User talk:DreamRimmer

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

MediaWiki:Gadget-markAdmins-data.json

Good day. Are you interested in maintaining this with your bot so humans don't have to edit it every time a right is change or has expired. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 09:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy to do so, but would others not prefer a human to update this config? My bot does not have the permission to edit the MediaWiki namespace, and it would need admin rights to do so. – DreamRimmer ■ 09:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, forgot about the namespace issue. Alternatively, your bot can just place the updated code within its own userspace and an admin would just have to copy & paste the chunk over without finding specific usernames to add/remove. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The best way to fix this would be for the gadget to use the bot’s userspace JSON file instead of the MediaWiki page, so no manual updates would be needed. The only question is whether the community is comfortable with letting a bot handle this. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me create a discussion at RfH --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 10:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Any progress so far? Dragoniez made a good point regarding server efficiency; I would support granting sysopship to the bot. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 02:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I have not had time to work on the code. I will finish it in a few days and file a bot request. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

bewwikt once more

Hi, I just want to mention that previous updates to MediaWiki pages still have some bugs preventing changes that have been agreed upon by the community to fully take place (mostly for mobile views). In addition, I have also renamed various classes for consistency across templates in bewwikt, which renders some parts of the CSS/JS obsolete. So once again, I ask for your help to update wikt:bew:MediaWiki:Common.css with the version here, and wikt:bew:MediaWiki:Common.js with the version here. Thank you! — swarabakti^💬 13:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Swarabakti: Done. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/29721493

Was it a bug in DR or a human error? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

From a quick look it appears to be my oversight, but I will check whether it has anything to do with DR. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracking categories in GSwikis

Found your edit, please advise how to tell if any categories are tracking even when empty. I normally leave those alone if having interwikis.TunnelESON (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

On most small wikis, tracking categories are often empty and usually do not have interwiki links, so using a translator or an LLM to understand their titles is generally the most effective approach. – DreamRimmer ■ 07:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Why did you withdraw the immediate deletion request?

Why did you withdraw the immediate deletion of Category:Wikimedia Foundation/ryu?

In my opinion, the translations in this category have only been edited by FuzzyBot and are not actual translations. In fact, the page header states, “Translation is 0% complete.” Based on this, I believe this page has not been translated.

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. ℍ𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕜 ^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 05:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have already deleted the translation you tagged. See log – DreamRimmer ■ 05:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank DreamRimmer.

That was my mistake.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused. ℍ𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕜 ^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 09:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

ADMINSTATS

The User rights modifications statistics are skewed, since global changes are also counted. Could you fix that, please? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

This is intentional. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Assistance in marking a page for translation

Greetings, I recently tagged a page for translation. Can you kindly assist me mark it up for translation. See page link here Thanks for your promot assistance Sayvhior^Talk 01:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not have the required permissions to mark pages for translation on Commons Wiki. You will need to contact a local translation administrator for this. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Fine. I guess I have to try contacting a local translation admin in that case. Thanks for your reply Sayvhior^Talk 06:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Cascading protection on Talk:Spam_blacklist

Hi DreamRimmer; I'm unable to create a new blacklisting request at Talk:Spam_blacklist; when I try to edit, I'm getting the "This page is transcluded in multiple cascade-protected pages, so only administrators can edit it" banner. I'm guessing a template was recently protected that shouldn't have been? Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: This was my fault. Log pages are cascade-protected, and they transclude {{Spam blacklist log instructions}}. I recently edited it to use {{REVISIONID:Talk:Spam blacklist}}, which is in effect a transclusion. I reverted the change. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Adminstats

Good day. Is it possible to add a new stat for translationadmin actions? The commons version has this line. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, please give me five minutes. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Done – DreamRimmer ■ 14:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Alex Harrison page in Minangkabau Wikipedia

Hello! I noticed you haven't deleted Alex Harrison's article on the Minangkabau Wikipedia. Did you forget about the page, or do you have a specific reason for not deleting it? 𝄃𝄃𝄂Badak𝄂𝄀𝄁𝄃 🕭 03:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleted now. It was missed earlier. – DreamRimmer ■ 04:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks 𝄃𝄃𝄂Badak𝄂𝄀𝄁𝄃 🕭 08:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Should MassDelete delete user talk pages?

