User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 2

Hello, I am an employee of the Nizami Ganjavi International Center, and we require that the words ″The Nizami Ganjavi International Center was established within the framework of the "Nizami Ganjavi" year, dedicated to the 870th anniversary of the Persian poet Nizami Ganjavi, who is considered to be the greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, at a special meeting held on 30 September 2012, at the poet's hometown Ganja.″ in the wiki article of our center be marked as Nizami Ganjavi International Center is a cultural, non-profit, non-political organization dedicated to the memory of great Azerbaijani poet, Nizami Ganjavi and to the study and dissemination of his works with a mission to build a dialogue and understanding between cultures and peoples for building functional and inclusive societies.,Nizami Ganjavi International Center (NGIC)^[1] was established in the framework of the order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated 23 December 2011 to celebrate Nizami Ganjavi year, at a special meeting held on 30 September 2012, at the poet's hometown Ganja, within the framework of events were dedicated to the 870th anniversary of the great Azerbaijani poet Nizami Ganjavi. ^[2] . You can find it on the website. The information on the page was changed and keyed by some Armenian and Syrian vandals.Thanks in advance.

Any discussion of article content should talk place at the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

On 12 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shit flow diagram, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supports the creation of shit flow diagrams? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shit flow diagram. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shit flow diagram), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hiya!

As you are aware, I reverted a reversion you did at Talk:The Simpsons. I wanted to you inform you this was done solely on the premise that I was, incorrectly, convinced the addition of the category was justified given the sources within the article. However, upon reviewing the sources and information within the article again, I see I was in-fact incorrect. This is a good example of why the {{Esp}} template explicitly demands the burden of WP:RS is on the requester, and not the reviewer, and is a learning experience for me.

I appreciate the tenacity that you have making sure the semi-protected requests aren't backlogged, and look forward to working with you in that regard for the future.

Cheers! ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Sirdog9002, thanks for the kind words as well. If you ever think I've made an error in handling a request feel free to revert me, it's no big deal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am a Persian wiki user. The article on Flag of Afghanistan includes the flag of the Taliban, while this flag has not yet been recognized. What is the argument or source for this in English Wikipedia? Sorry if I did not speak English well Fakhravar jam (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Fakhravar jam, I haven't actually edited the article, but it seems the rationale is that the Taliban are the de-facto rulers of the country, so their flag is the flag. The other flag is still in the infobox as well. I opened a talk page section at Talk:Flag of Afghanistan#Which flag to show at the top of the infobox but there has been no discussion about it yet. That section is the best place to get answers and argue your points. Hope that helps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much 💕 Fakhravar jam (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I have spent much time creating an article about the term “Spiritual science”, and I have improved it and made it much longer since the last time I put it up - and you just remove it without any explanation. You don´t need to be bound of a consensus from 2006. There needs to be a consensus today. Have you even read the new article?

The term "spiritual science" is widely used in spirituality. There have been 405 page views in the last 30 days. At least you could mark it as a stub and hope that other people contribute.

Please notice that I begin the article with "See also Anthroposophy". Alexandramander (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexandramander, I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page of either the redirect, or Anthroposophy and see if there is a consensus for that fork. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, You can´t have a discussion about an article, if the article is deleted. Please undo your deletion until we have had that discussion. Alexandramander (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

