Hello. Your account has been granted the "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.
Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive!
You scored 158 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this cleanup barnstar. Thanks for helping out!
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:
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)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Non-admin closure of RM Malakai Black → Aleister Black / Miro (wrestler) → Rusev (wrestler)
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)[reply]
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.talk08:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. (Fix | Ask for help)
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)[reply]
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.talk14:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.talk15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.talk18:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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.talk18:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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.talk18:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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 talk18:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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 talk19:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Evidence phase of Indian military history extended by three days
You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
Dympies (talk·contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
Human activity in India
Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.
