User talk:Extorc/Archive 1

August 2021

Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that you made a change to an article, India women's national field hockey team, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ----Rdp060707|talk 04:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

I noticed that you tagged some sources as unreliable here at 2021 Bengal post-poll violence without providing any valid reason for doing so. Those sources did not violate any of Wikipedia's policies like WP:RSP, WP:DEPREC, WP:SPB. Can you provide a proper explanation for that particular action of yours? Diptyajit (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diptyajit: I apologies for not mentioning any source. This source says"Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress—West Bengal’s main opposition party—has wrested control of Kolkata TV" , "Backed by the Trinamool Congress and young Kolkata-based entrepreneur Kaustuv Ray, the channel is now being run by its 171 employees". Hence it is clear that this is backed by TMC and is unreliable and moreover it is also dead. Extorc (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Extorc: This source does says all the things that you are claiming. But it was published long ago in 2009. Here is a link from 2021 which says that the channel is owned by RP Techvision (I) Pvt Ltd which "took over the rights of Kolkata TV from SST Media Ltd" in 2014. This one quotes the owner saying "After the 2016 West Bengal assembly election, Mamata Banerjee’s government stopped our distribution for two years". Now, many claims and counterclaims can be made on issues like this. A source can be declared unreliable if it is proved that it spreads false news. Generally in cases like this, a consensus should be reached just as was done in the case of Republic TV (See WP:REPUBLICTV). — Diptyajit (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diptyajit: Give me some time to look into this in more detail. Till that , would you like to comment on the statement of Kaustuv Ray in this source saying "But our editorial stand is anti-BJP, and we are clear about that.". This seems violation of NPOV which clearly states No Editorial Bias. Extorc (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Extorc: WP:NPOV applies only on Wikipedia articles and editors who are editing such articles. The channel's editor is very clear about their "editorial stand". But we are not presenting any of their opinions or full articles here at Wikipedia. We are only highlighting some information from their articles here. There are many pro-BJP news channels which are collectively known as Godi media. A list of such media houses can be found here. But not all of them are termed as unreliable/deprecated (as has been done in the case of Republic TV). — Diptyajit (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hi, Extorc. I moved page [Talk:Kolkata TV Not reliable Diptyajit/Archive 1] to User talk:Extorc/Archive 1. [Talk:Kolkata TV Not reliable Diptyajit] and [Talk:Attacks on me] are not User namespaces. Rrefer to WP:Namespace. Sawol (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawol: Thanks for that. I made that name after following the Archiving guide and I might've misinterpreted the naming convention. Extorc (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and BLPCRIME

Extorc, please be more careful with close paraphrasing, and with how you handle news reports of crimes. I've had to remove a considerable amount of content at Murder of Kishan Bharvad because it was clearly copy-pasted from the source. Also, when a source says that police accuse someone of a crime, you simply cannot write that that person was responsible for a crime. Please carefully read WP:NOR and WP:BLPCRIME before proceeding further with that article. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been warned previously for copying content, which makes your recent edits more concerning. Further issues are likely to lead to an immediate block. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I will be more careful about Copyright Violations from now on. This was a mistake that I made after 100s of edits after the last time I was warned and I will try my best to not repeat this. My history clearly shows that this isn't persistent copyright violation. Moreover i wanted to ask if i re-add the content removed with proper paraphrasing, will it be okay? Extorc (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extorc, everyone occasionally writes text that's too close to their sources; that wouldn't be cause for a block. The issue is that you obviously copy-pasted the text in, in two different edits, and that's something you should never ever do. It's not just a matter of carelessness, and as such the rest of your edit history doesn't matter much. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Okay, i get your point, i will not repeat copy-pasting from sources again. Extorc (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I didn't answer your question; yes, you may re-add the content if you paraphrase it carefully, and also take care to stick to what the source says. Vanamonde (Talk) Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOTNEWS, in all likelihood. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Likely, yes, but I've no stomach for a messy AfD at the moment, and it's early days yet. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same - I will stay clear until circumstances become more clear. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hi Extorc! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2022 Karnataka hijab row several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: Yes, I completely understand what is edit warring. I can see that in the past 24 hours I have only made 1 revert on the mentioned page that was of your edit because I felt that the removal of content was not right, if you were to revert that revert of mine to restore your version, I would've reached you out to settle this. Extorc (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Amanatullah Khan. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Venkat TL (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

Please see WP:PSTS. Avoid referencing WP:TOI in history and politics related articles. Venkat TL (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In context to which article are you talking? @Venkat TL >>> Extorc.talk(); 09:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your recent edits on BJP where you added TOI. Venkat TL (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]