe after the Holocaust, in Germany of all places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope you followed reading to a rich day. Today a caricature, for a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This invitation says 10-15 minutes and the survey says 15-20 minutes. Also, the next button is like 100 miles from the options you choose from. 1 star, still pregnant. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback about deletion on my entries/comments

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, it has been deleted my comments to another user that actually asked me to explain better some changes in this talk page. I am not sure but apparently he asked about this deletion. Everything seems to be about the changes that I added to a page without any problem but deleted without any explanation. Without an explanation it can only be understood as a censure. All the changes that I did are explained, all the information provided has sources. You also deleted something in the Talk page of an user that explicitly asked me to write there about the topic, it was not my initiative, it was his/her request. I think that at least the users that tried to revert changes in the page should explain properly why, as Rv unsourced; POV crap is not an explanation. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already responded on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw that you also hide all the information in the talk part of the page. If you see may last changes were basically "typos" that I corrected. Nothing more. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already reached out to you about this on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you but honestly, I don't see that my contributions is anymore more than an explanation of changes I did in the page and a justification of them. If you see other Talk pages in Wikipedia the contributions are similar. I would like to know better what I am doing wrong. Thank you. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, as probably you know another person has reverted all the changes without any debate. He said: Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions by non-EC editors, however (1) the review has been discussed extensively and it is in the talk page, (2) all the information has sources indicated and it is not propaganda, (3) the idea of POV addition has been also discussed and I think refuted. If you are taking care of this page, I think that at least you should monitor that these changes are done according to the rules of discussion in Wikipedia to achieve a consensus and not in the way this person has proceed. Again, everything had sources indicated and they are accessible, and everything has been properly explained for discussion. I don't understand the statement: Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Until you are extended-confirmed this shouldn't concern you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As a reader of Wikipedia, I am concerned. I can't discuss because I am not EC, but of course this concerns us all. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah tunnels

Thank you for sorting all of that out; I should've checked for EC status and dealt with it accordingly, but we live and learn. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. There's a lot to keep track of, so don't sweat missing something from time to time. Happens to all of us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The status of EC should be made known to those like me who were not aware of this. I make it known that a person has reversed all the changes saying: Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions. I believe that the changes have been discussed at length on the Talk page, that sources have been given for everything that has been commented on and that it has been refuted that it is a non-neutral POV. I don't have the possibility of debate on this topic, but you have and at least recognize that words Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions are inappropriate in this situation. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You cannot discuss this topic on the English Wikipedia, even on editor talk pages. If you continue to violate WP:ECR you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not discuss in this topic. I just noticed you a change. Please threatening with block from editing is not a way to solve things. I think you have the possibility of delete my comments if you dislike as you did before. But here I don't think there is a violation of WP:ECR. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You are discussing edits to content that falls under WP:ECR. Such discussion is not allowed until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not mention anything specific about the topic, just a general statement that can be applied to any page where there is an edit saying something that contradicts what the talk discussion said and the information other users provided. Nothing more. AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish:, in this article you instated a short semi-protection. I had some discussion going on in the talk page about a contentious passage that you semi-protected. I'm just wondering if you are for or against the passage staying? Or did you only semi-protect because of the rapid reversion rate? I am not very familiar with this aspect of Wikipedia so I appreciate some small clarification.

96.36.47.50 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I protected because of the WP:BLP violations and vandalism. I haven't looked at the talk page in any detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish:, can you lift the expired semi-protection from the article? 96.36.47.50 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Done by another user, thanks. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Close protection request

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish just wondering if you could close my request for protection in relation to October 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran as I believe you protected it just from stumbling on to the page and not in relation to my request. Also could you protect the talk page I think talk pages are only semi-protected to allow for edit requests but not sure. Thanks Brandon Downes (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Closed. We don't protect talk pages unless there is disruption. I'll keep an eye on it for a bit, but if there are a lot of ECR violations feel free to request semi or ec protection at RFPP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Agh ok I didn't know that I thought they just fell under the contentious topic in some form. Thanks for letting me know and for closing the request! Brandon Downes (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

User in violation of a TBAN

I'm contacting you since you enforced the original ban and I don't really feel like this needs to go to AE. User:Peckedagain recently made this edit which I believe is in violation of their topic ban. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked a week. That was their 7th edit after acknowledging their topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,

