User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

January 2022

Your recent editing history at Ariel Fernandez shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Just balancing the meridians Roxy the dog. wooF 16:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Luckily good-faith BLP reverts are exempt from 3RR. Thanks for the warning though, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, That's great, I can revert your e/w edit. Thanks. 16:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy the dog (talk • contribs)

I was going to post the edit warring template myself until I saw this, but you really need to step back from edit warring ScottishFinnishRadish. It is not ok to continue edit warring, even if others are doing it. You add to the disruption too when you do that. It's one thing if someone invokes BLP initially, but given how much edit warring has been occurring, you should be aware WP:BLPREMOVE cautions against what you are doing continuously claiming a BLP exemption Please keep in mind BLP is very clear: Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Right after the page protection was removed is not the time to jump into edit warring again since the policy is very clear not to rely on it to continue such reverts. In reality, that exemption is reserved for very clear cut BLP violations, and more nebulous issues have to be handled like normal content disputes. In this case, no one can blanket remove the content (even if the current iteration didn't include all sources), because much of the events are sourced to the journals themselves, making outright removal not quite square with WP:BLPREMOVE. If someone was going to revert under BLP, such as blogs, they would have to be much more surgical and careful in what they remove instead of the blanket reverts you are doing.

I suggest to undo at least your last revert and let other editors handle things. As seen with other editors already, you are setting yourself up for a block right now, as it really does come across as you trying to "win" an edit war, so it's generally better to deescalate rather than continue an edit war. As someone stepping in from the outside of this topic, I highly suggest you take this caution seriously because your behavior among others was really sticking out as I tried to review the topic. KoA (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel with the current BLPN thread, the clear emerging consensus, and the number of editors with BLP concerns that I am on very safe ground invoking the BLP exception to 3rr and edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that attitude of using BLP as an excuse to edit war is all the more reason why I came here. If you are feeling emboldened to revert (a serious behavior problem), that is all the more reason to deescalate instead of set yourself up for a block. It's still very possible to be disruptive even if others agree with you. Again, please slow down and reflect a bit, because your behavior does not look good to those of us who are uninvolved. KoA (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You may notice that the person who reverted directly after protection expired was page blocked, and the page was protected after I reverted the IP. I am fairly certain we're firmly in BLPRESTORE territory, and I suggest you take part in the already existing discussion at BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not at their talk page saying roughly the same thing because they're already blocked and aren't continuing the reverts. You however, are. WP:NOTTHEM behavior is not ok, which your comment squarely was, and BLPN is not the place to deal with behavior issues. Normally discussion like this is an attempt to stop disruptive behavior without needing sanctions, but doubling down like this doesn't look good if sanctions are pursued either. Like I said before, please take this seriously, as I'm seeing some pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from you that often causes people to react like you are right now when uninvolved editors try to address it like I am. When other editors start seeing a dispute spill over and caution you about your behavior, that's generally a red flag that you need to step back from things like edit warring and let other editors take care of perceived issues instead of you generating more heat. Hopefully you heed that advice so the article can settle down. KoA (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As you mention above, Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. This has been raised at BLPN, and currently it looks like consensus is against inclusion, and as it is still under discussion, and there is a clear good faith objection on BLP grounds, policy states it should not be in the article. I appreciate that you're not relying on templates, and are actually talking person to person, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on reverting the information while it's under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your comments and edit summaries frequently make me laugh out loud in front of those around me, so I thought I'd thank you appropriately for the quality of your jokes and witty remarks. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! They don't always go over as well I hope, but every situation can use a little levity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Word limits at WP:ARC

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. You're using 745 words at WP:ARC. The limit is 500 words, unless you have an extension. You can request an extension on the case request page or by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org, but we generally prefer that you get an extension before going over the limit. In the meantime, you can collapse any parts of your statement in order to reduce your word usage. Please note that the clerks may cut off your statement at the limit at any point. (cc: @ArbCom Clerks: .) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

L235, I was already removing part of it. I'm at 548 words, excluding my response to Enterprisey, is that fine? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I collapsed a bit more, I think I'm good. Sorry about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the edits of Talk:Bigg Boss (Tamil season 5)

Hello,
This is regarding the edits which is used to be done at [[1]] is clearly have mentioned at here. So meanwhile only have to add some small edits which is been already done so far at here. I'm requesting you to just move the edited form of the [[2]] to this so far if you give me permission to edit the Bigg Boss (Tamil season 5) for a few seconds I've would have done it asap.
Thank you.-- The_Featured_Editior 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I'm not familiar enough with the topic to judge if that edit is an improvement or not. You'll have to wait for someone with some familiarity to review the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed section at ARC

