User talk:Sdrqaz

Click here to leave a message ... This talk page is archived manually on the 15th day of every month, when the previous month's conversations are filed into storage. This applies unless it would lead to no conversations being left. If the user switches to bot-based archiving, the account has been compromised. Send help.

Hi, I’d like to request semi-protection for the "Pagpag" article. Lately, it’s been hit with a lot of vandalism. It’s getting hard for people to keep fixing it as quickly as it happens. I think semi-protection would help stop the disruptions while still allowing good edits from regular users.

Thanks! ~~~~ MysticWizard (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, MysticWizard. While I've heard of pagpag, I'm not an expert so need a bit more information before taking action – looking through the history, it's not clear to me whether it's vandalism or a content dispute. Apart from edits like Special:Diff/1300971397/1303450966, can you identify the other vandalism and explain why? Edits like Special:Diff/1304093916/1304259726 are hard to fully review because the sources require registration. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second link you shared comes from a user who often deletes sourced material from the history section without any explanation and usually replaces it with unsupported claims or their own narrative. MysticWizard (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected for a month by Isabelle Belato (thanks!), so hopefully that resolves things. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind assistance! Slr MysticWizard (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen The word 'hapilan' from the Bisaya (Cebuano) language is documented and verifiable by different references. There is a documentary that claims most people who live in Hapilan are of Visayan descent, which is why it was called Hapilan.

The editor who consistently deletes the verifiable content is making false or unverifiable content based on their own narratives. MysticWizard (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping: I reverted this edit because it contained LLM communication intended for the user (Here are the top provinces of origin for squatters in Manila.) The rest of my reverts were because they removed huge amounts of sourced content without providing a reasonable explanation. I haven't looked at the content dispute. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the History section is very particular to the Hapilan community, which undeniably comes from the Bisaya (Visayan) language, as verified by different references.  I am not an expert on this topic, but it seems that this is the community that popularized pagpag because most of documentation or reference online is very particular to Hapilan, Tondo. Similar practices of pagpag consumption outside Tondo (particularly Hapilan) is less documented. The other added content, such as saying that pagpag evolved into "Monok" (a specific local meat dish)" is unverifiable. The maker of the Monok recipe said it was not pagpag, and that she inherited it from her mother. It was properly sourced or purchased directly from a restaurant, not from the garbage dump. MysticWizard (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that this page was deleted by you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Draft%3AMahavatar+Narsimha&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist can you please give the deleted material, because this page was made by the producer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kleemproduction.media and it is needed for current page Mahavatar Narsimha there has been a long discussion on the talk page. Optim594 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. This is an unusual request, Optim594, but I've restored the draft. See the page history. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Optim594 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdrqaz, you recently protected Talk:Nim on account of repeated nonsense. Unfortunately, since the protection ended, the nonsense has continued [1] [2] and also maybe migrated to the article itself [3]. Would you be willing to protect for a longer period (or, do you have any other suggestions)? Thanks, --JBL (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has been protected by Isabelle Belato and I've expanded the partial range block to the article as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please Unblock or Unbanned me on my Jdhfox account. I will keep up with consistency & I will not ask for any of the articles that I create to be deleted, and I will also recreate my deleted articles the right way so that they won't face deletion or be deleted, and I am not joking about it this time.

I have also been unblocked on 71.65.161.185 since then because also during that time I was a block invasion. During that time period I was blocked on 71.65.161.185 because I was a beginner in editing and I didn't know how to edit that well so I created Jdhfox & during that time period I didn't know how to create citations when I created articles on Jdhfox but now I do and I am better than ever.

I am also am once more blocked on 71.65.161.185 plus 2600:1004:B200:0:0:0:0:0/40 due to connections to Jdhfox.

If unblocked I will recreate articles Adrenaline Rush (professional wrestling), TaDarius Thomas (wrestler), Future of Honor & MLW Women's Featherweight Division with honor and prestige so that they won't face deletion this time. Or any other future article.

I also have a lot of things I want to edit as well if unblocked.

