User talk:EarthDude: Difference between revisions

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

Please stop flooding this page with requests to preemptively protect these articles. The intention isn’t to place every single article under this CTOP restriction into permanent indefinite semi-protection. This is highlighted by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian_military_history#Preemptive_protection_GSCASTE; “Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles…” It doesn’t say they must be protected. Your requests are overwhelming that request que and are unwarranted unless you can demonstrate “…when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption”. You’ve not demonstrated it with those requests. I’m inclined to remove all of these requests. —Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An admin told me to do so. I had originally only filed a single entry and requested indef extended confirmed page protection as per WP:ECRCASTE. @Daniel Case had told me that it would be better for me to file an entry for all subsequent articles individually. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t the intention of the restriction. The number of articles potentially subject to this number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. Please stop, at least for now. @Daniel Case: Would you please comment? —Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I counted. Its around 160 to 170. I am only linking entries that have been put in the List of political parties in India. Anyhow, these political party articles are regularly vandalised by IPs and other editors, and this protection is needed especially as this is a contentious topic EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show how All India Hindustan Congress Party was the subject of disruption? It hasn’t even been edited since 2024. Further, the restriction applies to “all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal”, not just your targeted list. If we’re going to do this, the numbers of articles are quite huge. —Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single one has been, but most have. Take for instance, the Aam Aadmi Party. One of India’s biggest political parties, its page was severely vandalised, and the vandalised version stayed in place for over a week. WP:ECRCASTE very explicitly states that all articles related to “social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal” have to be placed under indef extended confirmed page protection. The section below it further states that, if admins deem so, articles falling under GSCASTE can be placed under full protection as a pre-emptive measure. The entire point is that it is a must for articles falling in this category to be placed under indef extended confirmed page protection. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT what it says. WP:ECRCASTE does NOT say “placed under indef extended confirmed page protection“. It says extended confirmed restriction, which is linked to WP:ARBECR. ONE of the tools available is protection. It is not the only tool. You are misinterpreting that statement. Many of these articles are barely touched. Bahujan Mukti Party, 1 edit this year by a bot. Gondwana Ganatantra Party 1 edit this year by an IP that made a link. Goa Suraksha Manch, 1 edit this year…by you. Gorkha Janmukti Morcha, 7 edits this year last being in May, which reverted the first 6. Not major disruption. Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh, 3 edits this year none of which are disruptive. —Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a topic is under extended confirmed restriction, that fundamentally means only extended confirmed editors are allowed to edit. The enforcement of extended confirmed restriction primarily and preferably occurs through extended confirmed page protection, and in ECRCASTE, that has been the norm as well. You may not be familiar with South Asian contentious topics, but this field of articles continues to face a level of sock puppetry, meat puppetry, canvassing, WP:SOAP editing, and disruptive editing, and edit warring at a level unheard of in, say, European political articles. Having pages related to South Asian social groups be indef extended confirmed page protected is basic procedure. Why do you think even extremely obscure articles like Gihara have been indef extended confirmed page protected? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 22:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude, it’s certainly not “basic procedure”. I came here to ask you the same thing as Hammersoft. Please, this is filling up the RFPP queue and making it much harder to determine what in there is actually urgent. If an admin observes that a whole series of articles need pre-emptive protecting, they can do that themselves. Otherwise, please keep the requests to articles where there is some active disruption. — asilvering (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a little late to the party

— I had some work responsibilities. I asked EarthDude to at least make these requests individually since he had thought that the way his request was worded, I would have understood that he meant all the listed political parties. So I suggested he ask individually in the expectation that it might lead to some clarification like this.

I did not think this was unreasonable, given the volume of requests we’ve dealt with regarding this same restriction in PIA articles since January’s ArbCom decision. I really think ECR is useless … it’s just a prelude to the eventual ECP, and thus more work for those who work on RFPP (a group that could always be larger). I should have read the decision text more closely … yes, it said ECR.

However, at the same time, in PIA articles we have not hesitated to ECP pre-emptively in primary-topic cases where no disruption is presently occurring. And while going through RFPP today I now learned that CT/KURD has the ECR restriction, which led to two articles about World War I battles in that theater being ECP’ed indefinitely. So it didn’t seem unreasonable, especially given that we expanded IPA to SA a couple of months ago and merged SASG (where we had already been ECP’ing indef at the slightest sign of disruption, and apparently with good reason) into it.

