User talk:Extorc

Archives

February 2022 and before
March to May 2022
June to October 2022
November 2022 to April 2023
May 2023
June 2023 - May 2024

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

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.

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)[reply]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your efforts in counter-vandalism work. Keep it up! Volten001 ^☎ 12:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali !![edit]

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
Mouth full of sweets,
Home full of lamps,
And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
~~~~

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy New Year 2023 ![edit]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Extorc: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Packer&Tracker (remark) 10:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Packer&Tracker (remark) 10:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2023 Manipur violence[edit]

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)[reply]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent content creation on here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate close summary[edit]

This close summary is inaccurate. "Failed to attract any support" is simply not true. Better to close with no explanation than an inaccurate one. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least 5 support votes. I don't disagree with the closure but the rationale is plainly inaccurate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM close[edit]

Can you please explain your rationale for this closure? There was a significant amount of discussion and closing without even a tiny bit of explanation seems inappropriate to me.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RMCS:4 Doesn't mandate extended comments or explanations. When I don't offer extended explanation, it simply means that the move failed to attract consensus. >>> Extorc.talk 11:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "You may add a closing rationale immediately after the boldfaced result if you think it is necessary." In this case, a rationale is absolutely necessary. Secondly, you closed the discussion as "not moved", while here you seem to be implying "no consensus". There is a difference between the two positions.

Kindly provide a detailed rationale that considers all of the policy arguments made as such rationales are often the basis for future RMs at the same article and related article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have since changed my closing statement to No consensus to move and added further comments. Thanks >>> Extorc.talk 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details, I'll post my specific questions below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My questions are:

how did you evaluate whether or not "capture" was NPOV? Did you evaluate purely based on number of !votes? Did you give any considerations to source tables presented in the article, including the scholarly sources?
how did you determine whether or not "kidnapping" was NPOV?
What do you think was the most relevant policy in this debate by which you determined no consensus?
Are there !votes that you discounted? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, do you think this is a contentious enough debate that it is best that it be closed by an admin or someone more experienced? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg, Cameron Dewe, Wafflefrites were the only participants who commented on POV of the word capture vs kidnapped and all were opposed to the notion that captured was NPOV. This encompasses your next question as the debate over this was quite polar.
No, I still stand by my closure and don't think there is any requirement for admin closure here. >>> Extorc.talk 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]