User talk:XYZ 250706: Difference between revisions

Line 138: Line 138:

:::Besides those parties are considered major by the conducting body and hence they are given streaming in government media and many other benefits.

:::If you want, you can add all six national parties. There are many times edit warring regarding infobox and hence all six national parties (then BSP and NPP had seats) were added. [[User:XYZ 250706|XYZ 250706]] ([[User talk:XYZ 250706#top|talk]]) 06:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

== Needs a citation ==

You made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh&curid=93149&diff=1312558051&oldid=1312555005 this edit on 21 September 2025] to the article on the [[:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]]. Please can you add two citations that explicitly support “far-right” next to the term. (Please do not put them at the end of the sentence.)

There are two citations that support “Hindutva” next to that word – they ”only” support Hindutva.<span style=”font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000″>–[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 11:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706 you know how to request a draft. Creating it without attribution is disruptive. Given the concerns raised at ANI and at the AfD, I have partially blocked you from this article. You remain free to edit elsewhere, but if you continue to be disruptive you’ll lose further access. Star Mississippi 14:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user’s unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XYZ 250706 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC) I did not know about the rule stating that a draft cannot be created without attribution. I may have made mistakes during AfDs but I didn’t vandalise the article and made any disruptive edits in the article. Therefore I am requesting to be unblocked.[reply]

Decline reason:

You know perfectly well that this was not the only concern. You know because you were told so here on this page and you deleted that comment. I have to assume this unblock request was therefore made in bad faith. Stay away from P. Shanmugam. Don’t make another unblock request until you have a substantial history of trouble-free edits in unrelated subject areas. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

XYZ 250706 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The main concern of the partial block on the page P. Shanmugam (CPIM) was because of my creation of draft without attribution. Yes, I may have made mistakes during AfDs (bludgeoning), but I had (have) tried to rectify that. This block possibly also prevents me from using citation bot.

Decline reason:

Having reviewed this, I’m not convinced unblocking is a good idea. I’d echo what was said when your last unblock request was declined, I think a substantial history of trouble-free edits in unrelated subject area would make your case more compelling. There are still nearly seven million pages you are not blocked from editing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were blocked because you were disruptive at the AfD and elsewhere. I told you I wouldn’t give you the draft but another admin might and instead of following process, you end ran it. Nothing you have shown indicates you’re ready to edit this article without even more disruption. I will not decline, but I do not recommend accepting. You can edit literally every other page of the project. Star Mississippi 21:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I’m trying to make sure I understand what went on here before accepting or declining this. I can see the bludgeoning at the AFD easily enough, what with all the unnecessary bolding, I take it that this user asked you to restore it as a draft, you declined to do so because you didn’t trust them to handle it responsibly, and they recreated it by apparently copy-pasting a cached version of it from somewhere? Is that about right? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct @Beeblebrox.

Note I will try not to bludgeon and here’s the ANI. They do not appear to respect consensus or listen to feedback. The draft is now back in mainspace thanks to the work of two other editors and I don’t think XYZ editing it will be productive. As with the draft should they have gone to Refund, I have no objection should you choose to unblock. Star Mississippi 22:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I also don’t think I have to edit the page as per the current condition of the page. But I also cannot use citation bot as it blocks me from using it to other pages. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pinging @Smith609 as the maintainer for their insight here. Star Mississippi 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

actually, they appear inactive. @AManWithNoPlan, @Folly Mox might you have any insight here? The user is p-blocked from one page and says they cannot use Citation bot. Star Mississippi 02:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) It could be that OAuth is – just like with TWL – unable or unwilling to differentiate between a partial block and a full block. XYZ 250706, can you use the Citation expander gadget? Documentation indicates that method of invoking Citation bot does not require OAuth authentication. AManWithNoPlan is likely to have better information. I’ve never actually dipped my toes into the Citation bot codebase.Everyone please double check all citation scripts for accuracy and completeness. Folly Mox (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox I cannot find the tool in the right side. I can find some other tools like page information, what links here. But I cannot find any option like expand citations [I can find shortening URLs, is that the same thing?]. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unrelated per below, but have you enable[d] the Citation expander gadget in the gadgets tab of your preferences panel per the instructions? It’s not enabled by default (and different to Special:URLShortener) Folly Mox (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ 250706, why do you need to use the citationbot (whatever that is)? Why can you not just complete citation templates manually like I do?

