Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 2 January 2025

This user is a farmer in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

bunny

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

cand q

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

• Liviu Holender chose lieder by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—Schreker, Zemlinsky, Mahler, Korngold and Schönberg—for a recital at the Oper Frankfurt.

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Those articles don't, in and of themselves, tell me a lot about infoboxes, other than that most of them have infoboxes. Quick power ranking on their hair, though.

1. Franz Schreker - Off center widows peak over male-pattern baldness. Wild wings on the sides. Combined with the expression he really communicates "intense Austrian composer"
2. Alexander von Zemlinsky - always maximum respect for a pompadour
3. Arnold Schoenberg - I'll always believe that Picard was the best captain, and this haircut communicates that. Middle of the road though, as the default bald guy cut
4. Gustav Mahler - trying to pull off the "genius that doesn't care about his hair" look, but Schreker did it much better
5. Erich Wolfgang Korngold - looks like he's going to a job interview at a bank

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for loooking! - November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. - You may be too young (on WP) to know that infoboxes are a declared contentious topic, - sorry that my question was unclear. Do you think they still deserve the label. I found one candidate so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Having closed around a dozen infobox RFCs, I think they're still fairly contentious. The CTOP designation serves to let people know they have to be on their best behavior which is important when dealing with an issue that is the subject of strong disagreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder when you closed those, because I don't see many discussions anymore. Most classical composers today get an infobox without a discussion. Mozart was closed in favour of an infobox, for example, almost two years ago, and I haven't seen new arguments since. We still have discussions for a few FAs, usually caused by editors who have no idea of a conflict but get immediately treated as infobox warriors, - that's what I see. - Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Today, listen to Sequenza XIV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. The discussion is still on the Sibelius, ending with that he was playing in a league with Beethoven then, in 2018 ;) - We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. - Congratulations to being elected! Could you look at Samuel Barber and tell me if you miss something in his infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antônio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. - I can report happily that the Barber situation was resolved.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING, and enforcing policies and guidelines

Apologies for bothering you on your talk page, but I was wondering if you could spare some advice. I am leaving the name of the editor this is about off intentionally.

I had a dispute with a user around a year or so ago who said that they didn't need to follow WP:V, essentially. This wasn't a new user, but a user who has been here for close to 12+ years and who had been warned several times for their edits by other users (no admin warnings from what I remember)

So I went over several of their older edits at the time and realized that they would insert material with citations that didn't mention what was added to the article or said something entirely different, insert links to primary documents in BLP articles, insert links to piracy sites containing pirated software, just a whole mess of things.

I've tried not to hound them since I firmly believe everyone deserves peace when editing here (within reason), but it has drawn their past edits into question. I don't want to go through and edit 75+ edits of theirs for not following correct policies, since as a regular editor that would certainly annoy me. I have for the most part only edited five or less of their edits in that year time frame but am curious when this should be brought to ANI, or if it's better to just let them go about their editing. I occasionally check their edits to make sure there isn't anything super terrible that justifies immediate removal but feel like this is borderline harassment of them, and wanted to ask the proper steps.

Thank you for whatever advice you can give! Awshort (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you've spoken with them without positive results and the behavior is continuing ANI is certainly an option, or AE if their editing is in a WP:CTOP and they're aware of the CTOP designation. Really, though, how you handle it is up to how you feel, and if you think it's worth whatever can of worms could be opened. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

awshort does harass and needs to stop stalking me and anyone else. They are not a victim and seldom change anything of value. I saw my “targeted killings” edit was reverted because the allegation was that my sources which said exact dollar amounts of $15,000 and $30,000 paid by Iranian proxies to kill people in the west was alleged to not be accurate. Twillisjr (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr I removed that in mid November. Since you weren't tagged to this conversation, and no user was mentioned by name, what brought you here?

Awshort (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort I am here in an act of self defense from you. Twillisjr (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr That didn't answer the question - you weren't pinged, and I wasn't specific on who I was talking about. So unless you are following my edits, I'm unsure why you came here or why you specifically believe this is in regards to you.

Awshort (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish Can you please respond to the edit war being started by Awshort (who is yet wiki stalking me again)? We are having a dispute on this article page: Internal affairs (law enforcement). Thank you. Twillisjr (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll give you a bit of a third opinion. The lead should follow the body, and there is no other mention of lamplighter in the article. It would make more sense to add that information, and also information on whistleblowers which is also absent, to the article before adding it to the lead. Looking at the importance of that information in the context of the article is also important for deciding if it should be in the lead.

This is really a run of the mill editing dispute so you should just follow WP:DR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr And disputes are fixed with discussion. I asked you for a reliable source that isn't one person refering to himself as such, provided policy based reasoning on why your edit was reverted, and provided alternative article suggestions where your text (with proper sourcing) would fit better than an unrelated article with it randomly thrown in.

I would also suggest reading WP:HA#NOT It is also not harassment to track a user's contributions for policy violations.

You never did answer the above question on what brought you here, but the edits I have reverted or tried to fix of yours in the past have been either highly problematic policy violations (you linking to a private data dump which could carry legal implications for the site, you referring to BLP subjects as pedophiles without proper sourcing stating the same, a few similar instances) or you ignoring WP:V and using this as your rationale.

Awshort (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Awshort The content fits, but not in the lead per ScottishFinnishRadish. You may now determine where in the article the content belongs and re-add it. The issue here is the quickness to revert and not improve. My first edit had an allegation of bad sources, and you alleged on my talk page that it was nearly impossible to find a better source. So, I showed you with a book citation how easy it can be to improve something without hitting the “revert button” and complaining on a talk page. Now, you may demonstrate your dedication to teamwork on Misplaced Pages by finding my research and correct citation a proper place on the article. Hope this is a lesson for you in good Misplaced Pages etiquette. Twillisjr (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that it fits in the article, just that it shouldn't be in the lead unless it is in the article, and the first step would be to work it into the article. If you want something in an article it is your responsibility to find the appropriate sourcing to demonstrate that it is WP:DUE for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr As I said, I attempted to improve it and find better sources which supported the text, not that it was "nearly impossible" as you put it. Your book citation showed that one person called himself that, and was still not valid for what you were trying to add to an unrelated article.

There have been several instances of you adding random tidbits of somewhat-related-but-only-barely information to articles which don't necessarily help readers understand the overall topic any better, and other editors in the past have pointed this out to you over a period of several years. In the instances I've seen in the past (as in, not involving me personally) it usually involves you telling them you found the information, it helps the article, and they need to add it back. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; that is policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As is consensus being how things change in articles (or as you refer to it above, "complaining on a talk page"). Not all material necessarily improves an article and just being factually true doesn’t automatically mean it should be included or stay in an article. Once material is disputed, the responsibility falls on the person who wants the material included in the article to obtain consensus that it should stay in (with no consensus usually resulting in the material being left out). And lastly, your responses to other users when you are upset/annoyed with them come off as extremely condescending. Please work on how you talk to other people; that is part of policy (WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL) and has been mentioned to you in the past by several users including an admin.

Regarding the information which started this whole reactivation of an old discussion - I looked last night for a more suitable alternative for the material and it appears in both Frank Serpico § Retirement and activism as well as

Whistleblowing § Advocacy for protection, with the second link also mentioning the Lamp Lighter Project. Since there is no mention of Internal Affairs in the few sources that mention the term or connection between IA and the term, it seems this has been fixed on the content level at least by ending up in a suitable set of articles.

Awshort (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:TBAN violation by Bohemian Baltimore

Good morning,

I have just reverted an edit by Bohemian Baltimore, who has a topic ban on self-ID articles for BLPs, broadly construed. This editor has made a number of small edits that seem to test/skirt the TBAN, with the text I reverted today seeming to be a more obvious violation of the ban. The editor disputes whether this applies in this case.

Details as follows:

• The editor edited the intro to the Taíno article to change the wording around how these people are identified.

• The editor also made these edits regarding Indigenous DNA tests, which are used by some to self-ID.

• The editor changed the Nahuas article to remove the Category:Nahua people to Category:Nahua, and the Native American Identity in the United States article.

• I have just reverted the addition of Taíno heritage groups (i.e., groups of people who self-ID) to List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.