Enabling "Delete associated talk pages (if any exist)" when using MassDelete, if one of the pages is someone's root user page, will delete their user talk page. Is this intended behavior? JJP_Master (she/they) 18:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it will delete the associated talk page of a page if this option is checked, regardless of the namespace. If we want to avoid deleting the talk pages of user pages, we should process the list of user pages separately and keep this option unchecked. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with the Wikipedia Vèneta

@DreamRimmer, Hello, I also wrote to you on the Wikipedia talk. I'm contacting you because you're a member of the SWMT. I'm making several contributions to the vec:Wikipedia:Prinsipio, and I've also applied to be an administrator. However, the administrators haven't been in touch or responding for months. Is there any way to contact them? What can be done? Sinucep (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Stewards elections statistics

Hello DreamRimmer,

I hope this message finds you well. You recently created a page titled "Stewards/Elections 2026/Statistics". While I can understand the purpose of such a page to provide a better overview of the elections, I am not certain that including withdrawn candidacies is both fair and representative, as withdrawals occur at different stages and for various reasons. This skews perception and may cause harm. I kindly ask you to move the withdrawn candidacies to another section, without considering their results as final or current. Thank you in advance.

Best regards, Baidax ^💬 09:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I only created the statistics page, but it is updated by a bot, and I can see that it has been fixed. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @DreamRimmer. Best, Baidax ^💬 18:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for advice on cross-wiki undo of LTA contributions

Hello @DreamRimmer,

I am currently undoing the contributions, in many wikis, of an LTA that was locked at my request. However, I was temporarily prevented from continuing several times with this message: As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes..

Is there any way that I can work around this? I thought about global rollback but the "heavy use" condition makes me hesitant to request it, plus I don’t even know if it would actually solve this issue. If global rollback is not the solution or if you think I wouldn't be given it, do you know if there’s something appropriate for this use case?

Thanks, Huñvreüs (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Statement

I can't respond to your decision not to rename me any more, so I'll say here. One entire reason for why I don't want this name to be kept is exactly that the block can't be solved with this username, and as for the Commons uploads, they're long settled. Thanks for your time. Have a good day. Blitz 1 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/30228767

ee:Dukɔwo dome domenyiŋusẽfianu ƒe ŋkɔ and ee:Domain name registrar are obviously spam. The first one has one link, the second has two of the same domain, all inline rather than wrapped in ‎<ref>. The domains themselves are suspicious too. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I still disagree. Inline links alone do not make something spam, as users sometimes add links directly in the text when they are unfamiliar with proper referencing. In this case, the links are archived, and the content is encyclopaedic enough to leave the matter to the local community. If you want, you can report it again for a second opinion. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The links are archived because InternetArchiveBot ran over that page, likely automatically. The contents look encyclopedic because that's how spammers fare. In any case, I have re-reported. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

autopatrolled right request

Hello @DreamRimmer I hope you're doing well, I’d like to request the autopatrolled right here on Meta, I am an active cross-wiki contributor, holding autopatrolled & rollback rights on Commons, arwiki and Wikidata, I’ve been contributing to Meta recently and having this right would help save time for local patrollers, I believe I meet the requirements for this permission. Thank you! -- Aws ^💬 Talk 19:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Increasing the periodicity of featured articles on a Wikipedia

Hello. On Urdu Wikipedia, like some of the other Wikipedias, the duration of a featured article is just one day. The problem is that it is difficult for smaller Wikis to update with the articles so swiftly. Morever, the featured article list is also semi-static - it gets updated less frequently than it should. I therefore would like to extend the duration for at least one week. Can you help as how to proceed? Dr. Muzammil (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. I could not spare free time over the past few days, so I was unable to reply earlier. I see that you have already fixed it with this edit. If you need help with anything else, please let me know. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

SWMT wiki

I understand the confidentiality of the SWMT Wiki and the need to lock it down to regular users, but you do understand that by doing so, you’ve also stopped people from viewing not just the legal disclaimers, but also their own pages such as their talk page and preferences? (it is driving me nuts that I have a message on my talk page that I can’t view) Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It was created recently and is still being configured, so it will take some time. You can view the content of your user page and talk page, but editing is restricted due to MediaWiki limitation. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: Can you also unlock my contributions page? I understand that that is completely unnecessary apart from the one edgecase where a non‐editor edited a page before the restrictions (that would be me).

Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you transfer my account on SWMT wiki from User:Anohthterwikipedian to User:Star walker?

