User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Request: Larry Sanger Talk Page.

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)

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

ANI discussion

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)

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

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)

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

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)

I had to laugh

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)

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)

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

Sock question

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)

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)

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

Continued DE

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)

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

Topic ban

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)

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

Involved editors

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Learnings from Malacca Dilemma and Shit flow Diagram

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)

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)

Lots of rule-violating categories by User:Bohemian Baltimore

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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)

Immediate extra protection

@ScottishFinnishRadish The Russian vandal farm in Randolph Bresnik is getting out of hand. I already requested extra protection at RPP; please immediately protect the page. BengalMC (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Then they'll move to a different article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Itsekiri people 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) 18:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Page protection applied to College Democrats of America

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish

You recently protected College Democrats of America following an edit attempt regarding Steven Bonnell. The material I proposed is cited to a reliable news source (The Times of India) reporting on a public event.

The edit regarding Steven Bonnell is factual, accurate, and fully supported by a reliable, mainstream news source (The Times of India). This is a documented public event, not an off-wiki personal dispute or unsourced vandalism.

Locking the article to suppress verified reporting violates Wikipedia's core policy of neutral point of view and misapplies WP:PROTECT, which is meant strictly to prevent persistent vandalism, not to shield articles from reliably sourced facts. The protection should be removed.

The protection request was approved in just 10 minutes, completely ignoring the facts I presented against it. ~2026-41734-58 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The source you provided supported that one streamer was reacting to social media posts alleging one thing. Tabloid coverage of that sort is unacceptable for material about a living person. As this pattern of editing has continued for some time I protected the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The Times of India is an established secondary news outlet, not a tabloid, and satisfies WP:RS.

Reporting a publicly covered news event cited to a mainstream source does not violate WP:BLP and mischaracterizing a reliable secondary source as "tabloid gossip" to justify locking the page misuses WP:PROTECT, which is meant for vandalism, not for overriding reliable sources or settling content disputes.

Furthermore, the opposing editor broke the Three-Revert Rule WP:3RR and requested page protection to bypass talk page discussion entirely. ~2026-41734-58 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to request a review of my action at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This is your notification for the review opened in Wikipedia:Administrative action review#c-~2026-41734-58-20260805160900-August 2026 Full page protection for disruptive editing by ScottishFinnishRadish ~2026-41734-58 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

About a recent CU block

Is Someone123IlovePizza (talk · contribs) the same editor? All three triggered the filter at Animator vs. Animation.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Didn't see them when I looked. That looks like the type of article that attracts that type of editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)