It might be that these don't fall under the "broadly construed" clause, but I thought it worth raising the issue now before a future edit does. I saw that you implemented the ban, so thought I'd reach out to you first. Lewisguile (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bohemian Baltimore, pinging you for transparency. Hopefully we can get an answer. Lewisguile (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile There is no testing or skirting. I was told to stay away from BLPs related to self-identification and citizenship due to controversy over Native American BLPs. And that is what I have done; stayed away from editing those topics on Indigenous BLPs. None of those edited articles is a BLP. I am not aware of any total ban on editing Indigenous topics. If there is, I was not informed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Self-ID is a major topic of most of these articles. Or are least of the edits you have made. It's worth noting that some of the info is also inaccurate—Taíno groups in Puerto Rico and the USVI are in non-sovereign territory (i.e., colonies), so they have no route for formal recognition. Your creation of the Taíno heritage groups article and the related Category:Taíno heritage groups therefore seems oddly WP:POINTY. Lewisguile (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems like grasping for straws. If a topic ban for BLPs were to include non-BLPs, I would have been told this. Innocuous edits like creating a parent category for Nahua or adding Taino to the Native American identity article, in addition to not having anything to do with BLPs, doesn't even have anything to do with citizenship or self-identification. The information on the heritage group article, also, was not inaccurate. Not that that's relevant to the BLP question though. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If I am misinterpreting the decision, then I am happy to apologise. It's entirely possible I'm looking at this too rigidly.

But either way, clarity would be good going forward. It seems to me these articles all have self-ID in common, either as an explicit or implicit element, and often involve the self-ID of people or groups of people.

If these articles are too tangential to the topic to count and it's too non-specific for the BLP element to count, then that's also useful to know for you as well as anyone else. Lewisguile (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile I think it is clear that it is my intent to adhere to the topic ban and that is what I have tried to do since I was T-banned. If we are going to quibble over broadness, then that needs to be clarified by the administrators and then I can adhere to whatever their determination is. But it seems like you are arguing for my topic-ban to be broader than what it was originally stated to be. If the goal posts are going to be moved, well okay, but I need to be informed of where they are now. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we are broadly in agreement that it's helpful to know where the boundaries lie. I read "broadly construed" as meaning anything related to the matter of Indigenous identity. What's a BLP or not is also relatively broadly construed in its own right. If that's not the case, I am happy to retract and strike my comments. Lewisguile (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

More edits here:

• Created the article Taíno heritage groups – using the language of your prior self-ID articles to say these aren't recognised. (Note that Puerto Rico is a colony, not a state, so there is no formal route to recognition.)

• Created the Category:Taíno heritage groups here.

• Editor added the above page to the Cherokee heritage groups article, even though the link is tangential. Again, seems pointy.

• Editor added Indigenismo to Chicano ("an ethnic identity") and to a bunch of other articles.

• Edited List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. (See below.)

Re: BLPs, also see WP:BLPGROUP: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.

I take your point that some of these are probably not violations, but the point is that they're skirting the issue "broadly construed". As for the Taíno, I have added text to the page you created to clarify. You'll see what I mean. But creating a category to call groups out for not having recognition they cannot obtain does, again, seem to be pointy. Lewisguile (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lewisguile So you admit that there probably aren't any violations and everything is only tangentially related if at all, but are still making an issue out of this. Well, that's interesting. The category for Taino heritage groups was actually created before my topic-ban was instituted, not that it matters, because it isn't a BLP anyway. Puerto Rico is a territory, not a "colony". I'm not sure that you are correct that a territory cannot give recognition to a tribe (Why are we debating this here?). But your quibble there is not I didn't give enough context on a newly created article still being worked on, not that there is anything false, because there wasn't. None of the edited articles pertains to "small groups". Name one, if so. It is my understanding that "broadly construed" pertains to BLPs, as I was topic-banned from BLPs. I didn't create the Taino category, by the way, to "call them out". That's a bad-faith accusation. I created the category to make it easier for readers to access articles related to Taino orgs. I think my editing over the past month has demonstrated my intent to adhere to the topic ban, as I have stayed away from the BLPs. I supposed it would be possible to quibble broadly enough to make the argument that any Native-related edits "tangentially" relate to BLPs in some way. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

So you admit that there probably aren't any violations I didn't say that. I said some may be tangential. I stand by statement that it's helpful to get clarification either way, and have offered to apologise if I'm proven wrong.