That said, if we said quite clearly something like what we’ve said with PIA that there is a distinction between primary topics likely to invite disruptive POV editing and other articles in the topic area but not likely to be hijacked (Quilting in Israel, say), I would be happy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bar is pretty low for the “reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption”. I’m thinking “is all belief that this article will be targeted unreasonable?”. That said, page protection is pretty mindless work, and I only have so much juice in my drudgery tank. EarthDude, if you’re willing to identify sets of twenty or so articles at a time and present a rationale for their potential disruption (recent edit warring, vandalism within the past few months, repeated unsourced editing, obviously non-neutral edits within the past few months, etc.), I’m willing to handle a couple batches a week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case @Firefangledfeathers @Asilvering Should I remove entries for political parties which are unrecognized by the election commission of India and which have had no major history involved, as basically all of the recognized or major ones have indeed had some form of disruptive editing if we see their edit histories. That with the exception for unrecognized and minor articles which have also had disruptive editing. Thoughts? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criteria should be simply whether the article has seen recent disruption. The requests need to be removed until they can be demonstrated to meet Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/South_Asia#Preemptive_protection_GSCASTE. That’s the criteria. Taking the inverse of that criteria in the hopes of adding clarity; “Administrators are not permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE[a] when there is not a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.” (emphasis mine). —Hammersoft (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed removing non recognized and non-major articles, primarily because all recognized and major party articles have already faced vandalism, sock-puppetry, disruptive editing, and edit warring, as seen in their edit summaries. I went through the edit histories of each and every single recognized Indian party, and the one only exceptions, which had not faced vandalism, sock-puppetry, disruptive editing, and edit warring, were the Goa Forward Party the Hill State People’s Democratic Party, the Mizo National Front, the Republican Party of India (Athawale), the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, the Zoram Nationalist Party, and to a lesser extent, the United People’s Party Liberal. That is 7 safe articles out of a total of 71 recognized political party articles. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 12:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I’d recommend removing all those requests from RFPP. If you paste the list here, I’m willing to look at it once you’ve removed the unrecognized/minor parties as you describe. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove RFPP entries that have not been disrupted. Also, in the above comment, I have listed how out of 71 recognized national and state parties, as given in List of political parties in India, only 7 have not faced vandalism, sock editing, disruptive editing, and edit warring, as seen from their edit summaries. The rest should thus be indef extended confirmed protected. The following are some of the unrecognized or defunct parties (including major and historical ones) that have faced vandalism, sock editing, disruptive editing, and edit warring:

EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Firefangledfeathers. —Hammersoft (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed the requests from RFPPI, to avoid clogging up that page. We can keep discussing here, and I’ll point here from the AN discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, are the pages I have given going to be indef EC protected? For recognized parties, all but the 7 I have given above have faced vandalism, sock editing, disruptive editing, and edit warring, as seen in their edit summaries. I have also given the above list of 38 articles that are about unrecognized and historical Indian political parties that have faced similar disruption in the past. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m working my way through the list now. Looks like others have already started the work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing here. We’re down to Jammu & Kashmir National Conference on the list of parties. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EarthDude, it would help if you could ensure all the talk pages have {{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|sasg}}. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that. Hope it helps EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see disruption at Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I had missed this article earlier. Nevertheless, seems like there was some major disruption in October 2024 but it appears it was due to a misunderstanding and not intentional EarthDude (wanna talk?) 17:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I did end up protecting Mizo NF due to somwhat recent socking, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Hey, it’s been over a week, and I noticed you did not continue with protecting the rest of the articles at List of political parties in India which had faced recent disruption. I understand if things are busy over there, but I wanted it to be clarified if you will be continuing to page protect them. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, ED. Will tackle another batch today. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Alright. I will add the protection notices in talk pages of articles that have been protected. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 22:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the recognized, active parties. Didn’t protect Voice of the People Party (Meghalaya), did you see something I didn’t? Did protect Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi and United People’s Party Liberal. Will look into unregistered/defunct soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers I am pinging as a reminder to protect the unregistered/defunct parties. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. Done through #20. Wasn’t sure enough about Peace Party of India. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Another ping for the final batch of articles — EarthDude (Talk) 07:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks, EarthDude. As before, it would help if you could add talk page notices. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look into the two new sections [“Corrupt politicians in Akali Dal” & “Casteism by Akali Dal and its Leaders
“] added in Shiromani Akali Dal added by Sandpacks. They seem to violate WP:UNDUE. PanthPunjab (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , I will change the heading of paragraphs….. Sandpacks (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV for a political party article to have sections dedicated to corruption like this. The only time I see that as DUE is if corruption has been the primary subject the party has had coverage for. As for the controversial activities section, most of it is either too minor or, in the case of caste, too ubiquitous for Indian political parties. Especially, the Opposing Simon Commission part. These two sections should be removed. If you still wish for them to be added, opening a discussion at the talk page to gauge consensus would be a better way to handle it. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EarthDude and Sandpacks, please be less accommodating of extended-confirmed restriction violations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.

Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you’d like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.

June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

September 2025 Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn’t be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Tanguturi Prakasam has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst — Grnrchst (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission “patroller” (New page reviewers) will expire on 07:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EarthDude,

Thank you for creating Fascist pedagogy.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hey, just an fyi: Redirects are NOT case sensitive, so you don’t need to create different redirects for different capitalizations! Just make one with any capitalization and you’re all set 🙂

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Shocksingularity}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Shocksingularity (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shocksingularity I did not know that redirects were not case sensitive. Thanks a lot for informing me about that! Just for clarification, I did not create the Fascist education article. I stumbled upon it and was shocked to see how barren it was, considering one would expect an article on such a topic to be highly well made and highly viewed. I simply assessed it as a start class article and added some maintenance tags. I will be requesting more work on the article from relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Discrimination.

Again, thanks a lot for clarifying that redirects do not have to be case sensitive. I had found it so tedious creating redirects for different capitalizations. I will keep this in mind in the future. Cheers! — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 23:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not judging at all! I am a New page patroller, a role in which you check over new articles and redirects to make sure they’re fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. I saw that you had created a lot of redirects for different capitalizations and I knew that must have been super tedious. I didn’t know that they weren’t case sensitive for a while either!

Thanks for working to make Wikipedia better and have a great rest of your day! 🙂 Shocksingularity (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This time “not merely negative”.

Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.

Unexpected news!

Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.

Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.

And other recent publications.

When to walk away.

Rest in peace.

Celebrities, deaths and software.

All invited!

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Erp (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Tanguturi Prakasam has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the “Did you know” section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grnrchst — Grnrchst (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to EarthDude for accumulating at least 50 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EarthDude. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page’s latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional “status” on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you’re not sure about something, ask!

I’m sure you’ll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I’ll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators’ guide/Rollback (even though you’re not an admin) and Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! Brandon (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EarthDude. Thank you for your work on Chaddis. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

–MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EarthDude. Thank you for your work on Sangha Prarthana. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

–MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EarthDude. Thank you for your work on Sarkaryawah of the RSS. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

–MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve noticed that you’ve lately created a lot of redirects based on minor changes in capitalization. These aren’t strictly necessary. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Software characteristics says that “Searching using the Go or Search button is, generally speaking, case-insensitive. It is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations” To be clear, these redirects will eventually be reviewed and accepted, but you might want to spend your time on Wikipedia in a better way by considering other types of redirects. Happy editing! –MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created those specific redirects a while ago. Recently, it was clarified to me that they are case-sensitive, which I hadn’t known before. All the recent redirects I’ve made, such as those for Essentials of Hindutva, for example, have taken this into account. Also, I wanted to thank you. Reviewing all those redirects must have been tedious! I was surprised to see so many notifications of page reviews. I looked at the specific notes you made for the three redirects here at the talk page; I’ve fixed two of them and am considering filing the third one for deletion. Again, thank you so much for your work! — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 12:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expect a bunch more notifications. 🙂 –MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we haven’t interacted but i saw your edits and you’re good, and also you have The tireless contributor award. what im saying is i need your help so an article wouldn’t get deleted. and since you seem very very capable. im asking for your help.

So i made an article about Divata and its the an archaic word, the new modern word is Diwata its basically an umbrella term for gods and goddess fairies and nymphs in philippine mythology. So in ancient times it means gods or deities from the ancient word saskrit. now in modern time it still means gods, but it also includes now not only gods but also nymphs and fairies.

The oldest record i can find is from here https://archive.org/details/lasislasvisayase00reye/page/40/mode/2up in page 44 Spanish it says “Estos dioses se llamaban divatas ó dinatas, |)alabra que, según opinión de un cronista, debe tstar compuesta de dia (deidad)” which in English translates to ” These gods were called divatas or dinatas, a word that, according to a chronicler, must be composed of dia (deity) ”

In the book my Historian William Henry Scott “Diiuata is a Malay-Sanskrit term for gods or godhead” page 78.

and in page 79. ““in every town they have their god, all called Diwata in general, but as a personal name, that of their town.”

