User talk:Cdjp1/Archive 3

We ec'd as I was about to just cut him. I looked at La PHILOSOPHIE DEVENUE FOLLE -LA: Le genre, l'animal, la mort and it was just a remarkably poorly informed piece of work. "If Humans aren't different from animals why don't we have sex with dogs?" levels of "just asking questions. Anyway I left your version up for now but I do want to ask - is this guy due inclusion at all? He honestly just looks like a crank who wrote a crank book. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Oh yeah, I'm not gonna stop that ridiculous scholar from being cut, his academic credentials are used to bring him as an "authority" in discussions who should be given consideration, but much of his work is, as I wrote, wrong on the history of whatever he chooses to discuss and boils down to the usual right-wing conspiracism of (to put it bluntly) minorities being a supposed threat to society.

I chose not to cut him, as I don't need the headache of fighting the battle that could cause. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I hear you. Maybe the best choice is to leave your version up for the moment and then look for reviews of his books, find some third parties who call him a crank. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I only found two reviews and one was from a Spanish religious journal. LOL I'm going to delete as undue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Please undo the reference "formatting" that you did on Breadloaf idol. The original format was much better since it let readers go from the entry in the reference list directly to the place in the text where that reference is mentioned. Also the new format with two separate lists wastes space. And moreover the "cite" tags are terrible for editors, bring no advantage whatsoever, and are bad for readers (since the cryptic notation "20 (10)" is only understandable by academics, not to general readers. All the best, Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Simply put, based on the standards and policies we have for WP, formatted references are preferred in every case over unformatted references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Francisco Franco's regime is widely regarded by scholars on fascism as a para-fascist regime, that means emulating fascism but not having the full characteristics to be considered fascist. So showing Francoist supporters marching does not represent fascism. BlueberryA96 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Except that is not a consensus view. A variety of specialist historians and political scientists support it's description as fascist. Though, regardless of that, we have images throughout the article, and discuss the regimes, of para-fascists due to their intimate similarity and relation to the topic of fascism. So the precedent, until an editor consensus states otherwise, is that such an image would be fine in the article regardless of whether Spain was fascist or para-fascist. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You are right that that there are historians and political scientists who describe it as fascist. Though a number of prominent historians on fascism do not identify the regime as fully fascist they do recognize that it has significant fascist traits plus there are historians especially those with a left-wing or Marxist outlook who regard Franco's regime as fascist. Para-fascist definitely relates to fascism as it effectively means partially fascist. Alright, I accept your stance on having the image there. BlueberryA96 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/France (Maritime Gendarmerie) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OR/France (Maritime Gendarmerie) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Canada (Coast Guard) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Canada (Coast Guard Auxiliary) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Italy (Coast Guard) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Norway (Coast Guard) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Italy (Coast Guard) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Norway (Coast Guard) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/OF/Isle of Man Coastguard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/OR/Isle of Man Coastguard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/WO/Maldives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

As you did here. There are many possible venues for discussion of this issue but it just happens that people settled on the WMF village pump page. There's now a pointer to that discussion at WP:Village pump (miscellaneous), which is good. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a source for an academic discussion of that divergence? I would be curious to learn more about that. FortunateSons (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll post it here by the end of this weekend, I'll need to dig for it, though I'm pretty sure the commentary I first encountered it in was on EJIL Talk. It was in relation to some later part of ICTY, after the court decided the Bosnian genocide hadn't occurred (excluding the specific case of Srebrenica), but people who we would label as victims of the genocide, could still be considered victims of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I‘m looking forward to reading it (particularly because I’m incredibly sick of the German civil law I’m dealing with now, but still). :) FortunateSons (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: while it may seem like I forgot this, I haven't. I have been searching for the article that brought it up, but all the ones which I thought it may be aren't bringing up the exact point. I will continue looking, and will hopefully come across it again, and if I do I will make sure to drop a message on your talk page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate the effort! FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cdjp1 I appreciate your work in Wikipedia. However, in pages related to Israel and Zionism there's a clear bias against the Israeli side of the story. I don't blame you because you're not the only one who edited these pages, but since you're very active I wanted to reach out to you. First, in the very introduction of Zionism, in the first passage it says "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." Not only that it is simply not true (historic proven fact), there is also no attached source that backups this biased baseless claim. Moreover, throughout the page, you refer to this land exclusively as "Palestine"— a temporary name used for only 28 years during the British Mandate period (1920–1948), it was a name used by a colonial entity for a very short period of time. "The Land of Israel" is a name that has been used for over 2,500 years to refer to this land. So what is the reasoning behind referring to this land as "Palestine" throughout the entire Wikipedia page? There is a clear bias in this page, and it's sad to see it in Wikipedia. If you’ve read my message and care about keeping Wikipedia a reliable source of truth, I’d be happy to help and collaborate on pages related to Israel. Take care. 2600:4040:A850:3B00:A4F4:9ABF:2285:1224 (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I will consider listening to you when you have become an extended confirmed editor. Until then it is advised that you stay away from this topic area, and other contentious topics. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, please take a look at Zionism when you have a moment... your recent edits added duplicate content ("Claim to a Jewish demographic majority and a Jewish state in Palestine") and a visible edit summary within the article ("History: partial revert, not decided yet on talk page"). I'd patch things up, but not sure what you intended and didn't want to complicate things further. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks for highlighting, that is an major error on my part. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I've done worse :) Jessicapierce (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason you do not use edit summaries? I cannot think of any legitimate ones. DuncanHill (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

No. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Here you removed a source with no explanation, causing a no-target error which I then fixed. In the meantime you restored the source to a different place in the article, causing a duplicate reference error. An edit summary like "moving to x", where x is where you were moving it to, would have been the obvious, easy, and courteous thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Transgender health care misinformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Advocate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | June 2025 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #JUN25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	For your work cleaning up references across Wikipedia. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for my poor editing at the Fascism article. I am still confused as to how sourcing needs to be done and would appreciate if you could show me a Wikipedia guide available for how to source. Also I want to learn how to do sourcing with references as shown in the Fascism article with what to type to make the code for the reference list as I am completely unfamiliar with that. BlueberryA96 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@BlueberryA96: Firstly, I would like to apologise for coming across harshly, your efforts are appreciated, and you are making Wikipedia better. The skills for referencing will develop over time, and I myself am also still learning despite having been here for almost a decade.

For the Fascism article, it is one of the higher quality articles with regards to references, and over the past couple of weeks as you have probably seen, I've been trying to add references for claims which lack them, and specifying the references we already have for other claims to the relevant pages in the references where the claims are made. This is the issue with swapping those references in the first paragraph, as the pages specified are for the claim of fascism being on the right-wing of the political spectrum. A lot of those references can also be used to support "authoritarian" and "ultranationalism", but we need to verify the pages these descriptions occur on and cite those pages specifically.

Feel free to ask any questions about whatever with regards to Wikipedia, and I will do my best to answer them, or direct you to where you can probably find your answers. There is also Wikipedia:Teahouse where there will be other editors available to answer queries you have. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Cdjp1,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Yazidi genocide (1915) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Yazidi genocide (1915) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but 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.