As for the Taíno stuff, I have added sources at the relevant article. You will see what I mean there. The legal framework for recognition only applies to the 48 contiguous States and Alaska (and the latter only because they brought in specific rules to do that). Puerto Rico and the USVI are non-sovereign territories with limited ability to officially recognise groups, which is why groups from those islands have been pushing the UN to intervene on their behalf. But I agree we can drop that discussion here.

ETA: Also, it's early and I'm particularly grumpy today. I apologise if my tone in general has caused an escalation. Lewisguile (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want this looked at in detail I suggest you bring it to WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Having thought about it some more, I'm happy to leave this for now. I don't have the energy for it and don't want to get into any wikilawyering. @Bohemian Baltimore, I'm sorry for any bother caused. Lewisguile (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A bear for you

Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I see you working hard quite a lot. Have this bear as a token of appreciation Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help. Thanks for the bear, I appreciate any animal in goggles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what image to use when I made the template, but when I saw this on the commons, I knew it was perfect Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's very TaleSpin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't believe there's no images in that article, surely FUR applies? El Beeblerino 22:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I could probably use dall-e to make sexy Rebecca pictures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the context, I assumed that link would be about furries on wikipedia! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Nicoljaus unblock requests question

I'm not sure what the standard procedure is here, or if there is one, but do you think it would make sense to replace their unblock requests with the "on hold" version so it is immediately clear that this at AE and not something for a single admin to review?

Additional bear provided for your amusement. El Beeblerino 22:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that should get it out of the queue, at least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. El Beeblerino 23:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Dall-e is doing an okay job making Rebecca images, but I don't think we're allowed to use them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi, could you explain this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=1260458061

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor was using an LLM to make arguments while falsifying sources so I collapsed some of it, and removed other parts that hadn't been replied to yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings:)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly and I hope you and yours also have a wonderful holiday season. Hopefully the weather shifts a bit and I'm not stuck with less than no degrees. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Next Nintendo Console on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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 16:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, got another quick revdel request for you. This revision has already been reverted, but is a copy/paste of here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, all set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

IP block

FYI, 83.203.20.206 appears to be a sock for 76.67.115.228 that you blocked, based on the edit to Maté. So far just the one edit. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was the same person. 83.203.20.206 (talk · contribs) Knitsey (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the preoccupation with Israel/Hebrew, I would assume so. Though of course conceivably a friend, or just someone who saw the vandalism and decided to do the same. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I reported them anyway, and they're blocked. Knitsey (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

213.49.236.39 the same. same maybe-Neapolitan edit summaries. so they appear to be IP-hopping. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Another IP

You interacted on the user talk of 190.219.101.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP was a sockpuppet of Alon9393 and is now blocked. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor you blocked for ARBPIA violations

Aren't their latest edits violations? Doug Weller talk 16:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. I'm trying to disengage from arbitration enforcement, though, since I'm now on the committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grand Canyon University on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that you're officially a Arbitrator

Would you like to add the following userbox to your userpage?

This user is an arbitrator on the English Misplaced Pages.

2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess I probably should, eh? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I went with a topicon and a plain text note. Not much of a userbox person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes you should because some of us (like me) weren't aware you have become an arbitrator or even that there was an election. Congratulations! Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the Real Spouses of ArbCom's next season! You kids keep your heads down. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This user was on the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee.

This one used to actually be funny, as there were bananas on the scale. It turns out the bananas were a derivitaive work not properly licensed, and now it's not funny. I wonder if any one with good image manipulation skills could rectify this banana-less non-joke? Beeblebrox 23:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I had dall-e make some bananas-on-scales, but it seems a failing of ai is an inability to not have bananas on both sides of the scales. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The bananas were on the heavy side of the scale, because reasons. Beeblebrox 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The only option is bananas on both sides, as far as I can get dall-e to generate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: The original image but with some added text is still available at File:Benevolent Order of Old Fruits (emblem).png (though same reasoning for deleting the original image applies to that one too). I took a stab at making an svg version: File:Scale of justice 2 - Misplaced Pages bananas.svg. SilverLocust 💬 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Beeblebrox 19:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Real Spouses of Arbcom isn't the worst option. Beats Sister Arbs and 90 Day Arbitor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Congrats Raddish guy, enjoy the ARBing. Knitsey (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)