User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Could you add

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 23:59, 31 December 2199 (UTC) -->

to User talk:Larry Sanger#Page protection?

You can check with him, but I don't believe that Larry would want his final statement to be autoarchived. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've asked him and he doesn't really care. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

SFR, I was pinged regarding this ANI discussion. As I'm not the subject of the ANI am I correct in assuming any ANI related exemptions do not apply and I should not participate? Springee (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Correct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

SFR, I assume I am allowed to reply to the ARBCOM case. It's a bit overwhelming to sort through both the ANI and the ARBCOM case comments (and the two joejobs). Regardless, I want to confirm. Thanks. Springee (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah, you can make a statement at the case request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I consider you and Anastrophe involved parties since you were named in Thebiguglyalien's opening paragraph. As such, I have commented on both of you, so you may wish to participate in the discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I stumbled upon the continuing edit-war at Pope Alexander VI, which led me to House of Borgia.

I noticed you blocked user:Johnsofcoppers689 and I'm seeing some similarities in the editing pattern of user:Alexjonssss.

• editing pattern Johnsofcoppers689.
• editing pattern of Alexjonssss.

• Johnsofcopper689 paragraph addition.
• Alexjonsss paragraph addition. You'll have to scroll down.

I didn't think this was enough information for an SPI, so I thought I'd let you know so you could keep an eye on it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the heads up. Confirmed, blocked and tagged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 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.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 16:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:Larry Sanger, who was blocked indefinitely for off-site canvassing over another issue at WP:SANGERBAN, also tried to dilute the Epoch Times RFC over whether it should be described as "far-right" by advertising it to his 96k followers on his rather conspiracy laden X account.

Also there has not been much scrutiny of single-purpose accounts per WP:SPA. User:ClifV had previously tried to push the same views, and was previously blocked and unblocked due to some unconfirmed sockpuppet allegations. ~2026-40495-85 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

If Sanger was actually attempting to influence the RfC, I'd have to suggest that there is little in the way of evidence to suggest that it had any effect. Probably, in my opinion, because the majority of Larry's Twitter/X followers aren't interested in him as anything beyond a convenient and impressive-sounding ('founder') critic of Wikipedia. Other than the usual help desk/talk page gripes from the same ill-informed narrow clique of politically-motivated serial whingers who've been complaining about Wikipedia 'bias' for decades, but have never taken Larry up on his many attempts to create alternatives, we've seen nothing of consequence. Best ignored... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

There were three !votes after his tweet, two for far right, one for naturally described as. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have always added sources from civil aviation, since I am a nerd of anything that deals with traveling through air. They block me and since then the routes are incomplete, I draw attention 😔 ~~ Diogo sfreitas (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, I saw in my inbox that an unnamed account replied to a thread of mine on the user HistoryOfIran's talk page. I see you blocked him, and I would like to know what he said exactly, and if his IP corresponds to the two accounts that I accused of sock puppetry in the topic. If not possible, that's fine, maybe summarize what he said instead. Arielsigurmundur (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The diff is revdel'd so I won't be revealing what was in it. The TA is unrelated to your sock concerns. I've placed some blocks to deal with your concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Would you please look at Alex Clare-Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? BeyondBinaries91 who seems to be claiming to be Alex Clare-Young is removing potentially inaccurate content which may be out of date. I added an archive of [3] which was 404.

You've reached out, as have I, so now we just have to wait for some communication. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for all your work! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No worries, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Adakiko, just noting I've nominated the article at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Clare-Young. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello! I don't spend a lot of time looking at WP:ANI, but I'm following a discussion there now. Some editors with temporary accounts have posted in the discussion. Is that normal, so to speak? And if yes, do admins give their comments less weight than those of signed-in editors? Although I'm fine with TA editors contributing to articles, and I'm generally willing to reply to their article talk page posts, having them participate in ANI discussions is another matter. To me they're just some anonymous person on the internet, as opposed to a Wikipedean with an established editing history. Anyway, I guess you're kind of busy, but if you have any thoughts on this, and/or links to relevant guidelines, feel free to reply. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia:Unregistered editors are human too. There is no requirement to have an account to take part in discussions at ANI or pretty much anywhere else that isn't covered by WP:ECR. There are a lot of TAs/IP editors that are long term and constructive, and they're members of the community as much as anyone else. I can't speak for how all admins handle their input in different discussions, but I normally give a quick sniff test to check the likelihood of shenanigans and weigh based on that and their arguments. In certain types of discussions, e.g. cban discussions, or topics that see a lot of socking/block evasion I'm likely to downweigh TA/IP responses if I can't find any connection to constructive editing history. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I see. Thanks for explaining. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not a problem. I just want to reiterate that this is how I handle it when closing discussions, and I'm sure there are other admins that handle it differently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your help at Lily Collins. However, the page has been subjected to egregious vandalism for a very long time, a period of years in fact. The most recent protection was three years in length and expired only a few months ago. See the page's protection history. Would you please extend the length of the semi-protection you just put in to a longer duration based on these factors? I'm afraid to admit it , but I believe its necessary. Españiolo (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Bumped to 5 years. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Could you kindly restore my version of the page? Per my comment here , it has much greater demonstrated support - while the only opposition seems to be Sirfurboy himself. Snokalok2 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Additionally, his wider changes to the UK section are not at all supported by consensus, and I don't think they should be crystallized here simply because he got them in just before protection went into effect Snokalok2 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

See WP:WRONGVERSION and discuss it on the article talk page. For the article where the edit war is taking place, not a separate article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2026-41417-92 -- lol

Thanks for all that you do! Bringingthewood (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Arghh! [Runs away.] Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC).Reply

Noticed User:Bunnybun746 was left unblocked when you CU-blocked two socks confirmed to them yesterday, was this deliberate? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just blocked the account. At the time I was looking I wasn't immediately concerned about that account being blocked so it slipped my mind. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It happens! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

After reverting a disruptive edit and subsequently seeing their talk page and the one-week block you issued 7 days ago, I wanted to let you know re: User talk:Coffee Femboy67. --TonySt 03:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Blocked for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi SFR,

I've created Discussion+, which among other things can be used to submit AE reports. As part of this, I created User:BilledMammal/DiscussionPlus/AE templates.json, which is used to populate the list of sanctions or remedies that the user can request be enforced.

