User talk:EarthDude

This is EarthDude's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Hello

I noticed my edits were undone on the RSS page. I added fascism prior but I was told to remove it because it was inaccurate. Is this still the consensus? Firekong1 (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to remove fascism related categories from the article. There is an entire subsection in the article, detailing RSS' comparisons with fascism, which is reliably sourced. When your addition of fascism was reverted as you say, that revert itself would have gone against reliably sourced information in the article. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Jaishankar

When you find undue stuff in the article on S. Jaishankar please have a look at who put it there, and whether other editors have also tried adding very similar text in the past. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rahil1610.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for telling me. I'll keep it in mind and be on the lookout for similar potential socks EarthDude (wanna talk?) 08:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thanks for doing good edit summaries, like this. Those kinds of edits are really hard for other editors to figure out without edit summaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thanks! I really appreciate the kind words. I try to be clear with my edit summaries so others can understand the changes well, and I am glad to know its helpful!! EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive4

I noticed you've been leaving some great suggestions on improving the India article. It would be a huge help if you could also share your input at Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive4. Your contributions there would be immensely valuable in shaping the Featured Article Review process. Rackaballa (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my insight into the article's current state, in the discussion. Hope it helps! EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one's message was edited or removed. I have reverted your edit to the talk page. All I did, was move messages regarding discussion to the discussion section, as they do not belong in the voting section and harm the voting process. What I did was simply cleanup. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be moved. I have said that I do not accept the move. What makes you think that you can do whatever you please on Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your rejection of the move is bad practice. It is very simple. The rfc has been divided into two sections, voting and discussion. Your message, which has been moved to the appropriate section, had no place in the voting section. Being in the wrong section, the message impedes the voting process. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 17:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

WP:RFCCLOSE: "Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."

Nominators can withdraw RfCs or remove the RfC tags but not close them, this too when consensus is clear not when there are barely 2-3 participants who haven't agreed on anything. Gotitbro (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro According to WP:RFCCLOSE, The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the rfc tag. The policy further states When a discussion has naturally ended, you should consider ending the RfC. Also, when you say "Nominators can withdraw RfCs or remove the RfC tags but not close them", you are simply incorrect. Wikipedia's rfc policy page itself says that removing the tag is equal to ending a discussion. I had closed the RfC after nearly a month of it being open, which is the usual time an RfC is open for. It was a clear case of WP:SNOW, as no editor who had engaged had opposed it. Furthermore, the discussion itself had naturally ended with no further comment after more two weeks of waiting after the last comment. You are violating basic rfc procedure here. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 02:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you have no idea how RfCs are supposed to work, there was no SNOW in that discussion. You closed the discussion and did not merely remove the tags, that was simply incorrect. A month isn't up yet and even if it was you would seek admin intervention for a closure not close it yourself. Gotitbro (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring policy. It clearly states the nominator has the right to close the rfc, if consensus is clear or if the discussion has run its course. That is very explicitly detailed, and I have even quoted it in my previous message. A month is not a set-in-stone timeline, it is merely a guideline, which should be ignored if applicable, as stated by WP:RFCCLOSE, in There is no required minimum or maximum duration. I had closed the rfc after waiting for over two weeks with no new comments. What you are saying is not backed by policy. You have also now begun edit warring. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 03:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to be familiar with how RfCs work. I will take this to WP:ANI where administrators can inform you better. Gotitbro (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to actually engage with the policy at hand. I even quoted the specific sections of the policy which go against what you said! This seems to simply be a way to go against consensus since you specifically disagree with it EarthDude (wanna talk?) 03:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between closing an RfC and ending it by removing RfC tags, you went with the former. And indeed even if the nom wants to do the latter there has to be clear WP:CONSENSUS which in both of your cases wasn't there [barely 2-3 participants who do not agree with each other]. I will continue this at ANI. Gotitbro (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]