User talk:Cdjp1

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hey listen Dear User:Cdjp1 Its look like, even after consensus did not form in his prerogative favour on this particular articulacy of Sikh Empire, the impatient User elected to self-insert that fictitious map () while it remained under ongoing deletion for failing requirements—criteria same for all who bind themselves to the collaboratory mechanism. Without pushing a one-sided narrative, it is better to rollback this unprecedented and baseless edit to ease the record. Hope it works for all of us including

Pseudo historians intaking on Jatt and taking not even a single action against Fraudulent, apart from this why only one-sided narrative if all Khatri guru are such holistic figure but still one-sided regression of Jatt why us though and apparently I am fully aware to use it on other Wikimedia platform, since I was banned on the English encyclopaedic

ScionofFreedom (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are you canvassing me for this discussion? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually their is not my veracious intention to change any of the Citelead information for other instance i want to ping you for your quintal favour over the latest distortion on this article Sikh Empire, you can see the big difference in how it was mishandled by wiki markers thats it so can you acknowledge me on this existential issue, thats it!! @Cdjp1 ScionofFreedom (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not an existential issue. If you want it looked at I suggest taking the concern to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, asking whether the sources used in creating the map are reliable. Though considering you are not an Extended Confirmed user, and you make reference to social/ethnic groups of South Asia, it may get thrown out per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia. If you try to edit in this topic area without being Extended Confirmed, you are likely to have topic bans applied, if not be banned from the project. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

agreeing your minatorial concerns Dear @Cdjp1, but this is not how it work to be fair, since it was under ongoing procedural deletion at WP:Common and if I connect the dot proportionally from both side, it cames as this map was also being badly distorted by the previous editor few days ago before this happen who done this for not making good editorials changes, but still, I say that the map have nothing to do with its previous contentment which you can find by pursuing deep into this issue and it must be rollbacked to last good version as the talk Page result of Talk:Sikh Empire#New Map show similar issue regarding its uneven cartooning WP:Map/WP:COMMONNAME ~2026-14480-16 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That does not matter to me. If you want input I have pointed you where to find it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

These are socks. All blocked now.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Hey, I just wanted to reach out to you since clearly you seem like a more experienced editor.

Truthfully, I did use AI to refine the post. This was potential grounds for striking as you stated, and a while after you said that it actually did get striked down by a user who seemed pretty upset about my neutrality discussion in general. This user implied that I wanted to do PR for the current government and clearly misunderstood parts of my original post. Obviously this is still my fault entirely though so I can't even blame this person.

I didn't come here just to say sorry tho lol. I am wondering; if I were to legitimately write a new post on this discussion and made sure to use no AI whatsoever, would I be allowed to? The reason I'm asking is because it would be still related to the neutrality thing, and adding another post about the same issue immediately after doing it previously seems like it wouldn't be allowed. But considering this case my previous suggestion wasn't ignored, it was rather closed for an issue regarding how I wrote it, if this would be allowed in this instance.

Again, I'm obviously not that experienced at this stuff. I've only made a couple of articles on Marvel characters and I've never engaged in a large-scale discussion like the ones my posts have obviously stirred up. Considering this, I don't want my reputation to be an AI-slop talk page discusser. Would appreciate a more experienced-view on this matter. Thank you ModlordD (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Also wanted to know whether a comment asking for the title be changed to ""Anti-transgender policies under the second Trump administration"" at some point would be appropiate. I would have to discuss with some of the people who supported a change like this so we can't get the proposal straight but in general would I be allowed to do this? ModlordD (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@ModlordD ok, so what I would do gor the discussion on neutrality is leave it for some time (maybe a week, though I can't really say), as for those who watch and actively edit the page it may seem like trying to flog a dead horse to do it too soon after the discussions over these past few days.

Then when submitting it, write it from scratch in your own voice. We have editors for who speak English as an additional language and who aren't really fluent, and from what I've seen even in those cases (that is to say where their ability with English looks to be lower than your ability) other editors are understanding and willing to put in the effort to understand your comments and discuss the matter in good faith.

As to the requested move, yes you are free to make as many suggestions as many times as you want, but realistsically, again starting one too soon can and does annoy people who are likely to be present across the multiple requests. That being said leaving some time, taking into consideration what people said in their arguments for opposition and the closer's comments on how they assessed people's arguments (which you seem to be doing), can give you a better chance at presenting a good argument for alternative moves. As you saw, myself and some others are not against changing the article title, but were against the specific suggestion in this case, so an alternate suggestion may have more luck at succeeding.

If you have any more questions I will try my best to offer advice, but I am by no means expertly skilled in the area of running formal Requests. You can always ask for advice in the Teahouse where you can find others who may be more familiar and skilled in these matters, as well as others who do not edit in these areas so they are removed from the strong feelings we can have on the topic and on the never-ending discussions across way too many articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

As an additional note on the discussion of neutrality, what can help focus the discussion, is if you bring examples of articles you think should be included and the suggested information from said articles. From what I've seen in CTOP areas, broad declarations of this like neutrality issues (even if pulled from Policies and Guidelines), tend not to move anywhere. Whereas specific discussions of individual sources and the information taken from them actually end with actions (even if they are actions you disagree with).

What I can also suggest on the matter of sources, based on those you pointed to, is to read our Policies and Guidelines on Reliable Sources, including maybe looking at discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. We care more about the reliability of a source than its bias, and as I mentioned many of the sources you brought up may be biased (such as focussing on LGBTQ news topics) but they were also Reliable Sources, meaning they engage in good journalistic practices (in the case of news outlets) meaning their facts tend to be correct and the assessment of said facts are not in the realm of wild speculation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I was on my phone and always find delicate edits a pain there. I was going to do it when I got to desktop (nowish) but you beat me to it. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I understand the pain of phone editing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)