However, I've omitted one sanction, as I think including it would technically be a violation of my topic ban. Would it be acceptable for me to add it to that json file? BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Regarding this comment: did you mean to say "uninvolved editor or admin" and "uninvolved editors"? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your intent. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I sure did. My phone probably thought "no one actually says uninvolved" and changed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fixed, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

My mind kind of skipped over the first reference, but on the second one, I starting trying to puzzle out if you really meant that it was a good thing if more involved editors became aware of the discussion. Thanks for the update! isaacl (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's one of those things to self copyedit, because as you say, it's easy for our minds to skip over it because we're familiar with what it should say. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello!

I'm reaching out because I read through your process for the articles you wrote where were near similar to mine but it seems it was done at a different time where perhaps the policy wasn't there. I fleshed out my process in Talk:Jesus in the Baháʼí Faith. I already got the notice from the AI Noticeboard and have agreed to have the article go through community vote in AfD which I'm worried no one will see how much effort was put into it and rather blindly vote against it (which is why I made my process transparent in Talk to make it public and known).

I saw your conversation in Village Pump, but I'm not at all familiar with how to drive for a better policy to extend the use of AI in the same way you and @Just-a-can-of-beans have suggested. Should I just include my thoughts in the Village Pump?

I've done a lot of work within the realm of updating random articles on Wikipedia for the greater good like Ladang Geddes and Charles Malfray and more, but I have no idea how to navigate against the current AI policy other than hope for the policy to improve/expand to accommodate editors who genuinely want to use AI carefully and for good as newer/better evidence/information becomes present about them.

Sorry for the big blurb, but I don't know who else to reach out to about this... ABehjat (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

At this point there is no allowance for using AI to create article prose, so you should put a pause on that until and if the policy changes. The RFC ran for a very short time, was listed at CENT for 4 and a half days, and AI/LLM/LRM are advancing significantly. The most effective thing you can do is share your views in your own words at community discussions on the topic to help determine community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It has come to my attention that this user has been creating many categories violating WP:OCEGRS, basically all subcategories in Category:Fictional transgender characters and Category:Fictional bisexuals would fall under this. As you were the admin that previously topic banned them from a different area of the encyclopedia, I thought it should be brought to your attention. It's honestly so much I don't know where to start dealing with the disruption. They seem to be a longterm editor, so they should really know this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Zxcvbnm There is no mention of OCEGRS applying to fictional characters on that page. In recent years, in part due to a large increase in LGBTQ+ articles on Wikipedia, many specific sub-cats relating to specific letters of the LGBTQ+ umbrella have been created. I have continued work that editors such as @User:ForsythiaJo, @User:JeffSpaceman, @Pyxis Solitary, @Fadesga, and others have created. Some examples being Category:Lesbian-related films by country, Category:Gay superheroes, Category:Gay-related television shows, and Category:Lesbian plays. The categories I have created for film, literature, and comics are in the same vein. Why would LGBTQ be a meaningful intersection with these topics, but not the actual letters within LGBTQ? Categories such as Category:Fictional gay men in television have over a hundred articles. This greatly improves navigability for readers who may want to read and research specifically lesbians or specifically trans women or specifically bi women. It's not trivial and would be a loss for Wiki to not have any sub-level categorization for LGBTQ+related media. Whatever policy we establish for such categories, I would hope we'd have a consistent standard and the standard applies to all of us across the board. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Is there a reason it would *not* apply to fictional characters? Perhaps text clarifying as such should be added. I think it would apply to fictional characters for the same reason it applies to real people. Anyway, going ahead and making huge numbers of categories simply because you think the policy should not cover fictional characters would appear to fall under WP:POINT. It's something a typical person would ask about first and do due diligence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because fictional characters are not people and it is a policy regarding people? I did not say I created any categories to "make a point". I did not. Please assume good faith. Many of these cats, like Category:Gay superheroes, already existed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think that then there needs to be some guidance on whether it applies to fictional characters or not because they are "not real people". Even without that they are inappropriate categories falling under WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This discussion needs to happen somewhere where the community can weigh in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish Would the LGBTQ+ studies WikiProject be suitable? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was thinking one of the categorization talk pages, but I don't do much with categories so I don't know where you'll get the best engagement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Zxcvbnm I agree there should be guidance. I've paused my editing on the topic until that can be clarified. I disagree that all of these sub-cats are prohibited by WP:NARROWCAT. The policy allows for such cats as long as "both parent categories are large enough for diffusion to be an option". Many have dozens of articles. However, if I prematurely created categories that cannot be properly populated, those should be merged. The policy doesn't state how many articles is sufficient. I'd lean towards maybe 7 or more articles being sufficient? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I read WP:OCEGRS. Indeed, there is no mention of OCEGRS applying to fictional characters. And I agree with Bohemian Baltimore's statement that the creation of these categories greatly improves navigability for readers who may want to read and research specifically lesbians or specifically trans women or specifically bi women. Wikipedia is intended for the general public reader, and making information easier for John Q and Jane Q to find should not be considered a problem. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – nevah queer. 10:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:C. K. Raju 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.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 10:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply