User talk:XYZ 250706

January 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Draft:P. Shanmugam (CPIM)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706 you know how to request a draft. Creating it without attribution is disruptive. Given the concerns raised at ANI and at the AfD, I have partially blocked you from this article. You remain free to edit elsewhere, but if you continue to be disruptive you'll lose further access. Star Mississippi 14:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XYZ 250706 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC) I did not know about the rule stating that a draft cannot be created without attribution. I may have made mistakes during AfDs but I didn't vandalise the article and made any disruptive edits in the article. Therefore I am requesting to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

You know perfectly well that this was not the only concern. You know because you were told so here on this page and you deleted that comment. I have to assume this unblock request was therefore made in bad faith. Stay away from P. Shanmugam. Don't make another unblock request until you have a substantial history of trouble-free edits in unrelated subject areas. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A. Balasubramaniam (politician)

Use primary sources only for uncontroversial claims please. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira Ok sorry for that. But can I add his leadership roles in the CPIM like state secretary or central committee? XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Besides can you please say how controversial or uncontroversial is determined? XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:PRIMARY. Any information apart from leadership roles must be supported by reliable and published third-party sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

XYZ 250706 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The main concern of the partial block on the page P. Shanmugam (CPIM) was because of my creation of draft without attribution. Yes, I may have made mistakes during AfDs (bludgeoning), but I had (have) tried to rectify that. This block possibly also prevents me from using citation bot.

Decline reason:

Having reviewed this, I'm not convinced unblocking is a good idea. I'd echo what was said when your last unblock request was declined, I think a substantial history of trouble-free edits in unrelated subject area would make your case more compelling. There are still nearly seven million pages you are not blocked from editing. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• No, you were blocked because you were disruptive at the AfD and elsewhere. I told you I wouldn't give you the draft but another admin might and instead of following process, you end ran it. Nothing you have shown indicates you're ready to edit this article without even more disruption. I will not decline, but I do not recommend accepting. You can edit literally every other page of the project. Star Mississippi 21:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I'm trying to make sure I understand what went on here before accepting or declining this. I can see the bludgeoning at the AFD easily enough, what with all the unnecessary bolding, I take it that this user asked you to restore it as a draft, you declined to do so because you didn't trust them to handle it responsibly, and they recreated it by apparently copy-pasting a cached version of it from somewhere? Is that about right? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct @Beeblebrox.

Note I will try not to bludgeon and here's the ANI. They do not appear to respect consensus or listen to feedback. The draft is now back in mainspace thanks to the work of two other editors and I don't think XYZ editing it will be productive. As with the draft should they have gone to Refund, I have no objection should you choose to unblock. Star Mississippi 22:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I also don't think I have to edit the page as per the current condition of the page. But I also cannot use citation bot as it blocks me from using it to other pages. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pinging @Smith609 as the maintainer for their insight here. Star Mississippi 02:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

actually, they appear inactive. @AManWithNoPlan, @Folly Mox might you have any insight here? The user is p-blocked from one page and says they cannot use Citation bot. Star Mississippi 02:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

(responding to ping) It could be that OAuth is – just like with TWL – unable or unwilling to differentiate between a partial block and a full block. XYZ 250706, can you use the Citation expander gadget? Documentation indicates that method of invoking Citation bot does not require OAuth authentication. AManWithNoPlan is likely to have better information. I've never actually dipped my toes into the Citation bot codebase.

Everyone please double check all citation scripts for accuracy and completeness. Folly Mox (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Folly Mox I cannot find the tool in the right side. I can find some other tools like page information, what links here. But I cannot find any option like expand citations [I can find shortening URLs, is that the same thing?]. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently unrelated per below, but have you enable[d] the Citation expander gadget in the gadgets tab of your preferences panel per the instructions? It's not enabled by default (and different to Special:URLShortener) Folly Mox (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

XYZ 250706, why do you need to use the citationbot (whatever that is)? Why can you not just complete citation templates manually like I do?

My impression is that bot editing tools often (but not always) make errors completing citation templates, for example: |last1=info medias |first1=the when it should have said ||last1=Sharma |first1=Deepak.^{correction made here.} You do not need citationbot; you will probably become a better Wikipedia editor if you never know it exists.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Citation bot saves a lot of time. If there is any error, I can change it manually. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Partial blocks will now be ignored by the bot. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan Yes, partial blocks are now ignored by citation bot. But it is not working now. I tried Next Bangladeshi general election. But on the top it shows Processing page 'Next Bangladeshi general election' — edit—history and I can see that no change has been taken place. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That is in no way related to the p-block; it’s an issue with citation bot. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That issue with those urls and the page are now fixed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

One more thing, reFill does some urls that the bot does not. It also will merge duplicate references into things like <ref name=auto/>, which is aweseome. BUT, it sometimes completely hoses that job up and deletes refs. Also, it is less picky about data quality and sometimes will add titles such as "Girls girls girls!!!" to hyjacked domains. Lastly, it "updates" URLS which is often really good, but sometimes horrible. So, double-check all edits. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:ReFill AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohammed Salim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)

Hello XYZ. You keep bringing back a version of the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) article which goes against several wikipedia guidelines. First of all, it has Wikipedia:Too much detail, specifically regarding the countless sections it has over every single known member of every single politburo, since the party's formation. This is simply excessive and unnecessary detail which bloats the article. A lot of the people mentions aren't even that notable themselves, and only a singular primary sources from the official CPI(M) website is used. Also, the article had way too much color. Due to variations in how different browsers and devices load Wikipedia and due to issues such as colorblindness, we should generally refrain from using too much color, so I have removed that as well. You could see other article such as Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party to see how the CPI(M) Politburo article can be reworked as. So far, with the newly added history as well as the functions and composition sections, some of the article's previous faults were fixed, but more work is to be done to bring the article closer to meet Wikipedia's standards for quality.

TL;DR: The endless sections on every single politburo members are not notable and not encyclopedic. Right now, we should work towards finding reliable, reputed, third party sources to fix the article's primary source issue EarthDude (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Please get consensus before imposing your edits. You continue to revert other edits saying that no consensus has been achieved and you edit at your wish without consensus. Please refrain from this. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is not too much details. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude There are separate articles for other politburo of CCP also. But for CPIM only one article is for politburo. So all politburo should be added. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't seek consensus for the CPIM Politburo article because the article literally has no other editors. I had already started a discussion on the CPIM Politburo talk page over two weeks ago and no editor spoke except for you. Even looking at the article history, you seem to be the sole editor of the page, going back as much i can see, i can only see your edits on the article.

When I say the article has too much detail, I mean it has too much minor and non notable detail. For example, P. Ramachandran being a member of the 15th Politburo is a very minor and non notable detail that doesnt belong in an encyclopedic article as this. Every detail should be backed by reliable, neutral, third party sources, yet the article struggles especially with that issue. Other Politburo article such as the CCP Politburo have separate article on separate things because all of that is backed by a LOT of reliable, reputed sources and references. The CPIM on the other hand doesnt seem to have anywhere near as much attention when it comes to sources, which is why the article should be shorter. Wikipedia doesn't speak for itself, it speaks as per sources do, and sources are lacking. Also, having too many sections is itself an issue EarthDude (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

So you cannot edit as your own. Previous editors didn't oppose the previous versions. Stop hijacking pages. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There's no such thing as hijacking wikipedia articles. Nobody owns Wikipedia article and its a community project. All I am saying is that the list of every single politburo member throughout the entirity of the CPI(M)'s history is cluttering the article, especially because the only source for most of them is a singular primary official CPI(M) webpage. I tried to look up more reliable sources for said politburo members but couldnt find any, in their specific relation to the CPI(M) Politburo. If you can get enough reliable sources to prove that adding the list of every single politburo members throughout the entire history of CPI(M)'s politburo, then maybe we could create a separate article titled "Historic Politburos of the CPI(M)" or "List of all CPI(M) Politburo members" or something along those lines, but as of now, i dont think the information is notable enough to be included in the CPI(M) Politburo article EarthDude (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude For party leadership, primary sources can be used as per Wikipedia rules. Besides several of them (specially from 2005) are covered by secondary sources as well. We should keep them as they were and can add details of functions and history. By the way, you didn't answer regarding removal of any politburo member by EMS Namboodiripad. I can't find one example on searching in Google. XYZ 250706 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude You can't impose your edits as your whims. For party leadership, primary sources can be used as per Wikipedia rules. Besides several of them (specially from 2005) are covered by secondary sources as well. We should keep them as they were and can add details of functions and history. By the way, you didn't answer regarding removal of any politburo member by EMS Namboodiripad. I can't find one example on searching in Google. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