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, welcome, welcome Cdjp1! I'm glad that you are joining the June 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This article, particularly Anders gesagt, spricht die Dynamik des Konfliktgeschehens in einer Gesamtschau mittlerweile eher für statt gegen einen Genozid. Insoweit gilt eben auch, dass die Zerstörungsabsicht nicht der einzige Beweggrund des Täters bzw. des Täterkollektivs sein muss. Sie kann durchaus mit militärischen Zielsetzungen und sicherheitspolitischen Erwägungen zusammentreffen., might be of interest for both the article and the list. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to include it, possible until mid July, so I‘m happy to canvass you for the task. :) FortunateSons (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll add it the jobs list. As my own commentary, I can say I was honestly shocked hearing Mertz's recent comments, and did wonder if we would then see opinions put out from specialists, etc. that shifted from what I viewed as the internal view from the German cohort, that being a more adamant "no" on the question. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! That’s indeed a possibility, though I think it’s more likely to be correlation than causation, though that position might not be entirely aligned with the house view. FortunateSons (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seventy-second firman of the Yazidi, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventy-second firman of the Yazidi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope we can do better than accusing people of gravedancing, Cdjp1. LukeWiller and his lookalikes lied about their sources, edit warred to exhaustion, and were community banned for serious reasons. The true damage is in the articles he edited. The fact that the content has stood for over a year (?) is a sad one: it first stood there unsourced, and when a source was added, it implied that the Italians had the right to Rijeka, even though Britannica clearly says that they ignored a big part of its Slav population. It also says they had no right to it according to an earlier agreement. And that their own government attacked them for doing silly things in Rijeka ("the Italian premier ordered the battleship ... to shell D’Annunzio’s palace"). Ponor (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies on the matter, I misread the source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem, Cdjp1. Please be careful with anything LukeWiller edited. It's gonna take years to clean it all up. (That isn't gravedancing!) Ponor (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You probably have a better grasp of the non-legal scholarship, so: do you think there is a place for a sister page for Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, or is the discussion still localised enough that there’s no point? FortunateSons (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@FortunateSons Ive not kept up with it as much, i have a couple papers at hand that deal with October 7 and Gaza in tandem, which aren't used in the article yet. But based on the article's length, there should be easy enough room to include all pieces discussing that matter (that I know of) within it. Though of course, if there is more than i thought, it's easy enough to spin up a template page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added a few more sources to further reading, they should be incorporated into the article, but at least they are flagged so people know about them for now. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added Ambos as well, I think you got most of the other ones. I'm not sure about this (warning, it's pretty graphic), what do you think? It's by the Jerusalem Institute of Justice, whose wiki article is of no help. FortunateSons (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration of a graphic warning. The JIJ article needs more than a little work. I haven't heard of the JIJ before, so I can't comment on their "reliability".

The report, from a skim through, could possibly be used, some of it's citations are unfortunate (Screams without words article, with some of the information in the article being dismantled in late 2024), though with the report being from March 2024, it's not surprising, and the information it is used for hasn't been part of what was disproven. Another couple being MEMRI, though I don't have the requisite skills to comment on the validity of MEMRI's translations. Most of the citations it provides are what we would consider Generally Reliable.

I won't stand in the way of adding it if you think it's worthwhile. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a look! I think I'll add it to further reading for now :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We seem to have been overtaken by events FortunateSons (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Usuable, with attribution, to expand info on genocidal sexual violence. I do wonder if now that there's been this submission the Israeli State will allow UN organs to investigate the matter, as they previously blocked the UN which impacted the conclusions of that report. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. I would really be in favour of that as well, but honestly, based on the way that the relationship between the UN and Israel has further deteriorated since October 7, I’m not holding my breath. FortunateSons (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm of the same opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/OF/Japan (Coast Guard) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Cdjp1, as I mentioned previously at User talk:Macaddct1984/Archive 6#Question about formatting references, I am concerned that you have been behaving in a way that could represent following me around per WP:HOUND. Your numerous edits to articles I wrote, especially your 85 edits to Antisemitism in health care and your 9 edits to Normalization of antisemitism, have not been particularly helpful in my view, rather, your edits seem to deprecate or disparage the articles. Other examples of your edits occurring in close succession after mine, in a deprecating manner, include Daniella Pick (3 days), Zibby Owens (1 day), ISGAP (13 hours), Blood libel (2 days), Social exclusion (9 hours), Edan Alexander (13 hours). The I/P space is heavily dominated by a small group of editors, to the detriment of WP:NPOV, and I have experienced this behavior from others, including now topic-banned editors. In this case, I believe it's time to head to ANI as suggested here. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Both of the articles I wrote, mentioned above, received B ratings, but are now tagged in disparaging ways, solely by you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Every edit I made is within guidelines and the MOS. If you are truly feel aggrieved, you know the channels to make your argument. Should you do so, I would like to know how expanding the articles with information that fits within the purview of the article, adding multiple additional references, correcting the formatting of references, and adding relevant images, as done across various articles though most explicitly seen at Antisemitism in health care, makes the article worse.

On the note of "B-class" articles, I suggest reading the criteria, as those that were formerly rated B-class did not meet all 6 criteria necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The heading is: Concerns about following me around per WP:HOUND Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, While I work out my trouble, would you be willing to self-revert this and seek affirmative consensus for it? I hope you can understand that it’s frustrating to see an editor comment on an AE report for a possible violation of consensus required and then go on to seemingly violate the same restriction on the same page. Mikewem (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you focus on your argument in the AER, should you want to comment more on that. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, I’ll submit a report for this after I respond to mine Mikewem (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your painstaking and precise work in improving important articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Can I second this? Thank you for cleaning up the references on Cultural discourse about the Gaza genocide. I have yet to learn how source code and the sfn format truly works so it is a huge help. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The sfn kerfaffle was my mess in the beginning, so it's the least I can do. My comment on the last ref-conversion on the Gaza genocide article was just a bit of exasperation, because I'm too lazy to build a script, I make myself suffer the work manually. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've done similar work in the past, so I know the feeling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

My apologies, but I previously asked for help regarding adding all of the nations that support South Africa's ICJ case regarding the Gaza genocide to the relevant page for this, and you said that you would handle it, but I noticed that its list still seems to be very incomplete. Would you be willing to handle this when you find the time please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=next&oldid=1271306745

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1300587217&oldid=1300473208

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGaza_genocide&diff=1300691954&oldid=1300687655

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel#Other_international_responses

David A (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there wasn't actually anything to add, as near all references were included, and while it doesn't have a list of countries that support South Africa taking it to the court, it has a list of countries who have actually officially joined the case, which seems the more important list to have. That would have been my reasoning for not actually adding the list in. I can add it in now, but I would do so as a footnote to the graphic, and should someone challenge it, I won't be making an argument for its inclusion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there is a distinction. Ok, I'll expand the main list and see if anyone chooses to jump in to clarify. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a massive lot for your help. David A (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Btw: I think that you likely added this text to the wrong section of the talk page. David A (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@David A that's in the correct section. Cdjp1 (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I apologise for my mistake then. David A (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious 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. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, nice work on Colonisation of Hokkaido! Just a heads up that a bunch of the sfns on it have broken links. I recommend you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors; it tells you when links are broken. E.g. Komai 2022 should be Komai 2021, and Roche et al. 2018 specifies the wrong surnames. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGB Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democrats.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

As a reminder per , the article is WP:1RR. Regards, CNC (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I assume you noticed that the editor you just replied to has been blocked about the same time you responded, right? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Not surprised, while it seemed rather obvious to me what I thought they were doing, I'm not one to push things to review for behaviour, so works out fine that admins seem to have noticed the same sort of flags I picked up on. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

On 18 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Colonisation of Hokkaido, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was * ... that the Japanese colonisation of Hokkaido was facilitated by the expertise of American advisors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Colonisation of Hokkaido. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Colonisation of Hokkaido), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised a Socialist like you didn't hesitate to take a jab at the U.S.? 2600:1700:7808:24B0:818B:3D49:2026:41DF (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NRC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious 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. TylerBurden (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of the content in the lead section are unsourced. You can check and verify that. Could you please cleanup? 2409:4073:299:9EBA:612E:42FD:9AD7:CE67 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited October 7 attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Hurriya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Please self revert as you are currently in violation of 1RR for this edit. Also, please use edit summaries. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

That is 1 revert & I can't find a second revert from them that would make this a breach of 1RR, so I don't see what you're seeing.

(Also, the edit you linked has an accurate edit summary, so I don't understand that point either) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Lower on the page they had tried to restore a similar piece here. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary as others have already actioned. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2025 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Iljhgtn. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Gaza genocide that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please take the advice to remain calm and likely step away from your computer. Do not senselessly escalate a talk page discussion which should focus on content, not other editors. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I have been nothing but charitable in assuming in the best faith, all your ridiculous edits and actions are done simply due to ignorance and lack of skill. As if one were not to view them charitably, they are actions that ignore our policies and guidelines and lie about sources, all because you may not like what sources say. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Gaza genocide. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You have at least once or twice personally attacked another editor, here. And bordered on doing so against me, here. I suggest you cease doing so post haste, and focus on the content. Thanks. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You may want to include attacks in the future instead of me describing people's actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The following contentious topic warning now applies to you:

to stop accusing people of incompetence, personalising discussions and breaking 1RR.

You have been warned because you repeatedly fail to focus on content at Talk:Gaza genocide, and have twice breached 1RR in the last two months. I'd also like to request you start using edit summaries.

This warning is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This warning has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If your conduct continues to fall short of the expectations of editors in a contentious topic, you may be subject to a contentious topic restriction such as a block.

You may appeal this warning using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this warning, it remains current until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, when people openly say "Here are the mistakes I've made in assessing the content for this article" I will not make mention of their own claims of having made mistakes in discussions with them about the content. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Your October 19 response here on your user talk crossed the personal attack line most clearly, but you've been accusing people of not understanding guidelines quite frequently. If somebody makes a mistake, talk about the mistake, not about them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Adjusting sentences in prose, so they no longer follow the source being used as a citation, is either an issue of understanding the source, AGF, or is undertaken maliciously to obfuscate the source, ABF. Though you are correct I could have been more diplomatic in that instance. Do you have any more guidance and words of wisdoms to the claims that have been made over the past day and bit? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to adjust course. If someone is annoying or not contributing much, actually ignoring them after a first reply is one option, instead of announcing that you will ignore them. That way the discussion can focus on more productive issues. The other option is to just ask them to cite scholarly sources, rather than their own interpretation of UN reports, and point them towards WP:NOR. If their behaviour escalates, it's much easier to take them to WP:AE if you have stayed civil throughout,. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, which discussion is the UN report? As there hasn't been any interaction between myself and the three other editors who have bemoaned my conduct, with regards to UN reports. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought that was the diff you were talking about: . —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh they do mention UN reports, that had completely slipped from memory, as of course the discussion leading into that was about the article on Israeli inventions, and on them declaring that they chose to just let an LLM find issues with reports, I said my closing statement and will now, as said, ignore them wherever I see them. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That edit summary accusing someone of bad faith, just after a logged warning is not a good sight. Please stop commenting on others completely. For edit summaries, you can turn on the setting that warns you when you forget. Please enable this, as communication is not optional in contentious topics. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bangladesh Police. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You reverted eleven times on Bangladesh Police today. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule that does not contain an exception for "reverting unsourced edits". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Air Forces/WO/United States (1947-1956) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Air Forces/WO/United States (1956–1991) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/United States (1941-1947) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/United States (1947-1956) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/United States (1956-1972) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/United States (1972-1987) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/United States (1987-1991) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/United States (1991-2004) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to make sure that you understand that United States Department of Defense falls under the "post-1992 politics of the United States" contentious topics, and your revert of another editors revert of your edit violated the editing restriction imposed on that article. Please be aware that any further breach of editing restrictions on the article could result in sanctions against you. - Donald Albury 23:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Cdjp1. Thank you. Nehushtani (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I requested that the case be withdrawn. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Nehushtani (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try not to accidentally break 1RR again. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OF/Laos (1955-1975) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Laos (1955-1975) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/OF/Laos (1955-1975) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/United Kingdom (1913-1953) has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I know that some books have DOI but I've always avoided putting them in because most don't, it makes the citations inconsistent and adds extra length and wikitext. Is there a reason you think it's helpful to have this information? (t · c) buIdhe 13:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

No particular reason bar completionism, feel free to remove it, as this case (similar to most cases) the doi isn't really "different" to the isbn. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. You violated 1RR with your recent edits at 2025 Bondi Beach shooting:

1. First revert 10:10, 5 January 2026 (revert of this).
2. Second revert 11:42, 5 January 2026 (revert of this).

Please self revert. Nehushtani (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The first one is a partial reversion, where I removed a tabloid source, the other material that was added in the highlighted edits was removed by another editor prior to me. The second one, I didn't remove anything from the edit highlighted, but instead formatted one of the added references, and added FCN tags to the bare URLs added as other references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I included the wrong fourth diff. In the second edit, you removed the "Barnaby Joyce blasts Anthony Albanese over Bondi probe as Jewish groups renew calls for national inquiry into anti-Semitism" article, which was added here. It is therefore a revert. Nehushtani (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

If you check, there has been multiple edits since the initial edit, adding multiple additional higher quality sources for the information over a tabloid. Discussion can be found here. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

