User talk:EarthDude

Request for RfC closure

Hey, you started the RfC thread the other day on the republican party and so I feel you as the owner have the most power to close the thread and declare a consensus, this would get your result for a position change to the republican party 2603:8001:1700:25A:65FF:DEFD:895:37AC (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the closing. I think the close ultimately will support the charge you are asking for but it's best to take is slow anyway. Take care! Springee (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

2025

Please don't bludgeon the process as you have done in Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist). I will opine that you should strikethrough the unnecessary comments/lines which are not directly related to the discussion or are repetitive. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Buddy, verifying sources is a basic wikipedia practice. I am not bludgeoning the process EarthDude (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

2025 February

@EarthDude Please don't remove properly sourced content. It is disruptive. Although your edits are not reverted yet, but I request you to discuss the matter in the talk page of CPI(M). XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You opened a proposal and without consensus, unilaterally added your changes to the article. I removed them and now you are accusing me of removing properly sourced content and trying to discuss it in the talk page when you bypassed said discussion yourself to speedily implement your proposals, again, without consensus. EarthDude (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Majority supported the view (including me obviously as I opened the discussion after you were reverting them continuously). XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh please. The most basic thing about a discussion is consensus between editors, and you dont even seem to know about that. You opened a discussion, and added all your proposals by yourself with no consensus at all. You resorted to edit warring and disruptive editing in the CPI(M) article and, falsely and hypocritically, accused other editors, including me of doing so. You have repeatedly bypassed wikipedia frameworks to hastily implement your proposals. EarthDude (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

See majority supported the notion of adding multiple ideologies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

See the bludgeoning made continuously by you. It is kind of disruptive. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Bidyut Chakrabarty

Vice Chancellor in certain British Commonwealth countries means CEO or President of the university. The university, of which the subject was the leader, was founded by the leading cultural figure of his region in the early 20th century. The university is state owned. By all accounts, the subject is a public figure and is probably notable. I've tagged the stub for expansion from the German and Bangla languages. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

Please could you expand on your edit summary for this edit at Talk:Godi media. You said that it was a badly sourced statement. So please explain why.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The statement of Goswami calling for a "Final Solution" against Pakistan for the attack, has two sources, one being an opinion article by The Quint, and the other being from New Lines Magazine, a site which is not that well known. I added these sources previously because before that, it used a YouTube video as a source which never even talked about Goswami's words on the Final Statement. I added the same on the Pahalgam Attack article, but some editors called me out, calling it unreliable. So I tried to look for the specific video, live stream, or new report where Goswami said the thing about the "final solution" but even after hours and hours of trying, I couldn't find it. After some more searching, it appears that it originated from a twitter post of a user accusing Goswami of making that statement, and that then got circle reported by various news sources, except for the reliable ones such as The Hindu, the Indian Express, etc. which have not covered the incident at all (which you would expect them to cover, considering the Nazi-esque language being used). Thats why I removed it, because theres no strong sourcing for it. It seems to originate from exaggerated or misinterpreted, sensationalised, and circle reported sources EarthDude (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I've responded with video evidence of Arnab Goswami saying "final solution" on television at Talk:Godi media § Is this a badly sourced statement?. I found this through a YouTube search. This method works because  Republic TV (RSP entry) uploads their videos onto YouTube, which automatically transcribes them and indexes the transcriptions for access through the site's search function. To find specific text within a single video, visit YouTube in desktop mode on your browser (either by using a desktop or laptop computer, or by turning on a browser setting), expand the video description by clicking "...more", and then click "Show transcript" at the bottom of the expanded description. — Newslinger talk 03:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Stop deleting and imposing your POV

Kindly stop deleting well written paragraphs with sources, stop working with agenda Logo5556 (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

In the article for S. Jaishankar, the content I removed violated Wikipedia:SYNTH, Wikipedia:NPOV, and Wikipedia:RECENTISM. I also added reliably sourced information and removed ordinals as per consensus, and made some general grammatical fixes. My changes were not part of any agenda, all I did was make the article better align with Wikipedia policies. I'd advise you to read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead of baselessly accusing me of an agenda, all the while you yourself have removed reliably sourced content from the article, without any explanation at all. EarthDude (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Logo5556 EarthDude mostly imposes his POV over others. He thinks he knows everything and other editors don't know anything. Even in a previous discussion with other editors, majority supported one view and he bludgeoned the process and contested in edit warring and the majority view couldn't be established. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)