In your edit description you wondered how it happened. It happened because I did it as a clerking action. People had replied to your original comments and so hiding those makes following the flow of discussion harder than necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh crap, I'm sorry. If you look a couple sections up you'll see L235 saying you can collapse any parts of your statement in order to reduce your word usage. I'm just trying to follow all the rules and such. Shall I uncollapse, and request a word limit extention? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

For your valiant efforts, I am privileged to grant you my highest honor: a {{minnow}}. May your battles in the fields of edit histories forever extend themselves in a most civil of manner and collapse all stone walls. <3 A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw my uncollapsing as a defacto grant of a word limit extension and the clerks understood it as such. I see you've undone it as well. Thanks for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I must have just missed the clerking action on my watchlist, and I was having a dog of a time getting it to work in the first place, since I was editing on a phone and using Discussion Tools, or whatever it's called. Turns out a colon in front of the cab template breaks it. I thought I just fucked something up again. Glad it's all worked out now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep maintaining it boss

		Humor Barnstar!
		Your comment on COIN made me laugh, and from ur username, page, to ur edit summaries, man thanks for being a good sport. Cheers.

Tame (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure which comment, because I say a lot of dumb stuff. I think my best comment recently was this, though it wasn't terribly well received. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Requests

Just an FYI, when you respond to an edit request, make sure you flag it as answered, otherwise it will still show up as a request that is pending. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Did I miss one? Happens from time to time, but considering I've answered in the thousands of edit requests I think my flagging it answered rate is pretty high. Normally, if I see one answered but not flagged, I just swap the flag for the user. Thanks for the heads up though, I'll keep an eye out and try and make sure I swap the flag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request : Hi, I think I have met your requests for: "These need reliable secondary sources, showing they are notable examples." on the Jeffrey Dahmer Page (Media -> Music) : Talk:Jeffrey_Dahmer

could you please have a look? thanks in advance. H8eternal (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Help Me Plz

Help Me Plz عِظْمَت (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would need details about what assistance you need. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Day

Im very dumb plz help me, I want to learn how to edit, I have sources عِظْمَت (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you ignoring my request

I just made a request with a source, from the International Monetary Fund about 2022 Iran GDP (Nominal) estimate, you are obligated to change it, Iran GDP (Nominal) is $1.14 trillion now, it is not $611 Billion, I hope you are not an Enemy of the Article of Iran, or the Iranian People عِظْمَت (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not obligated to make any edit, and my enemies are prominently listed on my user page. I looked at your source and did not see that number mentioned, but I did see a 2 percent gdp growth figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish revisiting this now that you've begun your evidence. I probably should have suggested you email me your evidence before posting so I could offer specific advice rather than the general advice offered here by me and echoed by Dreamy. So that one is on me. If the editor is not a party to the case, posting evidence of behavioral issues grouped by by that editor is basically out of scope. Instead presenting diffs of theirs, grouped by a "theme" as in your example at Sharon A Hill, is what I was attempting to indicate was alright and why a ping would not be needed. Posting diffs of editor behavior of named parties is, of course, with-in scope. As such I would ask you to please revise your evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be fine, in that case, to have a subsection labeled for each noticeboard discussion, and have the diffs linked there? It seems like it'll be difficult to show that the area is a toxic morass filled with stonewalling and personal attacks without posting diffs outside of the named parties. Obviously I have no experience with the whole arbcom thing, so I'd really like to get this right, and not eat up your time making dumb mistakes like the one I just did. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As an example, I'd see this as a bad edit illustrative of the issues in these BLPs, if I'm going based on article, rather than user. Would that be acceptable if the section were Thomas John (medium)? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Showing patterns of issues either by article title or noticeboard discussion could both be ways to provide evidence with-in scope of the case. But I would also encourage you to think about, given the limited word counts, about where you feel you have the strongest evidence that is going to lead to productive remedies. Simply rearranging the diffs about users into categories that comply with the scope may not be as effective as focusing partially on those and then in more depth to articles/discussions/editors that are at the heart of the case. But it is ultimately your call what evidence you want to submit (as long as it is with-in scope as we're discussing here). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of it was within the last discussion anyway. I actually have very limited experience in this topic area, and my exposure has been pretty limited, although almost always negative. Can you take a peek at my sandbox and see if that's ok? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Having only looked at the organization, I don't see any issues with that format. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: I found it hard to be sure, when reading your evidence, to tell where you were arguing something like "this editor has been disruptive and should be sanctioned by ArbCom" versus where you meant something more like "this is an example of how things have become difficult in this topic area". Perhaps it might be helpful to differentiate that a bit more, because it sort of sounds like you intended everything to be the former. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I did intend to note that a bit, but I'm already running low on words. I plan on responding to your comment at analysis of evidence which might clear things up a bit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom etc.

