User talk:Extorc#Requested moves

File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|pending changes reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks >>> Extorc.talk(); 07:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

{{Template:Happy Diwali}} ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks @PnT. Wish you an amazing Diwali as well. Looking forward to another year of enjoyable editing with you. >>> Extorc.talk 05:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

{{paragraph break}}

:

::Thanks @Packer&Tracker. Wish you a very Happy new year as well. Looking forward to a good year of editing. >>> Extorc.talk 15:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|1=On 7 May 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Manipur violence, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

|2={{Ambox globe current red}}

|imagesize=50px

}}

:Immensely honored. Will look forward to the splendid editing experience with you. >>> Extorc.talk 15:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

{{Award2

|topic=Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive!

|image=

{{#switch: 100

|5 = Choco chip cookie.png

|25 = Minor_Barnstar.png

|50 = Original Barnstar.png

|100 = CleanupBarnstar.PNG

|200 = Barnstar quill.png

|500 = Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png

|1000 = Order of the lesser scribe of Wikipedia.png

|2000 = SuperiorContentReviewScribe.png}}

|text=You scored 158 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{tl|citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this {{#switch: 100

|5 = cookie

|25 = minor barnstar

|50 = original barnstar

|100 = cleanup barnstar

|200 = citation barnstar

|500 = barnstar of diligence

|1000 = Order of the Lesser Scribe of Wikipedia ({{sc2|olsw}})

|2000 = Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia ({{sc2|ossw}})}}. Thanks for helping out!

|color=#ffeec2

}} Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hi Extorc, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 2024-09-19 00:00:00. For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think your close is reasonable, but consensus is predicated on the move target Museum of Science being retargeted to the disambiguation page Science Museum. I have done this and will go through the handful of links that now require disambiguation, but going forward please be careful to reconcile any redirects or perform other actions consistent with consensus, even if no moves are involved. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Mdewman6. Missed my eye. >>> Extorc.talk 09:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Please do not close requested moves where there is any opposition to the move until a full seven days has elapsed. DrKay (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You did this at Talk:Christian_X#Requested_move_24_April_2025, less than 12 hours after the last comment and more than 12 hours before seven full days. Srnec (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:My bad. Got carried away >>> Extorc.talk 10:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Extorc You also did this at Western Bears. Should have been re-listed Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Servite et contribuere Doesnt appear so. I closed it on 2 May, it was created on 24 April. >>> Extorc.talk 16:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Srnec 2 May is Today. There wasn't enough consensus. It should have been given more time. There wasn’t enough consensus even an argument that Perth Bears was a better interim name. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Servite et contribuere You yourself said in the RM that it is better to wait and that you would raise another RM after there is an official announcement. {{tq|"I will open another after 7 days."}} >>> Extorc.talk 16:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Extorc I think I regret those words. I thought there was going to be unanimous opposition until someone voted in support of it. I actually moved the page. My bad Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Servite et contribuere Chill, Just create another RM when its required. >>> Extorc.talk 16:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not that I would have opposed the move, but closing a discussion with two supports and one oppose without any analysis of the arguments hardly seems appropriate for a non-admin closure. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the history of this user talk page, it appears that people have found issue with your RM closures for years now. I would suggest reviewing WP:Non-admin closure and withholding from attempting to close any but the most clearly uncontentious discussions going forward. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would also suggest reversing your recent contested closures and re-opening the discussions, as a gesture of good will. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have reopened the Christian of Denmark -> Christian RM. >>> Extorc.talk 21:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I wonder if you might want to review, or else expand upon, your decision to apply a non-admin closure of this requested move. As you did not provide any commentary on your decision, it is unclear on what basis the moves were rejected. McPhail (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sure. Almost all the votes on the discussion stated that WP:COMMONNAME for the wrestler was Malakai Black and not what he is currently wrestling with. Just because he changed his employer doesn't change that. That was the consensus from the discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 08:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page :2025 India–Pakistan standoff, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1289409790%7C2025%20India–Pakistan%20standoff%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Extorc§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:2025 India–Pakistan standoff}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1289409790 report it to my operator].

Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Indian military history and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Recectly you have removed a bulk of writing from the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes article with the summary, "UNDUE, doesnot belong here". I do not understand the purpose for your edit. The minister's statement was recorded on 9 May 2025 (today) and hence it was added in the section. Could you elaborate please? Aviator Jr (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:We need to properly assign weight to how much we need to include statements given by ministers. This isn't a very widely reported thing. Only Firstpost has picked it up. Just because one source reports doesnt mean we add it.
Also you added it to the timeline section. If at all, it should be added to the reactions section. @Aviator Jr >>> Extorc.talk 14:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::First of all, I gave two citations including those by Firstpost and Business Today and there are many more sources reporting the same statement which includes Hindustan Times, India Today, The Free Press Journal and it continues. As for the timeline problem, I would ask you to move it to the section it should be in rather than deleting the entire information. Though, my views are that this statements are developing ones and is not proper for addition to the "Reactions" sections but only in the "Timeline" section. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Simple reporting of statements is not enough. If you want to corroborate contradiction in Wikipedia's voice, you need sources talking about the contradicting. Can you show me HT, IndiaToday and FPJ talking about the contradiction?
Also Business Today is not a WP:RS on such topics. Its a business magazine. >>> Extorc.talk 15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Aviator Jr >>> Extorc.talk 15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Other sources:

:::::# https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pak-defence-ministser-khwaja-asif-drone-intercepted-avoid-location-detection-2722256-2025-05-09

:::::# https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/didnt-intercept-indian-drones-because-pakistan-defence-minister-khawaja-asifs-bizarre-explanation-101746781764600.html

:::::# https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/we-didnt-intercept-indian-drones-because-pakistan-defence-minister-khawaja-asif-trolled-for-another-bizarre-remarks-video

:::::I understand the other points. Thank you. Aviator Jr (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I still stand on the point that contradictions like these either don't belong on the page or belong in the reactions section since they are not a part of the direct military or diplomatic engagement. @Aviator Jr >>> Extorc.talk 18:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Why not include it in the "Casualties" section? It is more accurate as other related info are in the same place. Aviator Jr (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I could see you have removed the section without Talk page discussion which I started.

Noted on IndiaTV. But the claim is also reported by multiple reliable Indian sources:

Economic Times (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/op-sindoor-3-pakistani-jets-including-one-f-16-two-jf-17s-shot-down-by-india-as-tensions-escalate/videoshow/121006254.cms)

NDTV (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistan-f-16-shot-down-by-indian-surface-to-air-missile-sources-8365253

)

India Today (https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/india-shoots-down-pakistan-air-force-s-f-16-jf-17-after-pakistan-tried-to-attack-multiple-locations-2025-05-08-989369

)

DD News (state broadcaster) (https://ddnews.gov.in/en/pakistans-f-16-and-2-jf-17-jets-shot-down-by-india/)

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it's valid to include India’s claimed shootdowns with clear attribution, just like Pakistan's counterclaims are included. These are attributed reports from government sources in reliable media, which meets WP:RS for attributed claims in military disputes.  abhilashkrishn ^talk 15:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Abhilashkrishn Economic times is barely a RS on daily factual reporting. Also I removed because if you notice, broader WP:RS are avoiding this piece of news like HT, Indian Express which Indian authorities are avoiding confirmation. Pakistan's counter claims are included because the Pakistani government are openly claiming them. >>> Extorc.talk 18:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Abhilashkrishn NDTV particularly has done questionable reporting recently. Sharing a doctored video of DG ISPR accepting the loss of 2 JF17s. Till a broader set of sources report or Govt of India claims that it shot down aircraft, I dont think it should be included.

:You see I myself supported the inclusion initially, owing to the fact that these sources are indeed reliable but the current situation requires closer inspection. >>> Extorc.talk 18:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Extorc Thanks for your response. I understand your concerns regarding the reliability of certain sources. However, the shootdown claim has been reported by multiple major Indian media outlets, including DD News, Economic Times, NDTV, India Today, and India TV, all of which are typically considered reliable when reporting on national matters.

::Since you've mentioned that sources like HT and Indian Express are unreliable in this case, could you please clarify which Indian media outlets you would consider credible for such claims since most of the Indian media reported the same? It would be helpful to understand your viewpoint on the matter, as this could guide us in determining what aligns with Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability policies.

::I believe that presenting the claim from these sources, alongside Pakistan's counterclaim, would balance the article as required by WP:NPOV and WP:V. Looking forward to your insights!  abhilashkrishn ^talk 18:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Abhilashkrishn I think there was a misunderstanding. I said "broader WP:RS" ie other RS like HT and Indian Express. HT and Indian Express are WP:RS.
>>> Extorc.talk 19:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Extorc Just because these 2 medias does not report it make it unrealiable? What we are adding is India's claim and I think the govt State media has the authority to declare their claim. What do you think?  abhilashkrishn ^talk 19:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think both HT and Indian Express are of higher quality than NDTV and IndiaToday. I just say that we wait. I don't consider DD coverage as official confirmation. MEA is literally carrying out briefs, claiming their victories.
If you notice, whenever such info is surfaced, first Non RS like Zee, ABP, IndiaTV report it. Then NDTV, IndiaToday. At last the higher quality sources like HT, IE report it.

:::::@Abhilashkrishn >>> Extorc.talk 19:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for the guidance @Extorc  abhilashkrishn ^talk 19:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)