I was reverting an edit by an IP account from last week and saw on their User talk page, User talk:2A0A:EF40:C9:E901:7E8B:B517:31EA:EEF7, that you had imposed a block on them. But when I looked at their block log, there is no block listed. In fact, they have never been blocked. So, did you post this message and then change your mind? Or did you actually do a range block? I only see one edit that might have provoked a block and you seemed to have posted that talk page message immediately after that edit had been made and before it had even been reverted which is very very quick so I wonder how you even saw it. So, color me puzzled. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the /64, which would be really nice if it showed in the log. [1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I've opened a community wishlist request for this at m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Display range blocks that impacted single IP address block logs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Block appeal by IdanST

Hi SFR, just providing formal notice of the appeal on AE by User:IdanST, copied over per your request. The thread is here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Reversion on comments in talk pages

For unexplained reasons, you've reverted (wiped out) two of my comments made in the talk pages, one of which I took a reasonable time to formulate and did not violate any guidelines. First, I would like to state that I don't appreciate the trigger-happy censorship and "we don't owe you any explanation" attitude. This is an open forum. If users feel that some shadowy gatekeeper is going to decide arbitrarily who gets a say and who doesn't, then nobody should waste their time on this website. So, respectfully, I would like an explanation. Viktorzoi (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You are confused, Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM), open or otherwise. Nor do you have any freedom of speech here (WP:FREESPEECH). This is just a statement to clear up your confusion, I have not taken a look to see if the reverts of your comments themselves. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It does look like you've been violating the contentious topic restrictions, Viktorzoi, the ones you were warned about on your talk page. You are not permitted to edit about the Arab-Israeli conflict at this time. Any cases of you doing so should be reverted. There are more details on your talk page, including links you are obligated to read. --Yamla (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Commemorative Air Force 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 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy

Can you see here [2] please? Andre🚐 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ... point out that everyone in this topic area is on edge. Everyone is all about the assuming bad faith. Can I suggest that perhaps if folks don't want to be met with incivility, that folks start out by going the extra mile - instead of beginning the discussion with "Your repeated accusations of tendentious, disruptive, and gaming are incivil. A veteran editor should know ..." which instantly puts the person reading the statement on the defensive, instead try "I'm not trying to be disruptive and/or tendentious, and I regret that you found my actions so. How can we try to resolve this issue without turning it into a bunch of back-and-forth-accusations?" I know that's like a pie-in-the-sky dream, but trying to extend some good faith towards others would at least not instantly start things out adversarial. Can we TRY, at least? Ealdgyth (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the discussion was here. As far as I know, my actions have been normal wiki discussion, nothing tendentious, gaming, or disruptive. As you say, there are strong opinions in this topic area, but you're asking me to extend further than is merited here. I don't think AGF extends to justifying evidence-free aspersions. While I appreciate Ealdgyth's attempt to cool the temperatures, I do not think my message to Nableezy was incivil or aggressive. Nor do I think it's appropriate to turn this around and try to claim that my demeanor is somehow to blame for Nableezy's incivility. I'd like for SFR to let me know or if he doesn't want to, I suppose I'd need to open an AE? Or is Nableezy simply allowed to make aspersions and falsely accuse me of disruptive editing and tendentiousness and gaming the system and I just have to take that in stride because he is 'on edge'? Andre🚐 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm on record as not wanting to eat these shit sandwiches alone anymore, so AE is the venue for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The tendentiousness is in making people have the same argument multiple times across multiple pages while also demanding that what does not have consensus, and has an RFC established consensus against including in the lead of a related article, remain in the article. Ive provided evidence for my claims, making them not "aspersions". Im not making false accusations, Im saying that X, Y and Z actions are disruptive and tendentious. So is restoring factually untrue material to the lead of an encyclopedia article like you did here. nableezy - 21:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 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 04:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

DFW

To maintain my pledge to you, you might want to check out the activity at their talk page since the block... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove their page from your watchlist. They can dig their own hole without anyone's help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Eep, it seems I lost my protection with that action, not worth creating a new section though. If you don't mind restoring? - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

ECR alert edit request details

Hi SFR, how is this for a message informing user's of AI-ABECR regulations regarding what kind of edit requests are allowed?

"To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for very specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z."