Star walker (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Done – DreamRimmer ■ 07:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Information about the recent security incident

Hello, we are sending this message to inform you that your account was one of 97 registered Wikimedia accounts affected by malicious code as part of a recent security incident. This occurred only because you visited Meta-Wiki at a specific time.

This incident was caused by a malicious user script "worm" that was unintentionally activated during a security review by the Wikimedia Foundation staff. The worm modified MediaWiki:Common.js, causing Meta-Wiki visitors to edit or delete various pages during the approximately 23 minutes that this worm was operational.

We have analyzed the malicious user script and reviewed our internal and public logs. We have found no evidence that your account credentials were compromised, or that your account was used to conduct any other actions on Wikimedia projects besides editing or deleting random pages. We have no reason to believe that Wikipedia was under attack, or that any information about your account was breached as part of this incident.

All edits caused by the script have been reverted, and the deleted pages have been restored.

We apologize for any disruption this incident caused you, and are working to prevent this kind of incident from happening again. You can learn more about that security work, and further details about this incident, on our project page.

Regards, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Product Safety and Integrity team, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

WhyNotResolve dysfunctional: Error processing request. Check console for details.

Could you please fix this bug as soon as possible? msg
WhyNotResolve is an important tool and it's a problem to its hopefully increasing users throughout the project if it goes dysfunctional for many days. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I will take a look when I have some free time for development. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It's still broken. Could you please simply undo your recent change so it works again? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Reminder: global rename policy requirement

You are receiving this message because you are either a Steward or a global renamer. If you are steward and don't perform global rename, you can safely ignore this message.

Hello, this is a general reminder that renames or vanish requests should be reserved for someone who knows the language and local wiki affairs on their home wiki or most active wiki for the first 24 hours after the request is placed.

For the first 24 hours after a rename or vanishing request has been placed, it should only be processed by a renamer who has sufficient proficiency in the language of the requester's home or most active wiki, and is active on that wiki.

— Global renamers#Guidelines

Refer to the 2025 RFC adding this rule, and following global-renamers mailing list emails: 1, 2, 3. Thank you.

— regards, Revi delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Tool for tracking script updates

Hello User:DreamRimmer,

I’m sharing a small Toolforge project that might be relevant as you work with user scripts and gadgets regularly.

WikiScriptSync helps track changes to .js and .css files hosted on GitHub or GitLab and sends a notification when updates are detected. It does not make any edits on-wiki, it only helps you stay aware of changes, and stay updated with the latest version.

• Tool: WikiScriptSync
• Docs: Wikitech

We encourage you to try it, and share your feedback or suggestions.

Regards, Dev Jadiya (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you please revert your change breaking the WhyNotResolve tool?

Please simply undo the change that causes the tool to be dysfunctional. I wonder if you are intentionally trying to get users to fork your script and undo the change. I've already asked you several times; not good practice to leave a tool fully broken for weeks and not fix it after many requests – this is an important tool and also linked at some places etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This tool is only for Meta-Wiki, and I make changes based on Meta alone, so I cannot track if someone is using it on other wikis and something breaks there. I cannot revert the new changes, but I can fix it when I have time. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

AVS shows the same statistics for both tr.wikipedia and tr.wikimedia

I'm talking about these results. The total number of reverts is shown as 2387 for both wikis, but that's incorrect. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what went wrong here, I will take a look. I was planning to rewrite the backend of this tool completely in the coming days, so I will fix this bug as well. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sa.wikipedia

@DreamRimmer Hello there, DreamRimmer. Since you have blocked me on Sanskrit Wikipedia, may I know the exact reason? I didn’t really do anything on Sanskrit Wikipedia, yet you blocked me for “POV pushing,” even though my edits were made months ago (some even in 2024). The reverts you made also seem quite strange to me. If this is some kind of misunderstanding, could we please discuss it and resolve the issue?

If anything I have done on Sanskrit Wikipedia is that I translated the English version of pages to Sanskrit. The block you have given me is not genuine.