People can still see what you've written in the history. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me to the wholesale removal of that thread. I have to admit that I was regrettable slow to recognize that we should not even have been mentioning his name. Not my best foot forward there. Meters (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Meters, well, it was sourced so I don't even know if it qualifies for revdel, but I figure it's better safe than sorry as the person wasn't ever even charged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Annoyed at myself for gettign sucked into this without realizing how blatant the full situation was. Meters (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Better to AGF, the other option can lead to a lot of unnecessary conflict. Maybe in the future just bring it to a noticeboard or ask someone else to take a peek. I wouldn't beat yourself up over it though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I'm fine. Just a tad embarrassing for someone as experienced as I am to realize that if I had looked further than those three articles it would have been obvious. Meters (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well if a situation like that comes up again feel free to ping me for a fresh set of eyes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did you answer this edit request with the "XY" templated answer? It's quite clear what changes they wanted made. There are certainly other reasons not to perform the requested edit, but the request was clear. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, per the instructions from the template This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". That was a "Please change X" request, as it didn't appear to be written in prose for the article, or actually sourced other than a "just look at her website." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough... I usually avoid using that templated response if it's decently clear what they're hoping to have changed (even verbatim text to add isn't included) just because the reply doesn't make it clear that it was declined because a verbatim X-Y request wasn't included. Maybe the response needs editing, if people are regularly declining requests for that reason, or maybe the template instructions need to be clarified. Maybe I'll put a discussion over there to figure out which. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I've been mulling over editing the edit request response script to add quite a few more responses with a bit more precision. I'm surprised there's not one for WP:NOTAFORUM since at least half of the edit requests I see are just general complaints and the like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that would be very helpful! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If you do start up a discussion I'd appreciate a ping. I handle a lot of edit requests, as they're generally low bandwidth so I can do other things while reviewing them, so I spend a lot of time thinking about them and how the process and tools could be improved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I pinged you, but here's a link: Wikipedia talk:Edit requests#Requiring verbatim suggestions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey man, I'd like to ask whether the Axis power article will see any hope of getting corrected. It's been a good while since I raised the issue.Mazamadao (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Mazamadao, I suggest you continue discussion there, with fewer personal attacks, or start an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I did attack this person's conduct, but not their character. It wasn't a "personal attack", I still have no idea who they are to do such a thing. Their edits were bad, and they were repeated without any sense of self-awareness, and the only comeback the editor had was immature, so I'd rather have nothing "personal" with this kind of bad actor because getting "personal" with them is futile and pointless. If I could just revert the bad edits and let it sink into oblivion, there would've been no attack, personal or otherwise. But so far, it's still there and it's an eyesore. The only thing I could do was get some more attention to this article which has been neglected in this very simple regard. I assure you I found no pleasure wasting my time digging up the name of one ignoramus in the entire edit history.Mazamadao (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish,

Thank you so much for your thorough message regarding the edits I made to this page: ^[1]. Although I was unaware I was in violation of internal policies, I acknowledge that my intent is not the issue here, and I fully accept responsibility for the error. To that end, I was wondering if you might be able to provide guidance as to how/if I should rectify this error? I rely on Wikipedia almost daily and the absolute last thing I want to do is compromise the inherent neutrality and integrity of this site. So do you recommend I remove the edits that I've made or is there another course(s) of action I should take?

Thank you again for flagging this and for your patience with me as I try to navigate this situation and find the appropriate solution.

Kelley Losier (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Kelley Losier, I don't think you have to revert them unless there are objections. I do suggest you declare your conflict of interest on your user page, and in the future use the talk page of the article to suggest edits rather than make them yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi SFR, it could be that this will redirect to the mother ship article. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:98E1:991A:2540:23FA (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you about something. On the DanTDM wikipedia page, you declined someones edit request. They had asked that you change 24 million subscribers to 25 million, and you said no, saying that you needed "reliable sources". Why did you not just go on youtube and check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.219.35 (talk • contribs)

Edit requests should be straight forward edits with references included. They're basically asking a favor for someone to make an edit for them because they haven't put in the time and effort to have access to do it themselves. That's fine, since Wikipedia is basically Project Mayhem, where everyone determines their own level of involvement. However, one can't expect people doing favors to do extra work that the person making the request won't do themselves. In the case of YouTubers, Instagrammers, TikTokers and the like it's even more of an issue because subscriber number shenanigans is very common. Hope that clears things up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are you removing my contributions? Do you get paid by unbox therapy? Why are you removing his controversies which he himself has addressed in his youtube channel? Before removing my content, you could have checked whether the information is real or fake, which in this case is 100% real and that guy has confessed himself. You are just a fake guy removing others controversies to show them in good light. Dare not remove it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg54sg‎ (talk • contribs)

Your edits were removed because they did not include any citations. All content on Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, because if they are not, no one knows if the information is true. It also saves the time of others because they do not have to fact check it theirself. WikiJanitorPerson (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It was fully addressed at User_talk:Cullen328#Regarding Unbox Therapy Lewis hilsenteger ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

In fact, yes, FXX will be beginning to air King of the Hill. Go to TVGUIDE and check it for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperCraig420 (talk • contribs)

Then please provide that source. It's on the person adding content to provide the sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Consensus on well-known biographical data? Seriously? Do you propose to discuss what everyone knows? Anyway, Russian version of the article contains this data and confirming links, just check up. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the Germiyanid talk page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burtigin (talk • contribs)

It's good that the comma was changed to a semicolon, but we still need to add the requested comma after "however".2600:6C44:393F:D20C:65A9:22AC:CBFD:D476 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

All set ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to ask why you keep shutting down these edit requests with the consensus tag. Mentions on the talk page are so numerous at this point that I honestly think we have one. Much of the content I was suggesting we remove is at odds with the historical consensus and a good number of other wikipedia articles. Do you dispute that? Stuff like this is important, and I think it cheapens the evil of known genocides to let politics flood articles and render them inaccurate. ReadingSalmon (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I've started an RFC on the talk page, please discuss there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to send a message to see if you could check on an edit revert I made to Ivan Duque Marquez. It is the most recent change made and I jsut reverted what appears to be an unnecessary addition to his page. Can you check and make sure I did this correctly? I see you've made revisions to the page before and just want to have someone look at it since I'm still new to this. Thank you! Spf121188 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Spf121188, it looks like the revert worked fine, although some of that edit seemed like fairly reasonable copy editing. I assume this is the diff you're talking about? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish Correct, I was mainly concerned about the Presidential Seal that showed up; it seemed a little misplaced on his own page, it seemed like something that should be on the President of Colombia page. If I overlooked anything let me know, still learning. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Spf121188, just a heads up, you don't need to ping me on my talk page, also a ping won't work if you don't sign the post in the same edit as you try to ping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, still learning as I go. Thank you though for the help! Spf121188 (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello ! Sorry to bother you but i forgot to add the source that reveals possible Saudi purchase of the Iron Dome. Here it is.^[2]

PS: Now that i added the source, is that possible for you now to let me edit the Iron Dome page or should i again submit an edit request ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by El Boulboul (talk • contribs)

You'll also need to provide the actual prose that will go in the article. I suggest you write the section that you'd like placed in possible foreign sales, provide that source, and reopen the edit request. You can reopen the edit request by switching the answered=yes in the template back to answered=no. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging El Boulboul. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

So if i understand, i'll click on the request i've made and i'll replace the "answered=yes" to "answered=no" right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Boulboul (talk • contribs)

Yeah, along with providing the full text of the edit you'd like to have made, with the source. Also, in the future, when you post on talk pages please put ~~~~ at the end of your message to sign your post. You can also use colons to indent, which makes it easier to follow a conversation. Any other questions, feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Last question, after replacing the "answer=yes" to "answer=no" and after writing the prose, should I remove your response ? Btw you're really helping me mate, this talk page help me a lot to use Wikipedia better.El Boulboul (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

El Boulboul, you should leave the response, and just reply under it. It's considered very bad form to remove anything from a talk page, except for vandalism, personal attacks and the like. We like to keep full discussions visible, so any one else reading will have context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is not marketing material. This has been researched. Instead of being snarky, why dont you share information on how to submit the changes to be proposed by the community. Again, these edits are being submitted in good faith and I would appreciate a little help in making them stick instead of getting messages from moderators who aren't helpful in the matter.

While I am a paid editor, I am more in line with the views of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cry_COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmith0909 (talk • contribs)