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not bad. I've been thinking of adding something similar to the welcome template I made to make it clear that it applies to talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I would include some phrasing that this includes articles that are not inherently about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here is a suggestion:

"To edit in the Arab-Israeli topic area on Wikipedia (including articles that are not primarily about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the edit involves the Arab-Israeli conflict), accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages. The sole exception being specific talk page edit requests, that are in the form of "change x to y for reason z." The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

{{welcome-arbpia}} has language along those lines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA violations

New user was alerted, yet later made these two edits in contravention of WP:ECR. Left guide (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. The bigger problem I see is that the Thom Yorke article has continued to become a magnet for IPs and new users (some who haven't been alerted yet) making apparent Arab-Israeli conflict related edits due to that recent incident. Would you mind taking a closer look at the page history and considering applying temporary ECP? Left guide (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Gave it 3 months ecp. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Burned Toast

Thanks for the block. Only reason I didn't make it was I was going to let them bring it on themselves. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

After I checked their edits I was well past the end of the coil. Even AGFing on the Antisemite userbox, WW2 was a mistake userbox, and German history userbox in close proximity I figured it wasn't worth any more editor time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

EC Gaming

Special:Contributions/Zlmark. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS (talk page watcher) I don't get it. Did Zlmark edit EC gaming at some point? Do you have an issues with the edit(s) Zlmark is making related to EC Gaming? Please explain. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

They made hundreds of minor edits over the course of a few days then immediately moved to ARBPIA editing. This type of editing has been seen as gaming in multiple discussions at AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I didn't know that this is considered "gaming" - a while ago I was told by @Selfstudier that I need to make 500+ edits in order to be allowed to do ARBIA editing, but I had no idea that doing minor edits, requested in the CW project, is considered to be illegitimate way to gain those permissions. Zlmark (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zlmark: what was the purpose behind the hundreds of minor edits? M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said above - the purpose was to qualify for EC permissions, but I had no idea that there are some limitations/reservations regarding the kind of edits that are permitted.

So when I saw some other people doing minor edits requested as part of the CW Project, on the pages that I contributed to, I thought that it could be a win-win for everyone - Wikipedia gets some routine maintenance work done and I get the opportunity to contribute to the pages I'm interested in. Zlmark (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

the purpose was to qualify for EC permissions... I get the opportunity to contribute to the pages I'm interested in therein lies the issue. In your opinion, does this approach violate the spirit of the rule? M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it does, because as far as I understand it, the idea is to prevent disruptive editing by filtering out random users and guarantee that only the more serious and committed people are allowed to edit articles on more polarizing topics.

In my experience, doing 500 edits - even minor ones, such as requested in the CW project - is a lot of work that requires a high level of commitment, and as such should be sufficient in order to qualify for EC permissions. Zlmark (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

random users what's your definition of a "random user"? M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone who stumbles upon a specific page and tries to makes some changes without having a good enough understanding of Wikipedia quality criteria and proper editing process. Zlmark (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that making hundreds of minor edits (for the sole purpose of becoming EC) would give someone "a good enough understanding of Wikipedia quality criteria and proper editing process"? M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Not making hundreds of such edits, all and by itself, but the very willingness to do this work does demonstrate, in my view, a level of commitment that would guarantee a steep learning curve. Zlmark (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a good enough understanding of Wikipedia quality criteria and proper editing process", and therefore, you shouldn't edit any article that is related to the contentious topic. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that conclusion doesn't follow from what I said.

I said that making hundreds minor edits does guarantee that the person has sufficient understanding, but it doesn't necessarily imply that they don't.

And it also leaves us with a practical question - if the number if edits is no longer considered to be a sufficient for getting the EC permissions, what criteria should be used instead? Zlmark (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and so do the comments above.

Are you now suggesting that you are experienced? M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? And which comments are you referring to?

As to your question - yes, I do think that I have sufficient understanding of the quality criteria and editing process to be able provide useful contribution to the contentious topic.

I understand that you disagree, which brings us back to the practical question I raised earlier - how do you determine if someone is "experienced" or not? Zlmark (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The part about the conclusion (which is contradicted by everything you said).

yes, I do think that I have sufficient understanding.. based on what experience? I noticed that Sean.hoyland asked you the same thing on your talk page.

how do you determine if someone is "experienced" or not? how do you determine if a random editor is experienced or not? M.Bitton (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

But this is exactly the question I asked you myself - how do you measure experience?

Are you necessarily more "experienced" after making 500 edits, than you were after making 100? Wouldn't it make more sense to judge "experience" not based on the number of edits, but, for example, on the quality of the non-minor ones? Zlmark (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not primarily about experience or competence but about preventing bad faith actors (especially sock accounts).

It's more like you have to show that you are a genuine Wikipedia editor and not just here to edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area to wage an ideological battle. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely get the need to weed out bad faith actors, but I don't think that being particularly interested in specific area necessarily implies you are not "a genuine Wikipedia editor".

After all, most of us have areas that we are more knowledgeable/interested in, so it's natural that those areas will get more attention in our function as editors. Zlmark (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

this is exactly the question I asked you myself not when judging those that you described as random editors.

Are you necessarily more "experienced" after making 500 edits you'll answer this question all by yourself after making 500 substantial edits. M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS, @Zlmark, and @ScottishFinnishRadish: I thought for a moment that "EC gaming" was a sport or video game. Feel free to chuckle at my expense. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Restoring EC permissions

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish, earlier today you revoked my EC permissions due to what you considered to be "gaming".

As I explained earlier, I didn't know that doing a lot of minor edits requested in the CW project is viewed as "gaming", and obviously I wouldn't have done it, if I knew it's considered to be problematic.

Now, I'm trying to understand what I can do to correct this misunderstanding and regain the EC permissions - looking forward to your response.

Thanks.

Zlmark (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR exists for two primary reasons. The first is to increase the burden on the enormous amount of bad faith actors in the topic. Making hundreds of minor edits as quick as possible specifically to bypass the protection on the topic area is one of the behaviors that we look for to detect those bad actors.

The second reason is to ensure that editors have a base level of experience in editing, as there are many land mines an editor can stumble into. This leads to avoidable sanctions on the new editor, as well as disruption to the already precarious editing environment. Making hundreds of minor edits as quick as possible specifically to bypass the protection on the topic area is one of the behaviors we look for to prevent that disruption.

When you've made a few hundred more substantial edits I would not object to the restoration of your extended-confirmed permission. You can request the return of the permission at WP:PERM/EC, although it is unlikely that an administrator will unilaterally restore the permission. You could also request a review of my action at WP:AN. As I've mentioned, my action was based on how those discussions generally turn out, and I believe my action falls in line with community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your elaborate response - it does help me to understand the logic behind your decision.

It's still not completely clear to me what objective criteria should I rely on in deciding when to request the return of the permissions - the 500 edits criteria is very clear and transparent, but now we've established that it's not considered to be sufficient, and "substantial edits" sounds somewhat subjective, so I'm wondering how can I - and subsequently the administrator who may review my request - would determine whether particular edits are counted as "substantial" or not.

I'm asking because getting the EC permissions is important to me and I'm willing to do the work that needs to be done in order to earn them, but I just need more clarity about the nature if the work. Zlmark (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say that knowing when you've made enough substantial edits to request the permission will demonstrate that you should get the permission back. Knowing what edits would be considered substantial is part of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks Zlmark (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't well defined unfortunately. Just contribute and edit non-ECR articles and be patient. Is there a reason you want/need to edit only in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been doing pretty intesnsive fact-checking work around Gaza war during the last year, and in the process encountered a lot of inaccurate information about this conflict - both historical and contemporary - that found its way to Wikipedia.

That what caused me to want to get involved in Wikipedia editing in the first place. Zlmark (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, I myself edit mainly to correct misinformation in the topic area also.

I'll see if I can come up with any advice for you in the next few days, but for now let's end this discussion (which is becoming off-topic / out of place on this admin's talk page). Feel free to start a thread on my talk page about any other questions you may have (though note I'm not an admin or anything of the like).

Thank you, @ScottishFinnishRadish by the way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

thanks Zlmark (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign

Hi! I was recently looking at the page Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign and at the top it says "some are good and some are bad, but they both suck", at least on my end. Assuming this is vandalism, I looked for it in the contents of the page, but found nothing; yet it still shows up. Since you're an admin, I figured you could help me here; could you take a look at the page for me and see if the same thing is happening for you? If it is, could you look into the matter? Thanks 2600:8800:8E04:1700:44B5:A8B8:FE9E:C2BA (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that on my end, but it's possible it was template vandalism that was reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It was. I had to refresh the article page to eliminate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Australia 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 01:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elon Musk on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page protection

This article November 2024 Amsterdam attacks is protected but its talk page is not. Is that normal? Could we get the talk page protected also? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually I guess it can't be protected since people need to be able to make edit requests eh. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If it becomes disruptive enough talk pages can be protected for a short time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Might be a good idea then. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it, but it's a bit borderline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SFR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. One of the issues I'm havingis that this isn't really a primary article of the Arab/Israel conflict so I'm hesitant to move forward with draconian measures if it can be avoided. If it keeps up, though, I'll probably start with semi. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)