What???? Im not imposing edits on a whim. The information on every single politburo member is too much unnecessary detail, especially due to a lack of sources. Also, the reference for the Namboodiripad purges and all are given in the history section. The book is titled "Radical Politics in South Asia" and you can borrow it in the Internet Archive. I dont remember the exact page number but Namboodiripad did conduct party purges against dissent EarthDude (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude No politburo member was removed by EMS Namboodiripad. May be the source is incorrect. Most of the previous editors didn't think the act of adding previous politburo was unnecessary. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The source is not incorrect. It is a highly reliable and reputed book, written by very well known political scientists and scholars, those being Paul Brass and Marcus Franda. I borrowed the book and the information is from page 177. Also, the list of all politburo members is not encyclopedic, it is simply too much unnecessary detail, again, especially because we lack sources on them. EarthDude (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Primary sources can be used to cite leadership related information. Besides politburo from 2005 are cited by secondary sources as well. Besides does the book mention the name(s) of politburo member(s)? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

We should reserve the use of primary sources as much as possible. The source for the 2005 Politburo is great, but if we had that kind of sourcing for all such politburos, then i would be fine with keeping the list of all former politburos. I have also been trying to find sources regarding that. EarthDude (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Even if we can't find secondary sources for some politburo, they can be added with primary sources as per Wikipedia rule XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

We can use CPI(M)'s website as an additional source, but we shouldn't use it as the only source EarthDude (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude That is not mentioned by Wikipedia anywhere. It is good to have secondary sources even for leadership related information but it is not that no item of information can be added without secondary sources especially in case of leadership roles. XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude That is not mentioned by Wikipedia anywhere. It is good to have secondary sources even for leadership related information but it is not that no item of information can be added without secondary sources especially in case of leadership roles. Besides you cannot do any major change (such as removing huge content without having consensus. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Are you available? Or I will make constructive edits in the page? Another suggestion I can give that you can add your edits in Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as Politburo is the executive body of the Central Committee. The central committee article needs rework too and I was working a little bit on it in my sandbox. We can also add the Central Secretariat, the Central Control Commission and the Internal Complaint Committee in the page as they are under the central committee. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying. Ive been busy with some stuff in real life. Again, I am saying that while it is technically allowed to use primary sources for things such as, as you said, individuals in a Politburo, we can't overuse primary sources. We need other sources, like the one used for the 5th Politburo. Also, I am fine with reworking the CPIM Central Committee article EarthDude (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude There is no 5th politburo. The Politburo starts from 7th. So I am adding previous politburo in that page as you are adding your revisions to the Central committee article. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I meant the say the 2005 Politburo for which you had added the news article as a secondary source which included all the Politburo members. We still need secondary sources for the rest of the Politburos. We cant overuse the same primary source over and over again EarthDude (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude There is no such rule. All the Politburo should be added. If secondary sources are found, they can be added to the sections. XYZ 250706 (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude Information on every single politburo member was never added in the page. Each politburo were added. Information on each member is added to their separate pages. For example information for EMS Namboodiripad is given in E.M.S. Namboodiripad. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Which member was removed by EMS Namboodiripad? XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Besides only P. Ramachandran and A. Nallasivan do not have articles in Wikipedia. A. Nallasivan meets the notability criteria as he was former Rajya Sabha MP and played important role in Vachathi struggle. Besides one member being non notable as per Wikipedia doesn't make Politburo of that order (hypothetically for example 15th) non-notable. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)