I also want to be unblocked on Wiki Commons as well. And once unblocked on that I will never upload again without a license.

Since then over time I've also blocked on IP address 75.189.238.0 as well due to connection with jdhfox.

So can you also unblock IP addresses 71.65.161.223, 75.189.238.0 & 2600:1004:B200:0:0:0:0:0/40 and any other IP’s that are blocked due to my Jdhfox account as well. To even further clear my name.

I also will never commit Sock Puppetry again & I will no longer ask for my account to be deleted again or want to quit Wikipedia again.

Also if you get the time could contest for deletion or delete my confirmed & suspected sock puppet accounts, Except for the Flinction because I didn't create Flinction. / To instantly close the whole sock puppet / block invasion investigation that will officially clear my name. (Or I could myself when unblocked either is fine by me.)

Because over time I might have gotten into more trouble by creating more accounts due to my blocks when I realized that I wasn't done editing in Wikipedia. And I might need your help to delete them. To further clear my name & close the Sock puppet case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jdhfox

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jdhfox

And I will also keep out of trouble when it comes to Wikipedia from that point on.

I also understand your reasoning for the blocking. 45.37.160.149 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean when you say that you will contest for deletion or delete my confirmed & suspected sock puppet accounts. Your main account is banned due to repeated block evasion and continuing to do so on my talk page and elsewhere is a bad idea. A route back to editing may be to take the standard offer (which means no block evasion for six months), use one of your accounts (preferably Jdhfox) and make an appeal via your talk page or WP:UTRS, asking for a ban appeal to be copied to the administrators' noticeboard. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to report the username "Pachup4po" for being inappropriate. In Filipino/Tagalog, the word “pachupa” in that name is slang for a sexual act and adding “po” doesn’t remove the offensive meaning. So, for anyone who speaks the language, this username is actually offensive and not suitable for use on Wikipedia.

Thank you! MysticWizard (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link of the account:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APachup4po&redlink=1 MysticWizard (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a the dictionary definition for the word tsupa/chupa: https://diksiyonaryo.ph/search/tsupa MysticWizard (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/chupa#Tagalog MysticWizard (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/tsupa#Tagalog MysticWizard (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. As nobody seems to have talked to them about this issue and given their seemingly constructive edits, I will assume good faith and leave a warning. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a long time Wikipedia editor, I do not understand the upper admin regulations and rules; I see that this issue [4] is open, but the evidence is closed. I am an uninvolved party and have key insight into this issue that I feel will help the administrators understand the points of view of both sides of this situation, so I'm posting it here on your talk page - please do not take offense.

Talking about trans issues is difficult, because the mainstream model is the medical model (there is a trans syndrome, direct cause unknown, and transition medical care helps people with this medical issue). Thus, transition medicine is seen as medical care under the medical model. Those who are trans deserve the best evidence based medical care that can be provided. This is the model that allows medical groups to bill insurance for transition related care in the United States.

That point of view isn't the one causing problems. It's a second point of view.

There is an ideology defined and explained by Martine Rothblatt in the book "Sex is Apartheid". It begins with a belief in mind-body dualism; that the mind is the true human, a body merely a shell. Human bodies can have individual features that are more masculine or more feminine, therefore, sex isn't a binary, but a spectrum, merely a "series of biological and psychological factors a body can have". One should spend time contemplating their gender, and that their gender should therefore determine their sex. Body modification should be posed as a human right. These ideas should be codified in psychology, medicine, and law. Letting go of the binary point of view of sex is the next step toward freeing humanity from the "Apartheid of Sex".

Once you see this explanation, you understand the origin of arguments like "Gender is assigned at birth" over "Gender/Sex is observed at birth" - because in this model, one's gender is determined in one's mind, "all genders are valid", and there are no external factors that can be observed to see one's Gender. Modifying one's body to follow the mind is framed as a human right, along with legally and socially being recognized in the gender one declares themselves to have. Thus, Self ID law (where one is able to legally declare their gender, and this is treated as their sex thus forth) is justified.

