User talk:Extorc/Archive 3

Hey! During your moving of Talk:List of school shootings in the United States (2000–present), you forgot to update the archive location. This is just a reminder - don't worry, I've fixed it. Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 07:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Extorc,

It seems you closed[1] a move request along the same time as I made a support vote. Should I revert my vote? I ask because with my vote, it seems like the RM could use more discussion. I'm not sure what the convention is in such cases.VR _talk 16:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've self reverted, but I request that perhaps you re-open the discussion. Of course, I perfectly understand if you don't. Thanks.VR _talk 16:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vice regent. Even I dont know what should I be doing but I'll be defaulting to re-opening the discussion because It appears I closed it a few hours early. Thanks for reaching out. >>> Extorc.talk 17:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the rv. You can add your opinion. Ill now not close this discussion and leave it for someone else to close. >>> Extorc.talk 17:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!VR _talk 17:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Extorc. Hope you are keeping fine. I observe you have redirected my articles on Direct Tax in India and Indirect Tax in India to Taxation in India. Both deserve independent articles due to sufficient reliable sources and Notability. Redirecting to single article makes in confusing and misleading. Request you to reinstate as guide me to improve. Kindly share your thoughts. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: No other country has separate articles about them. Make a new section on Taxation in India for both "indirect tax" and "direct tax" and write over there instead of creating new articles. >>> Extorc.talk 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Tejasimha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article is appropriately sourced using the History of Mewar: from earliest times to 1751 AD written by prominent historian Ram Vallabh Somani. >>> Extorc.talk 06:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly point out particular issues with the article. >>> Extorc.talk 06:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra pinging for attention. >>> Extorc.talk 17:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article is sourced to a couple of pages in a single book. We need in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tejasimha, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I continue to believe that the page was wrongly draft-spaced >>> Extorc.talk 10:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Hope you're doing well. I noticed that you removed content from multiple articles since the source was 'Maktoob media' citing that it is a non-reliable source. Some of the content you removed is actually well-known (covered by multiple sources) if one has knowledge about the subject. Moreover, the website has been cited on multiple pages and the selective removal is confusing. There doesn't seem to be any discussion on wikipedia declaring that the website is not a reliable source and it seems to be accepted by editors. Hence, I wanted to make sense about the changes you made. Thank you and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianite (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Indianite, I am doing well, how are you?
"Some of the content ... the subject" If there are well known events that have been reported by many reliable sources then it is better if we replace the non-RS with RS instead of letting the non-RS be cited on a page.
"Moreover, the website ... confusing." Yes, I found that the website had been cited on multiple articles and I removed it from around 8 out of the 16 articles on which it was cited.
"There doesn't seem ... accepted by editors." May I direct your attention towards WP:NEWSORG which states that " News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". >>> Extorc.talk 14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Indianite @Extorc May I suggest using Template:bsn instead of outright removing content and refs? Venkat TL (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL That might be suitable for some instances. But for example in one page, I removed content added about a MaktoobMedia interview. I suggest that such non-factual content by this website must be removed. Also instances where we already have RS reporting, adding this source might not be the best choice. >>> Extorc.talk 16:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

by all means fix overcite, but the case you linked as diff looks as though it could have used BSN, I dont see anything controversial. Venkat TL (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too have reverted one of your removals. I suggest exercising care when removing sourced content with a blanket claim that is purely your own opinion. Unless there is widespread community consensus as recorded in WP:RSP, there is no reason to go around removing a specific website. Doing so without examining the context can even be disruptive. WP:QUESTIONABLE itself says The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited - not zero - and the site in question is hardly that. Hemantha (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock: Hemantha.[reply]

This is not an WP:RS as I described above and I stand by my objections. That said, now that 2 or more users oppose the removal I will sure get consensus before making any further removal. >>> Extorc.talk 18:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to this issue in an ANI thread. While I haven't requested any action, notifying just in case. Hemantha (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock: Hemantha.[reply]

Just in case this goes to RSN, please ping me. I do not feel that MM is a RS esp. for disputed topics. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, there was no dispute or even any discussion, preceding the removal. Some of the things for which the refs were removed were routine news-y statements like a politician's candidacy and so on. Hemantha (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock: Hemantha.[reply]