Year after year, Georgia College has made appearances in various categories of excellent education... The school boasts over... students at the college had vibrant social activities and traditions. If you think this type of language isn't promotional or is even slightly close to WP:NPOV or an encyclopedic tone, I don't know what to tell you. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ after your message. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You have recently contributed to this article or its talk page. Please see this discussion on the talk page. You are welcome to take part if you are interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop claiming that well cited additions to pages are vandalism because you don’t personally like the additions. Rather, why not add something constructive and well cited to the page, instead of writing on my talk page as if you are not yourself the pot calling the kettle black by deleting well cited information and flagging the entire page for deletion. --Hudsonmohawk (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this on the article talk page, rather than continuing to edit war. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now we discuss the issue to reach consensus. I do agree that I should have used the "non-constructive edit" rollback in WP:REDWARN, rather than vandalism. For that I apologize. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you practice what you preach: I only wrote on your talk page after you made a false accusation of vandalism on mine. This issue and your bad faith vandalism report and deletion request have been well documented on the articles talk page and the deletion discussion page. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Shutter Island (2010) and The Great Gatsby (2013) throughout the years have grown to be huge fan favorites, wildly popular among the general public and hugely successful at the box office, thus very deserving to be and appear in the lede of Mr DiCaprio's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.181.187 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eritrea 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 21:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bodhidharma on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 07:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Plz avoid disruptive revert as you made here. As your edit summary says and i quote "please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD". Here, plz note that BRD did not applicable here as this is the case of misuse/inappropriate use of BRD , essay on BRD says that and the same i posted on the talk page of TrangaBellam that "BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". the user trengabellam didnt provided any reason for using BRD. DavidWood11 (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The talk is already goingcon the talk page. This is regarding your distruptive revert. Plz avoid DavidWood11 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is discussion going on you should not revert until they're is consensus for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tlalli on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The user who made the changes is the one who should seek consensus for them, at least this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, the Fascist-related categories and template were on the article for years until some user who isn't even interested in discussion decided to remove them, they are the status quo and so should be restored unless there is actually consensus for removing them, not the other way around. -- Special:Contributions/2804:248:f632:a100:79c9:43f6:e340:6133 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you should reinstate the categories as the status quo, as long as no consensus to remove them is reached, only 1 user removed them, that is not enough for consensus, futhermore, those categories were on the article for quite a long time now, there was an attempt to remove one of them in January 2020, but it got quickly reinstated due to lack of consensus, lastly, per WP:BRD the onus is on the user who made the changes to seek consensus for them. -- Special:Contributions/2804:248:f632:a100:79c9:43f6:e340:6133 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep this discussion on the article talk page. There was a second user on the talk page who is also against the categories, so at this time it seems there is a weak consensus against the inclusion. This is why I've suggested discussion, or failing that, an RFC. You can see on the talk page as far back as 2018 this has been contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to notify you that you're tangentially involved in an issue I've raised at ANI in this discussion. Thanks! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll review my participation and the discussion after and see if I have anything to add. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Catholic basilicas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of the Assumption. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you please make an increase in protection request for Anupamaa because a user named Vucein constantly adds unsourced ratings, removes necessary plot to one month old track and other necessary information. Pra2310 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You can make this request at WP:RFPP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I added the matter but they declined. Can you please warn Vucein for this behaviour. Though earlier I made mistakes. But one user who warned me war Pra2310 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I added the matter but request has been declined. But can you please warn Vucein. Though earlier I made mistakes. But the user who warned me warned him also. But he started accusing him. So can you please warn him against these activities Pra2310 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not involved, nor do I know what's going on, so I won't be warning anyone or requesting protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

ok. Can you please tell me the name of administrator of this page?? I'll request him/her Pra2310 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Individual pages do not have administrators. You can find a list of recently active admins here. I would make sure you actually need administrator assistance before reaching out, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Update the box office for The Many Saints of Newark please. I've left another request after your decline, but no reply. And please update the domestic BO, international BO and global BO. 59.91.225.110 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone will certainly get around to it at some point. There is WP:NODEADLINE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No deadline doesn't mean it should take a day or days. 59.91.225.110 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! DoebLoggs (talk)

14:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo 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 08:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Apologies for that.

I didn't know. I thought something would stop me if I wasn't allowed.

I think I did this on the Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems as well

Apologies for both of those.

I am not used to Wikipedia.

It will not happen again.

Regards Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't remove discussions once they're responded to, that way we can keep a full archive of discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish

Thanks for that.

Again, I apologize for the trouble I caused you.

It will not happen again.

Have a lovely day.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Flag of Afghanistan 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 09:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'm following up on this thread - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_cryptocurrencies#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_12_October_2021

Most of the cryptos listed aren't just currencies in an of themselves. -DaxMoon (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you work towards a consensus for inclusion on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Could you point me in the direction of how I might do so? A request for comment perhaps? Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just start a section on the talk page for now. You don't need a formal RFC unless there's some kind of dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:List of cryptocurrencies § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

I don’t know what consensus was made, I just know framing like that is somewhat dishonest. Especially since, despite her conservative leaning tweets, never actually endorsed Trump or backed any specific voter fraud claims that turned out to be false, since there was some voter fraud that did take place. Just not any evidence it was at the level Trump claimed. And like the New York Post and Daily Mail, the NYT is also known for biased journalism hit pieces, so I stand by what I said. Tornader 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you review the discussions on the article talk page, and make your case there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my factual edits without doing your own due diligence. You removed relevant information pertaining to the public figures role and dates of holding those roles was removed with no basis, a relevant official photograph from an open source in favour of an unflattering one. The tenses used in certain instances are incorrect and not up to date. Past information regarding politics was removed with no basis. page was instead littered with outdated. A notable defamatory accusation that was publicly disproven by the Premier and statements were retracted by the original people who made the libellous accusations. Wikipedia is not a place to repost defamatory material that is libellous. Information has to be based on a neutral stance. The way the information is written is not neutral at all and heavily biased. This page is full of recycled articles that cite defamatory material that was subject to a court order to be removed. I do not know why you are targeting this page. Please refrain from further edits. possible BLP issue or vandalism. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia. ) {{subst:test}}

Sigma58 00:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The tenses and such can be fixed, however the removal of well sourced information is a significant issue. I suggest you discuss this on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)