There are many arguments that do not make sense if you do not understand this framework. "I am a biological female, I take estrogen!" doesn't make sense unless you have the ideology behind it: estrogen provides a "female biological factor", because all human bodies have a series of traits that can lean female or male, and sex is a spectrum of traits a body can have. The general public, of course, is at a total loss because they don't understand the underlying "rules".

It's important to note that Rothblatt helped write a sample Self ID Law draft that has been presented as a suggestion to governments around the world, and that the book was written to justify the law and encourage it's adoption. It's available freely online and is considered a "key" transgender reading, but most people learn the principles in online communities, not by reading the book.'

The challenge to people with this point of view is that pushing it too hard would lead to loosing insurance or health care support for body modifications, since transition is no longer medical care. That's what interjects so much confusion into the debate; the inability to let go of "medical care" to achieve body modification access for those who are not wealthy. This was not a problem then Rothblatt faced personally, so it was not considered in the book.

There have been multiple attempts to name this point of view, and it's prominent here on Wikipedia across many articles, despite never being named. "Gender Ideology" was an neutral attempt. The second closest neutral name I can find is the lengthy "one who doesn't believe you need gender dysphoria to be trans" among those who reject the medical model. To see the fighting in action... you have to look at the words "tucute" and "truscum", both seen as pejorative today. Alas, many followers have not read the book and can't articulate the arguments well. But if you read Rothblatt's book - agree or disagree - the logic behind it can be articulated, and that point of view is being pushed here on Wikipedia.

People who are true believers do not believe they have a point of view to disclose, rather, they believe they are the source of TRUTH. Any disagreement with the TRUTH must be silenced, so even though their own point of view is Fringe, they label "believing human bodies are born with a sex, male or female" as a hateful fringe idea, despite it being the point of view of the majority of people in the USA and UK, and most likely, the whole world.

Therefore, editors who simply try to push a neutral point of view, following the sources, get burned by activists who shut them down by any means necessary. If you spend time in these articles you see the same editors over and over "voting" to protect this point of view at any cost.

It's also hard because most people writing on this issue do have a bias, so any critisism is shut down as "biased" - while biased "pro" sources are openly allowed, leading to biased articles.

This leaves Wikipedia in a bind, because we have a very clearly biased group of editors accusing anyone who disagrees with them, even on a minor point, of being "argumentative" and "unreasonable" and "biased", because they alone hold the TRUTH that others must be forced to see.

I am leaving this comment as an uninvolved party to help the Admins understand the arguments being made, because it will make the points of view being argued about more clear. I've generally just tried to steer clear of these articles, because people are simply allowed to push their POV by pretending they don't have one. I generally stick to trying to clean them up, leaving contentious material, and just making sure it represents what the sources say, but I've been burned for even trying to make an article reflect the source material.

Denaar (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow Wikipedian, I am Giovanni Potage! I would like to request the restoration of PMDrive1061's indefinite semi-protection for Arthur (TV series). Back in June this year, you removed the article's long-standing protection following a WP:RfPP request, based on the principle of WP:UNPROTPOL. Since then, the article has been struck by a slow, but steady stream of disruptive editing (mainly the addition of unsourced nonsense) from IP editors, which get quickly reverted. This issue has completely taken over the article's edit history — effectively staling its growth, with only a single-digit number of productive edits being made. To deal with the this issue, I requested page protection, but the administrator who answered by request (Dr vulpes), unfortunately decided that the best course of option was a week-long protection. I believe this is an ineffective counter to a several months-long persistent stream of unhelpful edits that will only work temporarily. Since the article's subject is one of the most popular cartoons in US television, and the fact that vandalism resumed after a 16-year long protection regime, I believe the former indefinite protection should be restored. This page will likely continue to be a vandalism manget unless any action is taken. Giovanni Potage (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giovanni Potage, this is probably not the proper place for such a request. Head on over to Wikipedia:Administrative action review and they can handle the discussion of the page protection there. Make sure to follow the instructions and post the proper template on my talk page to formally notify me of your request. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]