Hi! I notice diffs of mine have been added by you to the newly-started GSoW arbcom case, which seems odd since I am not a member of GSoW or involved in coordinated editing (which is the case's scope). Or are you implying I am involved in these things? It is unclear. As it happens, I am considering whether to submit evidence also and am looking at the contributions of some of the parties to the case which I am unfamiliar with. For full transparency and to ensure there is no bar to WP:SCRUTINY could you please answer the following question: have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts? Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm just providing evidence that you repeatedly called people witch hunters during discussions. Not implying you're taking part in any coordinated editing. As I've said over and over again, trying to seek out off wiki coordination is silly. In fact, that's the first three diffs in my evidence.

As for the account question, short answer is no. Look back at my talk page history, way back when I first started editing, and my discussion with Spartaz. I did a small amount of ip editing over the years, but really, I'm just the right kind of smart for wiki editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, for your ease, these are the two discussions: [3], [4]. I should really add you genuinely are the most talented and sensible new user that I have ever encountered. I mean no-one ever gets "it" as quickly as you have. to my user page.

ScottishFinnishRadish - they gets "it" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As you rightly say, it's hard to believe! Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I also won the geography bee in 4th, 5th AND 6th grade, all three years I was eligible. How unbelievable is that? The worst part is I got the same dumb National Geographic board game each time I won. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So evidently you didn't mix up Finland and Scotland? I am reassured by your exchange with Spartaz and agree with what they say. Alexbrn (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad that is cleared up. I assume you're still of the mind that I had another account, which I assure you is false, but I guess I'll take not believing that I'm some deep cover operative conspiring to answer edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"I assume you're still of the mind that I had another account" ← not necessarily. Strange that it may seem, there are other ways to "get it" just through observation of what goes on. You, for example, were familiar enough with arbcom cases to advise on 6th January "I'm strongly disinterested in this going to arbcom. Even regular, 'smooth running' cases are a huge time sink for everyone involved."[5] A curious reader is bound to wonder which "smooth running" case(s) you had in mind in reaching this view. Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Smooth running" is in scare quotes because it's something that generally doesn't exist. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine is a recent one that wasn't dealing with off-wiki secret groups, and generally was about on-wiki behavior. Look at the evidence page, and imagine the time that went into that. I'm ignoring any of the off-wiki stuff in the current case, and it's still a time sink, but at this point, in for a penny, in for a pound, right? I can't recall the first Arbcom case I watched unfold, maybe Sexology or the Manning name case, but I've watched several unfold throughout my time as just a reader. I watched the whole WP:FRAMGATE thing unfold as it happened, as well. It was interesting, from a outsider perspective, to watch the sausage get made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly recommend both of you to stop discussing this here. I respect both of you as editors and don't see further discussions here contributing anything but an increase in animosity that will negatively affect the case and your interactions down the line. Alexbrn if you have evidence SFR is abusing multiple accounts or attempting to evade bans it is best you provide that either in WP:SPI, in the case evidence page, and other appropriate channels. Just because they wanted to avoid arbcom doesn't mean they're a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish sometimes your first answer is good enough, and continually replying doesn't make your point clearer or more convincing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the conversation has moved on in an interesting direction, to the running of arbcom cases ("smooth" or not). So ironically trying to bring it backs to socks &c. is what is unhelpful. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually don't feel there's any animosity between Alexbrn and myself. I understand the sock question, see here for a quick explainer to the first person who accused me of being a sock.

Alexbrn and I disagree on some things, and that's fine, people don't need to agree on everything. The evidence I added to the Arbcom case was to illustrate how shitty discussions in the topic area are. I'm not seeking sanctions, or banging a drum against them, just providing diffs to support my assertions. I've been called much worse than a witch hunter on the internet, and it will take more than that for me to add them to my arc-enemies list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Good to know there's no animosity then. :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it takes a special kind of reader to grind through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine months before even having a WP account! I found that case too distressing to participate in (and, as should have been obvious, there was a lot of "history" informing the disagreements on the table). Anyway, it helps explain the unusually "fully formed" appearance of SFR's account in its first edits. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't follow that case super closely, but it's a good example of a regular dispute that the community couldn't resolve, without having super secret cabals invoking dark theurgies to summon coverage that matches their POV into articles. I also saw a lot of the Eric Corbett stuff, although I don't recall if I was following "behind the scenes" stuff as far back as his earlier account. I found it astounding that, on one hand, someone couldn't just stop acting like a curmudgeon, and on the other hand, people couldn't just ignore someone acting like a curmudgeon. From an outside perspective, all the Wikipedia drama is basically just a soap opera in text.

