User talk:Cdjp1

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

CS1 error on South Schleswig Voters' Association

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South Schleswig Voters' Association, 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) 09:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

hello - any particular reason for this revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1280224031 ? Astropulse (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astropulse mainly it is personal preference as it seems overly gratuitous. More generally, a broad range of images, spread out through the article seems better design, so trying not to cluster as many images in single sections (the reason for my other reversion and adjustment) I think would be better. As a note, have you contacted the VRT at Commons with evidence that the images you uploaded are fine copyright wise per the description you provided? If not, it would be a good idea to do so, so that they aren't deleted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Oct 7 attack articles - there are graphic and violent images and videos of murdered people. I haven’t found such images to balance for Palestinians. That’s one reason I selected this picture. I blurred the penis - as it may be inappropriate. I can open up talk discussion if you disagree. And yes - we can spread it out.

Looking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT? im not seeing the situation where the creator has released or published their work under a free license. is there a forum you can ask questions about it? Astropulse (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the VRT, I was going off of not being able to find information saying that the photos were released under a permissable licence on UNRWA's website, though I could have simply missed it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the image I can raise it on talk page later, unless you want to do it now. If others think the image is fine, then we can add it back in. This means we stay within the process of BRD. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries 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 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International reactions to the persecution of Uyghurs in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Diplomat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be of (general) interest

Episode 334 of F.A.Z. Einspruch, from about minute 25 to minute 50, is rather interesting from a civil rights and law perspective, about language (and speech) restrictions during German demonstrations. The guest also technically makes a statement about genocide in Gaza, but it’s pretty peripheral, so I’m not sure if that’s significant enough for the list. FortunateSons (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may get round to it, can't promise though, but thanks for the heads up. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :) FortunateSons (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

A large fraction of the edits you are marking as "minor" are not minor. Please read Help:Minor edit, which explains that the meaning of "minor" is much more limited than you are assuming. Please conform to the standard. Zero^talk 13:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to specify examples. As most of my recent minor edits have been moving/formatting references in articles, which per the standard of minor, seem to fall under "What to mark as minor changes". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise those large edits were gnomish stuff. Keep up the good work. Zero^talk 06:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Zionism edit breaking a citation

Greetings. I think this edit may have broken a citation but I'm not certain. Rockfang (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockfang: thanks for catching that, yeah, I shouldn't have deleted the post-script element. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Braunstein

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference formatting - BAD

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why did you restore the image of Francoist supporters marching?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/France (Maritime Gendarmerie)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OR/France (Maritime Gendarmerie)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Canada (Coast Guard)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Canada (Coast Guard Auxiliary)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Italy (Coast Guard)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OF/Norway (Coast Guard)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Italy (Coast Guard)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/OR/Norway (Coast Guard)

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/OF/Isle of Man Coastguard

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/OR/Isle of Man Coastguard

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/WO/Maldives

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)[reply]

No need to apologise

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)[reply]

ICTY

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Zionism

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zionism

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)[reply]

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

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

Edit summaries

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]