Your reverts [1], [2], [3] and few more reverts at my userpage and talkpage there don't make any sense. Is that block genuine? ZDRX (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. After going through your edits across multiple projects, I noticed the same pattern of POV pushing continuing over a long period of time. Most of the articles you edited or expanded are politically sensitive topics where you were adding unsourced criticism, removing criticism from subjects you support, and giving undue weight to one particular side. The same editing pattern can be seen on Sanskrit Wikipedia, Hindi Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, and several other projects as well. Your user page also openly expresses strong political views related to many of the same subjects you edit. Having personal political opinions is not a problem by itself, but when those views are reflected consistently in editing on contentious topics, it raises serious neutrality concerns. The reverts you mentioned were made under en:WP:BANREVERT, and that can sometimes include good faith edits too. Looking at your editing history across different projects, it does not appear that you are approaching these topics from a neutral point of view, and this has been happening for quite some time. I also noticed that you have extensively edited the same subjects on English Wikipedia, although I have not had the time to properly review those edits yet, so I am assuming good faith there for now. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer The content I wrote on Sanskrit Wikipedia was translated from English Wikipedia. It was properly sourced there as well.

Sanskrit

I want to know the revision in which I removed the "criticism" section from Sanskrit Wikipedia. The article [4] had not been updated for a decade. The content I added was history translated from the English article page. Regarding the other page the criticism section is fully sourced by me. I haven't received any warn or block ever on Sanskrit Wikipedia but still a block was given to me. This makes the block unfair, I didn't even edit on Sanskrit Wikipedia for months.

I understand concerns about contentious political topics, but I do not believe these edits on Sanskrit Wikipedia themselves show POV pushing or ideological editing. If there are specific diffs that are considered problematic, I would genuinely appreciate clarification regarding those edits specifically.

Hindi Wikipedia

On the article, I added criticism through translation from English Wikipedia under the "संरचना और संगठन" subsection. The actual reason I removed it was due to WP:UNDUE, and the way it was written was more like a newspaper article. I admit my mistake there, but if I had received your notification, I would never have touched that article. Secondly, there was also the Devanagari issue, which I explained earlier.

Comments

• I also believe that the “unsourced” claim is made up because you didn’t review the edits properly. The content you claim was written by me was already there and was not added by me. The whole "critcism" part has specially one which you targeted on my talk page wasn't added by me [5][6] (first revision provided by me is the only edit I did in that section, seems like you mistakenly put the whole blame on me). Also, expanding an article with proper sources is not POV pushing. The only thing that could be considered bad was removing the criticism section from INC. My intention was to remove content that violated WP:NOTNEWS ans WP:UNDUE, but I still admit that removing it was the wrong approach.
• Even if your charge of "POV" is correct, then still, indefinite block for this offense is not warranted at all. WP:BANREVERT stands for reverting the contributions made in violation of a ban. None of my contributions meet that definition.

My appeal

I deeply apologize for ignoring your warning there. I admit that acknowledging the notification was my own responsibility. I will be more cautious in the future and will ensure proper handling of languages or scripts that I am not familiar with.

• I am also willing to avoid contentious political topics for some time and focus instead on non-political, maintenance, language, and other stuff. My intention has always been constructive contribution rather than advocacy.

Kindly please provide me with a way to resolve this issue, and I sincerely assure you that it will not be repeated again. ZDRX (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't think your editing on these subjects has been neutral. I noticed this on Hindi Wikipedia, where criticism was removed from Congress-related pages while criticism was consistently added to right-wing-related pages. For eg., on national hi:स्वयंसेवक संघ you added "21वीं सदी में, सदस्य संख्या के आधार पर इसे दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा अतिदक्षिणपंथी संगठन माना जाता है। आरएसएस की आलोचना एक उग्रवादी संगठन के रूप में भी की गई है, और कई विद्वानों का मानना है कि यह घृणा फैलाने और हिंसा को बढ़ावा देने का कार्य करता है।" and the claim remains unsourced. Your explanation for removing content under WP:NOTNEWS feels selective to me and appears more like a justification for promoting a certain POV. Similar concerns were raised on Simple English Wikipedia, where some of your edits were reverted and you were warned by BRPever. The same pattern appeared again on Sanskrit Wikipedia, where you added a criticism section to sa:राष्ट्रियस्वयंसेवकसङ्घः and used sources such as Jacobin and The Caravan, which many editors would consider opinionated and unsuitable for sensitive topics like this. You also added the same unsourced paragraph ("एकविंशतितमे शताब्दे अयं संघः सदस्यसंख्यायाः आधारात् विश्वस्य सर्वाधिकः अतिदक्षिणपन्थीयः संघटनः इति वर्णितः अस्ति। अयं संघः अतिवादि संघटनम् इति आलोचितः अस्ति, तथा विद्वत्समाजे अस्य द्वेषप्रचारः हिंसाप्रवर्तनं च समर्थयति इति मतैक्यम् अस्ति।") there, which further gave the impression that you were mainly trying to emphasise the negative aspects. At the same time, your edits on hi:भारतीयराष्ट्रियकाङ्ग्रेस् appeared mostly positive in tone. On Simple English Wikipedia, especially on the simple:Narendra Modi article, most of your additions focused on criticism, and on simple:RSS page you were trying to portray it as a far-right organisation. You also made many edits to simple:Rahul Gandhi page, but I don't see the same editing pattern there. Similarly, your expansion of the Congress article on Punjabi Wikipedia also appeared largely one-sided. I also have concerns regarding your knowledge of the languages you are editing in. You expanded many pages on Sanskrit Wikipedia, while elsewhere you mentioned struggling with Devanagari, so I would like to know whether machine translation was used for those edits. I also noticed several machine-translation-related errors on Punjabi Wikipedia. Also, please note that this is my Meta talk page, and I would appreciate it if matters related to other projects are handled locally through the proper channels, such as your local sawiki talk page by making a local unblock request. I would also like to mention that editing my talk page more than 10 times generated multiple email notifications, which I found disruptive and unnecessary. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer I cannot edit anything on those Wikipedia anymore due to my block on two WPs. I believe that we both are aware about this.