Also, I wasn't quite fully formed. I spent like an hour trying to get the split section template to work right on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, and I have broken the Arbcom case page with my failure to use Template:cob correctly as recently as a few days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm also familiar with wikipediocracy. Feel free to add User:SatanicPresence to your list of tag-alongs blocked for shenanigans around the arbcom case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes: so that makes three confirmed socks stirring things, so far. In your interest in Wiki proceedings, I take it you came across the Rupert Sheldrake affair and its (non-)intersection with GSoW? That bit of history explains a bit about the sensitivities regarding this case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Not as familiar as I am with some other wikihistory, though I do think I remember hearing him on a podcast while I was grinding in Wizardry: Labyrinth of Lost Souls years ago. The only thing I think I remember was him saying that his theories were proven because sometimes you'll think of someone, then your phone will ring and it will be them. Seems like legit science to me. Also, I should probably redirect that article to Wizardry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Did it have any of the D. W. Bradley magic? I played Wizardry I (when it came out, on an Apple][), V, VI, VII and VIII. On Sheldrake, the potted history is that there are users out there, some of whom have a penchant for socking, who have a very big axe to grind with GSoW and all they think who belong to it (a much larger group). Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Eh, it was okay, but like all of the Japanese Wizardries it was just too Japanese to catch the original feel. Also, all the sound effects for voices were in Japanese, so when you were grinding, just running through groups and groups of easy stuff it would sound like hentai with all the grunts and squeals from your characters getting hit. When I was a little'un I was spending a summer away from home, and while I was away I bought Wizardry Gold, which was a fancy "remaster" of Wizardry 8. All summer I sat, reading the manual, planning out my party, and not actually playing. What a brutal summer to spend as a kid, with the video game you're super jazzed to play, and no machine to play it on.

In my massive one year experience of actually editing, I've found that pretty much every topic's potted history is that there are users out there, some of whom sock, and have a big axe to grind with (insert whatever group of wikipedia editors edited the article the care about). That is, to a great extent, why people assumed I had to be a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• two points of note, firstly we don’t hand over any rewards for getting it so the nat geo board game was still a million times better than what you get for helping round here. Secondly, I looked at the possibility of socking closely at the time and had reassurance from a member of arbcom too. SFR has not been linked to any alternate accounts and I have yet to see a bad edit from them and I see them round a lot. Essentially he is either legitimate or a million times cleverer than we are. Either way this isn’t worth anyone’s time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Could I be legitimate AND more clever? It would be a big boost to my self esteem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Repeated diffs/evidence

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish! In the evidence I just submitted to the ArbCom case I think I repeated quite a few diff with regard to Roxy the dog which were already posted by you and/or by A. C. Santacruz. I would actually prefer these diffs not to be repeated if possible, and to be put all together in one section. I believe that the section I posted is the most complete at this point, so you may consider removing the diffs from your sections? We can also move all of them to one of your sections if you believe this to be better. Of course, one or two repeated diffs here or there, if they serve a specific context, would be tolerable. What do you think? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we're trying to prove different aims, and only one diff is repeated in my "doesn't fit anywhere else" Roxy the dog evidence. I prefer to keep my evidence related to specific discussions intact, to give a more wholistic picture that discussions are trash, and mostly because of one side of the "debates." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll remove my general ones (e.g. Roxy calling things a witch hunt) as those are repeated by y'all (IIRC). I'd like to keep the diffs in "Target of harassment/PAs" as it is somewhat necessary they are together to prove a point, but believe y'all should include them as well if they serve y'all's context. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the diffs that were still repeated in my section after A._C._Santacruz's removal. It's better that way both for fairness and for concision. I have maintained a few repeated diffs in my general incivility sections though, because these are indeed about wider context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It's not that I disagree with what you said, but it I'm trying to show one conversation was horrible, I think it's better to have all that conversation's diffs together. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Somehow not just being much cleverer than everyone else but also for getting “it” incredibly quicker than anyone else. Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I may be clever, but I still ate half of the GSoW case request with a malformed cat/cab template! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Potentially that was a blessing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't stick it out, and now I'm caught in the undertow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster versus Oxford English

The Merriam-Webster page for "fellows" was coincidentally up on my screen before you posted the link. So was the Oxford English page for "fellows". How was it used? IMO, only the user knows.

As for me, I try to shy away from using certain polysemic words in order to avoid any allegation that I intended gender cache instead of the epicene sense of a word. After so many arguments in which the speaker and audience each claim the higher ground, I'd rather err on the side of caution. It's not always so easy.

E.g., a colleague once humorously called another a "fop." I knew that word solely in its archaic sense of "numbskull, nitwit, screwball, etc., but the retort was, "Please don't genderize me!" My reaction was, "Huh?" So, I had to look it up. To this day I wonder what minority of people know what "fop" means at all, how many people know its morphology, and who should rightfully assume that Person A is so knowledgeable about arcane vocabulary as to intentionally genderize Person B with such a throwback word?

Anyway, was the intent "fellow" or "fellow"? One thing I know for sure: When Editor A gets wrung out for an ANI after intending formality by referring to Editor B as "my fellow colleague" rather than "they," I most definitely am not going to post anything on either side. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)