January 2022 and before February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 |
June 2022
Pending changes reviewer granted
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)
Thanks >>> Extorc.talk(); 07:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For your efforts in counter-vandalism work. Keep it up! Volten001 ☎ 12:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC) |
Archiving notice
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)
Edit conflict with move closure
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Maktoob Media non RS?
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)
- 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)- @Indianite @Extorc May I suggest using Template:bsn instead of outright removing content and refs? Venkat TL (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @Indianite @Extorc May I suggest using Template:bsn instead of outright removing content and refs? Venkat TL (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)