User talk:Extorc/Archive 4

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Extorc !

Packer&Tracker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Packer&Tracker (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Packer&Tracker, Wish you a Merry Christmas as well. >>> Extorc.talk 06:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MBlaze Lightning, Wish you a Merry Christmas as well. >>> Extorc.talk 09:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cunard Line

Morning, just wondering if you could expand on your close above, I'm not sure the rationale for your "Not moved" close. I provided lots of evidence in the discussion section as to why Cunard is the WP:COMMONNAME as well as confirming to the WP:CONCISE policy,so quite surprised it would be not moved. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I initially failed to notice that the evidence was provided after the votes. This is my bad at accessing chronology of the RM. I will be reopening it and relisting and will be refraining from closing it again leaving that to some other closer. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 09:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough. Obviously I can see I'm facing an uphill battle, without any other support, but if the page is to remain where it is I'd still like to understand why exactly... I'm not entirely convinced by the oppose !votes, but there we go. Hopefully some more participation will emerge! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ghaggar-Hakra River

Greetings, I see that you have closed the RfM as "Not Moved" because "Participants have pointed out that the focus of this page is on the Paleochannel called Ghaggar-Hakra and not the present day Ghaggar river". The article is about the river, it says so in the lead sentence: "The Ghaggar-Hakra River is an intermittent river in India and Pakistan that flows only during the monsoon season." Even if we assume that the article is about the paleochannel—which is part of the river, Ghaggar seems to be the common name per google ngrams. There's already enough evidence provided in the RfM for why Ghaggar is the WP:COMMONNAME, why Ghaggar is WP:CONCISE and why it is WP:CONSISTENT with article titles for other transnational South Asian rivers with multiple names. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UnpetitproleX My role as a closer is to assess consensus in accordance with policy. If I was to consider your evidence provided, all I can say is that the participants are not convinced by your arguments. This disagreement cannot be overlooked as WP:IDONTLIKEIT because users are presenting actual arguments.

" Even if we assume that the article is about the paleochannel—which is part of the river, Ghaggar seems to be the common name per google ngrams" Well, are we sure that there is no statistical significance of the sources which talk about the modern river and call it Ghaggar? >>> Extorc.talk 17:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE are concerned.
"The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic"
And WP:CONSISTENT doesn't apply here because we must compare rivers which have had similar historical significance like being a Paleochannel. >>> Extorc.talk 17:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That historical significance is part of the the topic, not the primary topic, which is the river. Again, the article reads, in its lead sentence, "The Ghaggar-Hakra River is an intermittent river in India and Pakistan that flows only during the monsoon season." Followed by "The river is known as Ghaggar in India, before the Ottu barrage, and as the Hakra in Pakistan, downstream of the barrage, ending in the Thar Desert." Only after this does the sentence about the paleochannel comes. The primary topic is the river, which includes the paleochannel. Google ngrams, trends, books search, practically all statistical evidence provided points to this.

As I type this, I realise that this discussion should be happening on the RM, not here. I see that the ngrams were never added there, among other things. A relist would be proper. Thanks and cheers. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Again, the article reads, in its lead sentence" So if I understand you correctly, you are basing your argument based on what is in the lead which can be changed. If I change what is written in the lead, would you be satisfied? No. That is now how this works. The entire article talks about the historical significance of this river all the time.
Certainly, "historical significance is part of the the topic, not the primary topic, which is the river" is incorrect.
"A relist would be proper" A relist would only be proper if there was not enough participation, not just because the nom doesn't agree with the result. >>> Extorc.talk 10:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UnpetitproleX There is no reason for me to relist this as there has been more than sufficient participation in this RM. If you still think my closure was against the consensus or that I violated WP policy, you can appeal this formally at WP:MR but I highly suggest you to first go through WP:RMDC. THanks. >>> Extorc.talk 10:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have appealed it. Please also treat this as notification for the same. Thanks again for your time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Timeline Indian Test Wicket Keepers

Template:Timeline Indian Test Wicket Keepers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haldighati

Hi! This was a mistake on my part, so thanks for correcting it. ‎ Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers That is fine. Be careful next time around. :) >>> Extorc.talk 16:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. >>> Extorc.talk 20:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bakalawale

The Bakalawale mystery resolved! [1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amritpal Singh

Hi Extorc, the old stuff that was there before you started editing needs to be cross-checked for accuracy. There were POV editors filling it up earlier and I noticed that everything is not kosher. For example, notice the phrase "after being elected". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Will pay attention to that in the upcoming days. >>> Extorc.talk 09:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add this to controversies section. Or maybe Early Life. Guy is a womanizer.

Amritpal Singh, who talks about a separate Khalistan, chatted with multiple women - single and married, on social media, and allegedly blackmailed them with their obscene videos.

www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/extra-marital-affairs-kisses-on-video-calls-amritpal-singh-many-affairs-2350193-2023-03-22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Extorc, please don't archive threads wth content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was already settled in the RSN and this debate is difficult to read. I believe keeping it now does no good. @Kautilya3 >>> Extorc.talk 07:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can collapse it if it annoys you. But one-click archive makes it hard for us to keep track of what is going on, and also puts threads out of order in the archive. When there are zillions of edit requests, we have no choice. But that is not the case now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware about collapsing threads. Maybe if a feature exists where we can put this in an expandible box which is collapsed by default, that will be ideal. >>> Extorc.talk 07:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simranjit singh maan

Hey there!I noticed that you reverted edits regarding simranjit singh maan's reaction to amritpal singh's arrest.The simranjit maan comment was backed by citations and sources to news articles,.Just because he's the leader of a fringe khalistani group dosen't completly invalidate his comments,especially considering that he has played somewhat of a role in Punjab's recent politics.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/aap-jolted-sada-chief-simranjit-wins-sangrur-seat-vacated-by-cm-407220

Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingly read WP:UNDUE. Minority views need not be overloaded. The aim was to remove the least required instance of the minority khalistani backlash and SAD(A) statement was the most appropriate. >>> Extorc.talk 08:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from KoolKidz112

Hello, Extorc. You have new messages at KoolKidz112's talk page.
Message added 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

- Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Razer(talk) 12:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue at TKS

The article The Kerala Story is targetted with biased editing, there's also a discussion at talk. Just because the number 32,000 is doubtful, they are taking advantage of it and generalizing the entire topic as "fictional" (instead of specifically mentioning about the doubtful figure), which is also factually incorrect, the article itself cites the references for people recruited to ISIS - [2] [3] (180 - 200 people). The article is not even been tagged for neutrality issue. 157.44.144.251 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why my attention is needed here. The number 32000 is not doubtful, it is outright unfounded in reality and the article correctly mentions that. They are not mentioning the entire ordeal as fictional as they clearly discuss the "factual accuracy". Currently the article has many experienced eyes. I don't see a reason for you to involve me.
Also, the cited study says that the number of pro-IS cases In Kerala are 60-70 which is the specific topic of the page. >>> Extorc.talk 18:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will only involve myself regarding one point of disagreement I have with the content and that's it. >>> Extorc.talk 18:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]