(so it clearly says that the diwata are gods)

town.”https://ia802800.us.archive.org/32/items/BarangaySixteenthCenturyPhilippineCultureAndSociety/Barangay%20-%20Sixteenth%20Century%20Philippine%20Culture%20and%20Society_text.pdf

In present day Philippines the word Divata is now Diwata which still means god or goddess but it also includes nymphs and fairies.

in the book (dictionary) UP diksiyonaryong Filipino page 213

” Diwata is an ancient goddess, worshipped depending on ones need. similar fairy (ada) nimpa (nymph)”

the exact words there “Diwata – Sinaunang dyosa, sinasamba sang-ayon sa oangangailangan ng mga tao, (ada)(nimpa)”

https://archive.org/details/updiksiyonaryong0000unse/page/212/mode/2up

In the Tuttle Concise Tagalog Dictionary : Tagalog-English English-Tagalog page 39 it says

“Diwata – indigenous goddess; in conmpeorary useage, may refer to fairy-like or nymph-like creature.”

https://archive.org/details/tuttleconcisetag0000barr/page/38/mode/2up

In modern-day Filipino and Tagalog language the diwata has many meaning depending on the ethnolinguistics group that used the term but in Filipino and Tagalog it retains the core value of the word but now instead of just gods it also includes gods, goddesses, fairies and nymphs same usage as in mythology or is a mythological creature.

I know this is random but i hope you can help improve the article or save it from being dissolve.

ZamboniZoomer (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have very little knowledge about this specific subject, of Philippine religious beliefs. What you’ve said here can simply be included in the deletion discussion to counter those who support deleting the article. Considering that you’re a relatively new editor, I suggest you read this: WP:CANVASSING. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EarthDude. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EarthDude,

I am seeking your assistance regarding the Wikipedia page of Prof Dhruva Kumar(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhruva_Kumar), which has been repeatedly deleted despite his verified public contributions, particularly his role in presenting a comprehensive report condemning Hinduphobia in Scotland.
Prof Kumar’s work has been recognized in independent media reports and parliamentary discussions in Scotland. I believe his contributions hold encyclopedic relevance and deserve a fair review rather than automatic deletion.
Kindly guide or assist in restoring the page or facilitating an impartial review through the proper Wikipedia process.
Warm regards, Vijaysvijay (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once an article is deleted through discussion, as was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhruva Kumar, it cannot simply be reinstated. To bring back your article, you would need to open a deletion review. However, I see that you have already opened a review, which was unsuccessful. I would advise you against opening another such review, considering that no one supported the article during either the deletion discussion or your attempted deletion review. I would also advise you against using large language models or any form of generative artificial intelligence, as they have a strong tendency to hallucinate and fabricate references and content. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EarthDude, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you’re not alone! _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi their, I have earlier made a edit on article Nandagopa according to me it was more reliable with accurate sources while a new user revert my edit current version of article is so confusing Genealogy say something but article say something different, I explained in edit summary about my edit but user who reverted my edit is unable to understand doing edit war, According to me earlier version was accurate if any further changes needed it was discussed on talk page and then added or removed from article,also he did wrong to Raksel my edit was act citation but he reverted,i think you need to do something regard this,I also talk him regard this but give unnecessary excuses and removed content from talk page ,I think introducing T-ban is right as almost all his edit were related to caste and contentious topics are wrong Or any other thing you think right ,Thanks. Neutralwikipedian (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralwikipedian I see that on Raksel, it was an IP who reverted your edit and not the user who reverted it on Nandagopa. Anyhow, the way to deal with this is to discuss the edits at Talk:Nandagopa. If you want to learn more about dealing with content disputes and how to deal with them, you should read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Edit warring. A proposed topic-ban for a content issue such as this would be quite extreme. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the “pending changes reviewer” userright, allowing you to review other users’ edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Two weeks ago, the 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest came to a close! After three months of stiff competition at the top of the leaderboard, we have our winners. vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions), continuing his work on covering abortion in Africa, comes in third with 692 points. simongraham (submissions) comes in second with 763 points, largely from a slew of good articles about jumping spiders. And returning to the podium for the second year in a row, BeanieFan11 (submissions) takes the Gold Belt Buckle with a mind-boggling 946 points from his series of articles on sportpersons. Congratulations to our winners!