1RR still applies even if there is a discussion. You can do a manual revert even if there are intervening edits. Nehushtani (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Low quality tabloids should not be re-added. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Even if it's an unreliable source, you violated 1RR. Please revert. Nehushtani (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As stated, it should not be re-added. There is no argument that can change my mind on the matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 Bondi Beach shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 9 News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Cdjp1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cdjp1, I've closed the AE request regarding you with no formal action. Please be cautious of 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the result, I do think a formal warning was warranted at minimum. Besides that, yes I need to be more careful on reversions, as it was a silly mistake that occurred due to my poor oversight and eagerness. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Effectively it didn't really matter whether this was formal or informal. With a recent logged warning and this anything else is likely going to get a robust response. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025–2026 Iranian protests, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kinder der Landstrasse, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You are no. 1 editor and author of Gaza genocide. Congrats 🐈Cinaroot  💬 08:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Have been for over 2 years at least, and the fun part is its nearly all due to formatting the references. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Kern, a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Escapist was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | March 2026 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:MAR26]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that when you make an addition like , you have to renumber the parameters (to 9 in this case), otherwise you "hide" the previous entry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång oh, my apologies. That was a very silly mistake on my part forgetting to change the numbers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No biggie! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Cdjp1. I noticed that your recent edit to Rank insignia of the Guardia di Finanza added a link to an image that does not exist on Wikipedia's servers. Files from other websites or from your computer must be uploaded first before adding them to the article. Most images you find on the Internet are copyrighted, and have their use subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 14:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I got called away mid-editing. It is now fixed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add a better citation needed to a primary source interview of IDF Spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin. He's giving the video interview in his own words. There isn't a better source to quote the Brigadier General. This isn't US domestic politics. It's a quoting a foreign military official. There is no allegation Fox News is faking video interviews of foreign officials. There is already another citation discussing the operational deception. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

And yet Fox News remains unreliable for politics. So find a better source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This isn't politics. This is a video interview of a foreign military official. The source is not fox news, its the brigadier general. There is another source discussing what he says, but this is the appropriate source for the video interview. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

As you have moved this to the article page, This will now be archived. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the last three were cut off after I merged the list over at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration. Thanks for fixing that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I thought the cut off was around 12, hence why I initially split it there. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

the {{page needed}} templates are not necessary or useful, as the sources you've put them on do not have page numbers. if you want to add the PDF page numbers to the Margaryan et al. supplementary material, the source is available for free. also, please do not change {{harvnb}} to {{sfn}} without reason when the article consistently uses harvnb; it is not an improvement and creates inconsistency within the article. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 15:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

• The May 2026 administrator elections are set to proceed.
• We plan to use the following schedule:
  • April 29–May 5: Candidate sign-up
  • May 8–May 12: Discussion phase
  • May 13–May 19: SecurePoll voting phase
• If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

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)

This needs to be moved back to Jagadish Chandra Bose since its a unilateral un-discussed move by a disruptive editor. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Ah my apologies, I missed that the last part was different. Unfortunately I can't move it back or forward, with it flagging that the pages already exist. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
• May 8–12: Discussion phase
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François de Loys is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be redirected to De Loys's ape.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François de Loys 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I have opened an AN discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Concerns over the handling of an RM pinging dispute that may be of interest to you. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert, though I have nothing to contribute. I will keep an eye in case any guidance comes about from it and adjust my actions accordingly. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion phase of the May 2026 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 8–12: Discussion phase (we are here)
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Discussion phase.

On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The voting phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started and will continue until 19 May 2026 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mikewem, and editor behavior, enforcing rules on sources and neutrality. Mevsherd (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You've not formatted that correctly. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed according to what Mevsherd intended, I think. Please revert if no. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chechen genocide, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chechen genocide until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cdjp1. I just wanted to note that this edit that you reverted was a revert of this ARBECR violation. As you are an XC editor, I have no issues with you including it within the article, I just wanted to note this in case you were unaware. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah my bad then. I'll self-revert. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

hello. you reverted edits on templates related to military ranks of iran and you said it is because the link is inaccessible in many countries. well i checked the link with ipcheck.ing and it was ok in couple of countries that the website could do the test for. with what tool you found out the links are inaccessible in countries you mentioned?

if you want you can check these URLs—that are all Persian—for the same source (check article 64 for related law)

• rc.majlis.ir
• fa.wikisource.org
• hamrahyaar.com

Vastmajority20025 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Moved to and replied to at Talk:Military ranks of Iran#Arteshbod/Daryabod. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding recent edits, you might want to watch the spelling of "Stationery" in references to HMSO. Hope this helps. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

...Not to gossip about other editors, but I get concerned for editors that are trying to help, coming from noticeboards where they volunteer, only to feel insulted. So, I wish to apologize for that and express some gratitude to you for participating. Should I be surprised if this goes from RSN to an RfC, potentially getting dragged out as long as possible? I can't say, but perhaps if policies and guidelines on these types of subject were clearer and more concise, maybe there would be less room for debate such as this. Maybe it's worth a post at VP, do you think I should? Cheers DN (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, it's water off a duck's back. Thank for the concern though. Maybe policies should be more explicit in some manner, what that manner is, I can't say, and I don't have the will to attempt any such changes. Due to this I can't advise as to whether to take any suggestions to VP. I can say though that from what I've seen you should be commended for your patience and conduct in the discussions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I see that you adjusted some of the bibliography of content from the Fascism article after content was removed. Based on discussion on Talk:Fascism I've created a Fascist culture article and the "Culture" section of the Fascism article can be removed, however I've had difficulty keeping track of what will change in the bibliography. I was wondering if you could remove that section and adjust the bibliography that will be altered with those changes. BlueberryA96 (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

On it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Colonisation of Hokkaido is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mupper-san -- Mupper-san (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can you please point me to the prior discussions on the talk page you were referring to in the summary of this revert? Samuelshraga (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The search function is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=npov+tag&prefix=Talk%3AZionism%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=disputed+tag&prefix=Talk%3AZionism%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

If you want to add the tag, tale it to the talk page as is procedure for contested edits. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Well I hadn't thought of adding the tag myself, but the argument in their edit summary seemed self-evidently true to me. But you're right, if I want to take it up further, I'll do it on the talk page. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if you read the articles before you added them, but if you didn't, please do before you add stuff like this. Sometimes there's WP:OUTING and stuff in them. Afaict, that wasn't the case with your PRESS 26 addition, but this can occasionally bite you in the ass if you're not careful. It has bitten mine.

Never heard of WinFuture before, but de-WP seems to use it , so I'm assuming it's fine in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, from a skim through the ones I added when checking recent news which mentioned Wikipedia, I didn't notice any outing before adding them. If I missed one are you able to say which it is? I know some of them mentioned specific editors, but only by username, so I thought such was fine.

WinFuture is weird, as while it is a software, it is also a website covering tech and internet news. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't see any outing, just wanted to offer a word of caution. I've had it happen with WSJ, Politico and Haaretz. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the caution. I was aware of the concern from reading discussions on ANI where outing articles have come up, but it's never a bad thing to have reminders. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Colonisation of Hokkaido 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mupper-san -- Mupper-san (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, as the most active editor of the Mark Kern article, would you be willing to read what I have written on the talk page and weigh in? Ostip (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

If the information is wrong per the sources, change the information. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I made some changes, but most of them were reverted with the message "Partial revert. Sourcing, WP:SYNTH, and WP:FRINGE issues". Ostip (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Spamming the talk page with a dozen overlapping discussions is not going to ingratiate you to other editors. Looking at the reversion, I can see the concerns of the reverting editor. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not my intention to spam the page, I tried to organize them into their own sections. Should I collapse all of the topics into a single discussion thread? Ostip (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Saw the reverted change. Though i know it wasnt perfect, it wasn't to a fandom wiki, but an official one. ~2026-32603-90 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The part where the game doesn't have an article on this wiki, i get. But at the same time, most of the official dev comments for this sort of thing are on discord rather than a platform such as twitter.

also, im one of the main editors for the official Monster Crown wiki, if you needed to know who made that edit at all. ~2026-32603-90 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32603-90 I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What do you think I reverted and where? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit. @~2026-32603-90, there are hundreds of monsters in Monster Crown; it's not that useful for a reader to know on every mythological creature article that "it appears in a video game". It's only useful if there are secondary sources that discuss the monster as it appears in that game. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thank you for clarifying that Reconrabbit. So to answer ~2026-32603-90, while you have provided a citation for it appearing in the game, it being a notable appearance of the creature in popular media would require that it is a notable work. This first indicator would be that the game is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, which it doesn't. Secondly, we would need WP:RS that provide the information for us to cite. As the citation provided is to the Fandom wiki for the game, it is WP:UGC and therefore not a RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)