• First of all, the pages related to RSS have already been updated. Secondly, those sources are allowed on Wikipedia. You cannot justify a ban for those reasons.
  • You cannot justify blocking me simply because you believe Jacobin and The Caravan objectionable. Right now, this is a personal point of view, while Wikipedia allows them.
• Regarding Hindi Wikipedia, the same applies here as well, a block cannot be justified because of one line, especially when some sources had already been cited by me above those lines. On my Hindi talk page, you mentioned some other lines, but in the end I found out that they were never written by me. Now you are bringing up different lines instead.
• One more point, I have added historical information to the article "didn't participate in the freedom movement", along with other content. All of that material is properly sourced, and I have also included some criticism. Similarly, I have added some criticism in the other article as well, particularly in the "संरचना और संगठन" section.

The content that I expanded in the article concerns history, more specifically the history of Indian independence. I would like to know what exactly is one-sided about it.

• If I had added material based on my own personal claims, then it could be considered POV pushing. However, I translated the history sections from English Wikipedia along with the citations.
• Now you cannot justify calling it "POV pushing" on Sanskrit Wikipedia. If I had added my own ideas without sources, only then could it be considered "POV pushing".

I am left with no other option than using Meta Wikipedia. I assume that, as a steward, you know well that due to the global block I cannot edit anything. I am also unsure how I am supposed to appeal this block. ZDRX (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I have explained my concerns clearly, and at this point you seem more focused on making assumptions than addressing the issues that were raised. You were found to be POV pushing on multiple projects and, based on my review of your edits and the concerns I outlined above, I believe the block is appropriate. Responding with a wall of text and shifting the blame onto me does not really address those concerns and is not going to help your case. If you wish to appeal the global block, you can follow the instructions provided here. Also, just to avoid any confusion, I am not a steward but a global sysop. I am pinging @BRPever for a second opinion, as they are also an experienced global sysop and are active on South Asian projects. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I looked into some of your edits on simplewiki which I found concerning hence the warning. Many of the things you wrote were not adequately sourced, and some which I found leaning towards a side. You seem to be doing that on multiple wikis which raises some crosswiki POV-pushing questions. I concur with DreamRimmer above and do not believe I need to add any more examples. If you do want to appeal your global block, you can do so following one of the methods listed at Global blocks#Requesting and appealing global blocks. BRP ^ever 15:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@BRPever Thanks for your comment. However, the main concern is regarding Sanskrit Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia. DreamRimmer believes that I added Jacobin and Caravan as sources on SAWP, "which many editors would consider opinionated and unsuitable for sensitive topics like this." However, the concerns raised and the block imposed are not justified in relation to Sanskrit Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia, and most of my arguments were ignored. I still have not been given a clear reason for the block on Sanskrit Wikipedia. I do not find the explanation that "you didn’t add criticism on that page" to be a valid reason, especially when all the content is properly sourced. Jacobin and Caravan are reliable sources and everything I added there was just translation from main English page.

I would like to ask you to please read the entire conversation above and review it. Thank you for providing me with the link, I will look into it and take care of that. ZDRX (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)