Hello, Extorc,

Thank you for creating Ranasimha.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

There are various unsourced statements which require inline citations per WP:BURDEN.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Meena}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

– Meena • 22:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you are already in process, will you perform the move? Cheers. Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I usually close requests in bulk. So I take like 20 requests and work on them and make Technical requests at the end if needed. I have completed my session for now and Ill make the technical request in a minute. Thanks for reminding. >>> Extorc.talk 09:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier, Your Technical request was made here, A experienced editor who knows how to make such technical moves will move it, sometimes within minutes, other times it can take some time. >>> Extorc.talk 09:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extorc, when listing something at RMT, please bear in mind that the rationale you provide in the template will end up the edit summary of the move (which will remain as a permanent record in the history and especially the logs). It's best to avoid cryptic jargon like "RM disc" and it's almost universally expected that there will be a link to the RM discussion itself.

And another point. RM closures do occasionally get listed at RMT, but that's more the exception than the rule. If that's your main modus operandi, it's worth considering whether that is really saving anyone work. Instead of the usual short series of steps (an editor closes the RM, moves the pages and then cleans up after the move) now there's a longer process: you close the move and list it at RMT, then someone else will have to look at the closure to check it's OK, move the pages, clear the completed request from RMT and then do the usual clean-up. – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I almost always give links to the RM discussions in RMT and this was the first time i skipped them. I will make sure I don't repeat this. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 12:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my understanding till now was that, if there is a redirect at proposed location, then It must be moved in RMT. If that is not correct, would you guide me about what is? >>> Extorc.talk 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Yes, RMT is the correct place. If the target of the move is a redirect that doesn't point back to the same page or has more than a single edit in its history, then completing the move will require either admin or page mover permissions. RMT is the standard place to ask for help with such moves. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" that doesn't point back to the same page" - Other cases dont require RMT? @Uanfala >>> Extorc.talk 13:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using RMT correctly. But to answer your question, the cases when an editor would need to ask for help at RMT are listed in the first four bullets at WP:BEFOREMOVING. Among these, the most common scenario is when there's a redirect blocking the move (you can still move over a redirect, but only if that redirect has had no edits since its creation and it points back to the page you're moving). – Uanfala (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When relisting RM discussions, the "relisting" should be added just after the signature of nominator, like I have done here. Keep up the good work :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Usernamekiran, I know that. I might've misplaced it once or twice. >>> Extorc.talk 15:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no worries —usernamekiran (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks >>> Extorc.talk 16:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Extorc,

Please do not cast aspersions and imply other editors are using sockpuppets or are behaving deceitfully in a deletion discussion. This could be construed as a personal attack and lead to a loss of editing prvileges. If you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, the appropriate thing to do is to file a SPI case where you can present your evidence and checkusers can evaluate it. I understand deletion discussions can get a little heated but please try to remain civil. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI and "checkusers" will never resolve concerns over blatant canvassing which has clearly happened there. My statement was logically correct as it noted the accurate hallmarks of canvassing and it was probably more easier to understand than the usual instances of canvassing that we see elsewhere. >>> Extorc.talk 17:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I took care of your request at WP:RM/TR, but just wanted you to know, in case you don't already, that you should be able to do these kinds of moves yourself. As long as there is not more than one edit at the redirect that points back to the article to be moved, any autoconfirmed editor should be able to move that article over the redirect. Station1 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extorc You are not allowed to restore WP:BLP violations and violations of WP:SUSPECT. The article was a mess and I wonder how much of this was added by you. Please discuss any objections you have on the talk page of the article. Venkat TL (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Extorc. Thank you.

Sir here, a user is claiming Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests article as a hoax [2]. Is this true or they are venting out their frustration of failing to get the article deleted in the past ? 2409:4051:2E02:33E9:AA9A:1DB6:2A31:2C14 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Extorc,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged September and October 2022 for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created by mistake while I was trying to archive some content of my user talk page. Thanks for the deletion. >>> Extorc.talk 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]