Amazingly, the award for the most countries covered goes to both BeanieFan11 (submissions) and simongraham (submissions), who each submitted articles under 30 flags! BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins for writing the most quality articles (16 good articles). For submitting 16 articles related to El Salvador, PizzaKing13 (submissions) wins the award for most submissions under one country. The award for most submissions related to women goes to both Spookyaki (submissions) (7 biographies about women) and vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) (21 related articles). And for the second year, simongraham (submissions) wins for the most reviews, having submitted 21!

Among the participants’ contributions were 2 FAs, 5 FLs, 124 GAs, and an uncounted number of DYKs, ITNs, and reviews of every kind! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year, and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that…

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn’t participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to tag you in today’s Tfd due to typo. Tagged you in case you are interested in the nomination I started. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no worries! Thanks for the ping! I have given my view at the TfD. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EarthDude,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mohan Rao Bhagawat for deletion, because it’s a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don’t want Mohan Rao Bhagawat to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don’t remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EarthDude,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mohan Madhukar Bhagawat for deletion, because it’s a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don’t want Mohan Madhukar Bhagawat to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don’t remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EarthDude,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mohan Madhukar Rao Bhagawat for deletion, because it’s a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don’t want Mohan Madhukar Rao Bhagawat to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don’t remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the “Global Resource Distribution Committee” emerges.

Two shortlisted WMF Board candidates removed from the ballot.

Who was bumped and why?

…while Musk prepares to launch “Grokipedia”.

Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit “Kantara” crowd the tubes.

Don’t get too excited before you read this.

Hello, EarthDude. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users’ IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user’s browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account’s name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
- There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
- There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won’t be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67’s IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if “reasonably believed to be necessary”. (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can’t be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
- This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account’s activity.
The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission “patroller” (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir vandalism done in Samata Party page and protected. Please check vandalism about President. Please revert the vandalism.
Thank you so much. ~2025-31679-15 (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention! I have reverted the vandalism. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About these edits: [1], [2].

WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH is as clear as the title and does not differ for BLPs or otherwise. The first intance where you added this [3], the edit summary then “Per the sources in the article” was false. The edits should’ve simply begun with this in the first instance [4].

You can further seek clarifications at WP:ORN, but this was another instance of incorrect application of P&G. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not really original research. The article already spoke about militancy in the Hindu Munnani, supported by a reliable source. Originally, I had somewhat misread the quote in the given source and later realised the mistake (the source only really spoke about militant elements of the Munnani rather than stating the entirity of the org to be militant) and so, I then added a better source which very explicitly termed it to be a militant group. Pretty sure a basic misreading which is later fixed is not an “instance of incorrect application of P&G”.

In regards to content removal on your end, Hindu Munnani being militant is a pretty well known fact and is supported by many reliable sources. It thus counts as a verifiable fact, even though it may or may not have been verified in the article, which is explained so at WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. For an editor to call something original research, the editor has to, at the very least, do some research to see if the content is in any way supported by sources. Something can only be called original research when supporting reliable sources do not exist in the world at all. Wholesale immediate content removal on the basis that something might or might not be original research should generally not be done outside of BLP articles. This is the reson that tags such as ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[better source needed]} exist in the first place. Perhaps, WP:SYNTH would have been more accurate here, but then again, it was an unintentional error which was later fixed so I don’t really see the issue there either. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“I would also advice you against edit warring in the given articles, considering the fact that you have very recently gotten admonished by the arbitration committee for it.” There has been no edit warring here, and your comment as such is beyond the pale. The Arbcom decision has nothing to do with this or CT/SA conduct. And considering that your problematic editorial conduct was itself worthy of mention by different admins in that very case you should be further wary of bringing it up. This is not the first time you have failed to adhere to basic wiki etiquette. Better discuss the disputes at hand.

This edit summary has no basis in policy “The procedure here is to tag the given detail as unsourced instead of wholesale removal. This is not a BLP article for such removal to take place.” SYNTH is a facet of OR, and it was only rectified after the false edit summary was highlighted. As I said, clear your doubts at ORN than engage wikilawyering.

Anyhow, I have nothing no more to add but that your edit summaries were simply false/incorrect. Gotitbro (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries provided were not “false.” Attacking other editors for making minor errors (which were anyhow later fixed) should not be done as per WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. I clearly explained why the edits did not constitute original research. My comment directly addressed your suggestion of “better discuss the disputes at hand.” Regarding the part you quoted, I’m not sure why you’re so eager to respond to a small section of a redacted/removed portion of a comment while invoking “basic wiki etiquette,” yet overlooking every substantive point I made in my reply. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply