User talk:Rotideypoc41352

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Politics of Vietnam, a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 28 § Conmhaícne until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there some reason you jumped the gun on moving a page in the Scientology topic area to match a less-than-hour-old CONTESTED suggestion instead of moving the discussion to the contested section?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Have no objection to its undoing per subsequent RM/TR discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No objection... and no apology... for derailing what should have been a straightforward request and brief discussion, instead turning it into a tangled mess that—though reverted—now forces me to expend even more effort just to craft something coherent for an unnecessarily expanded bureaucratic process on an article that gets only twenty pageviews a day. Thanks for complicating the uncomplicated.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Rereading the thread, it seems to me someone else who initially proposed a different title that you disagreed with. Even if I had done nothing, the regulars at RM/TR would have asked for a formal talk page RM discussion anyway—on the basis that different titles have been proposed, that there is no agreement, and that the page can only be at one of them. This happens at RM/TR. Corollarily, even if you link my statement here and say, "Rotideypoc41352 has no quarrel with me, does not object moving of the pages to my proposed title, so their moves should not prevent the retitling as I request", RM/TR clerks would still point to the initial reply and your response to it.

I'm sorry that's how your situation's ended up, and I hope you can go to WP:Closure requests#Requested moves in a week's time and find no trouble there. I have no quarrel with you. Spending more time here will not move the pages any faster. Best of luck on your proposal. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

sago is not exclusive to Melanesia region it is also found in other region. and is consumed by the people there. I have included source and ref.. sago is a food made from sago palm starch. so it can be found several tropical region not just one - Sago was actually our staple food before rice came along. Greetings from the indigenous Malay people of Malaysia. MalayanGuard (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and hope you're doing well! If you had scrolled down, you would've seen all your claims about sago, as I removed none of them.

If you could kindly restore my edits, I would greatly appreciate it and would be more than happy to help better integrate your improvements with what was already there, like the wikilinks, properly formatted IPA pronunciation guide, and existing citations which you removed without explaining why the references themselves don't work.

Also, please kindly check the accuracy of your own edit summaries. In your reversion, you called your edit Expanding article (false, you only removed material), Reverting vandalism or test edit (it is rude to call a good-faith edit vandalism, and my edit summary clearly shows this was not a test edit), Reverting unexplained content removal (again, I explained my edit, which removed nothing). Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, earlier you replied to one of my messages at the technical requested moves page. I can't find it now, so what was it you were trying to tell me? Sorry I wasn't able to respond. Fortek67 (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This comment, @Fortek67? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Edited to clarify: not my comment but one under it with helpful advice. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll start using the "move" link at the request. Fortek67 (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, note that Kim Dae-jung has broken refs after the split grapesurgeon (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon, thanks for letting me know. I am working on it, and in true Hofstadter's law fashion, it's taking much longer than expected. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thank you for reviewing Meratb's first article. I'll see what I can do on my side to help fix their article.

I asked in August 4 for feedback in AfC help desk with regards to my draft, but I haven't gotten much feedback. I wanted to ask if you don't mind reviewing my latest edit for the given draft. This is the third iteration of edits where I shrunk the size of the content significantly so it sounds less like an essay and exclusively focused to be a short encyclopedic content. But would appreciate any tone/voice check.

Link of my discussion in AfC help desk can be found here from Aug 4 if that's a more appropriate place to provide a feedback.

Thanks!

- ABehjat (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't reply earlier because I was hoping to do so when I took a look yesterday or the day before. My schedule hasn't cooperated so far, so I'll try doing so later this week instead. Thank you for your patience and understanding, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, six months ago you rejected Draft:Uri Nachimson on the grounds that it was a duplication. It has been resubmitted and the duplicate seems to have vanished. Can you tell me anything more about what is going on there? Thanks. Doric Loon (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Doric Loon! Seems like I declined the draft as a duplicate of Draft:Uri J. Nachimson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Based on the logs, Liz speedily deleted the J. draft as it was stale. If you want the details, you can try asking them or one of the admins who patrol requests for undeletion to make the J. draft and its history publicly viewable again. If you have more questions, please feel free to reply. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Postscript: I don't recall for this draft exactly, but I infer that when I came across the Uri Nachimson draft six months ago, the J. draft was substantively the same and had already been reviewed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. In that case, I will ignore the problem and review the extant draft in its own right. Doric Loon (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there!

I saw your self-revert regarding the primary sources. Honestly I'm pretty happy to see that you removed that "Further Reading Section" and decided to continue refining this article. Since I contributed a significant portion of the editing work on the sections covering theory and biographical sketches, I wanted to drop by and share my rationale for structuring it that way.

Otto Strasser is an extremely unreliable narrator who constantly distorts facts to suit his own agenda, and WP:PRIMARY is definitely a policy we need to keep in mind. But I lean towards keeping these sections covering theory because, many secondary sources on Strasser often suffer from similar limitations. If we delete all the content relying on his own accounts, the article loses a massive chunk of its context and becomes quite hollow. Indeed, it would be fine if people simply understood Strasserism as "nothing in particular"; however, given that it did exist as a historically existing political project, and considering that the vast majority of vague information regarding it stems from Otto Strasser himself or the self-proclaimed narratives of neo-Nazis, it is better to reveal its nature by stripping away those layers of added colour and let Strasser debunk himself by putting his claims out there.

Perhaps instead of mass deletion, a better way forward would be to further improve the framing and in-text attribution so that readers are always aware they are reading his subjective propaganda rather than objective historical facts. I have tried my best to do this in my edits, but of course, yes, there is always room for improvement.

Fascism, particularly its economic component, inherently involved a great deal of opportunism, ambiguity, and outright grift, to say nothing of fringe movements like Strasserism.

I hope my line of thinking proves helpful to your editing work! WhistlerMode (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I would like to add a few more words on this point. The concept of "Strasserism" has persisted largely because many people are unaware of what his original ideas actually were; they see only a few labels he himself applied, while the very explanations he gave for those labels have remained obscured. If the context were revealed, people would realize that this was just a ploy characteristic of that era. WhistlerMode (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I say this lightheartedly: I've clearly spent too much time on social media because I have much less faith in people's reading comprehension skills, which would let Strasser debunk himself and help them realize that this was just a ploy characteristic of that era. Perhaps I should be less cynical 😆.

I am sympathetic to the issue of finding the right framing for a subject adjacent to "nothing in particular". I observed the rewrite of the article on the Marian reforms, which historians understand as a myth arising from misunderstandings of ancient sources available to us, but that older history texts still state as fact. In this way, like Strasserism, it is also kind of a "nothing". Despite framing the Marian reforms article in that way (it's not true, this is what historians believed, this is why it's wrong, this is how views on the supposed reforms changed over time [i.e. the historiography]), several readers have wandered into Talk:Marian reforms to express varying degrees of confusion. At the same time, I would be hard pressed to offer a better framing that still properly represents academic consensus.

All this to say: thank you for explaining your thoughts. Realistically, it may be a while before I return to the article, depending on my meatspace obligations. If I do, I will keep what you said in mind. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I totally get the cynicism :-)

Internet reading comprehension can indeed be full of variables. Dealing with historiographical "ghosts" is always tricky. No worries at all, I'll keep refining the edges as I can. Best of luck with your meatspace obligations! Cheers! WhistlerMode (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)