My impression is that bot editing tools often (but not always) make errors completing citation templates, for example: |last1=info medias |first1=the when it should have said ||last1=Sharma |first1=Deepak.^{correction made here.} You do not need citationbot; you will probably become a better Wikipedia editor if you never know it exists.— Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot saves a lot of time. If there is any error, I can change it manually. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks will now be ignored by the bot. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan Yes, partial blocks are now ignored by citation bot. But it is not working now. I tried Next Bangladeshi general election. But on the top it shows Processing page ‘Next Bangladeshi general election’ — edit—history and I can see that no change has been taken place. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way related to the p-block; it’s an issue with citation bot. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That issue with those urls and the page are now fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, reFill does some urls that the bot does not. It also will merge duplicate references into things like <ref name=auto/>, which is aweseome. BUT, it sometimes completely hoses that job up and deletes refs. Also, it is less picky about data quality and sometimes will add titles such as “Girls girls girls!!!” to hyjacked domains. Lastly, it “updates” URLS which is often really good, but sometimes horrible. So, double-check all edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ReFill AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R. Arun Kumar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Arun Kumar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Bangla Pokkho. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to move the article back; I will ask an admin to move it back to its correct name, People’s democracy (Marxism–Leninism) .

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EarthDude (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XYZ 250706. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cherupally Seetha Ramulu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XYZ 250706. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:24th Party Congress of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you trying to engage in discussions as you have been. I believe we should finally settle the disputes we have, so we can get it over with. I was also somewhat at fault for overreacting to the whole situation, such as when I opened the discussion against you at ANI and I am sorry. We both made mistakes. I am going to open official dispute resolution between us for the history section of the Politburo and the inclusion of far-left on the Infobox of CPIM. I hope we can settle this cordially and on good terms. Cheers. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the inclusion of the History section in the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) article. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XYZ 250706. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anju Kar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XYZ 250706. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, “Anju Kar“.

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio 16:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XYZ 250706. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:A.R. Sindhu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XYZ 250706. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ajit Nawale, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello XYZ!

I know we have had our differences in the past, though they have resolved now. I am sending you this WikiLove message because I wanted to show you my appreciation of your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers! EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, XYZ 250706.

You stated “National parties were added before 2024 elections too to stop edit warring.” but inclusion of AAP and CPI in the infobox of “Next Indian general election” was done by you on 17th September 2025; and in the article “2024 Indian general election” these parties are not even mentioned in the infobox. Can you state which discussion are you talking about that does take effect on this article but not on that article.

Moreover there are 6 national parties in India recognized by the ECI; by your logic we should include all of them here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! TricanaQ (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TricanaQ I told before 2024 election, all six national parties were added. I included all of them at first and one editor told that BSP and NPP should be removed as they have no seat. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XYZ 250706 This page had only one edit before “2024 elections” and in that only BJP and Congress was mentioned in the infobox; in the recent edits of this page by you, lots of parties were mentioned in the infobox but not AAP and CPI till 17th September 2025, and the criteria set by you seems to be a little flawed given you are including national parties with 3 or 4 seats in the last election but not including parties that are state parties in multiple states with double digit seats but whatever, it should have been first discussed on the talk page before coming to this decision this should be the criteria we use.

Also, It’s also a bit inconsistent that in the article “2024 Indian general election”; AAP and CPI were never part of the infobox; neither before or after the elections. So, your statement “before 2024 election, all six national parties were added” is contradictory for both the articles.

My opinion is that we should remove AAP and CPI from the infobox till a consensus is reached on the talk page of the article. TricanaQ (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TricanaQ Please see edit history properly. I am not telling lie. Before 2024 election, all six national parties were added for considerable period in 2024 Indian general election article.

Besides those parties are considered major by the conducting body and hence they are given streaming in government media and many other benefits.

If you want, you can add all six national parties. There are many times edit warring regarding infobox and hence all six national parties (then BSP and NPP had seats) were added. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made this edit on 21 September 2025 to the article on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Please can you add two citations that explicitly support “far-right” next to the term. (Please do not put them at the end of the sentence.)

There are two citations that support “Hindutva” next to that word – they only support Hindutva.— Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply