User talk:Extorc/Archive 4

Personal details

Don't give too many details about yourself online. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Knight Skywalker, Is this about my user page? >>> Extorc.talk(); 05:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if you are giving fake details, no problem; but if real name, DOB is too much. Ask any WP:OVERSIGHT to delete details. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Knight Skywalker, I find information like DOB to be very basic. Its a user page, lets say someone who sees me regularly edit wanna wish me b'day? Dont worry, its fine. >>> Extorc.talk(); 05:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Archiving threads

Hi Extorc, you are archiving threds that are less than a week old, and that is not reasonable. Can leave them alone please? == Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sisodias of Mewar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union of India. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions alert

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.

Venkat TL (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir Files request

Hi Extorc, please could you consider the consensus in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama and provide your feedback in the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webberbrad007 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have replied there. tq >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Tamjeed_Ahmed used his powers to go against the consensus and has now classified the movie as Historical Fiction which is completely out of place because he is denying that the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus took place. Please can you edit the lead as per consensus? I do not have necessary credentials to edit given current restrictions.

-- Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I figure the problem has been solved? >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RE: Disruptive editing

Hello your talking about disruptive editing even though I'm just edit happy when it comes to redoing to article revisions that I prefer. Worldwar1989 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Social Democratic Party of India, you may be blocked from editing. Venkat TL (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are talking about the extremist label that i added, it was most probably because of a edit conflict because you made that edit while i was writing the next one as you can see in the history. I am not in favor of adding that label. >>> Extorc.talk(); 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Infected URL

Hi, it seems like you uploaded/cited an infected URL on the page Sam Gorski. I removed it (edit here), however you might want to scan your device for any malware. The malware detected seems to be URL:TechScam and another "severe" Trojan virus. Have a good day! — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 02:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Was that the link from variety.com? >>> Extorc.talk(); 05:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 14:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, my laptop is clear though.. according to avast and avg. >>> Extorc.talk(); 15:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I also have AVG, but I also scanned my device (full scan, as quick scan showed no results) with Microsoft Security and it found 2 Trojan viruses (one labeled "severe" although what that means is subjective), while AVG showed none. I would suggest if you have a Windows PC, to search for "WIndows Security" on the bottom left search bar and full scan your device. If you don't have Windows, I would suggest maybe McAfee, as that also warned me after going on a infected website. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder though, why would a reliable source like variety.com hold a malware. >>> Extorc.talk(); 15:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I performed a quick scan in virus and threat protection and it found no threats. >>> Extorc.talk(); 15:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be that, it is probably a fake website to look like variety.com (or in other words, a mirror website). If you're computer's antivirus scan found no threats, then you probably don't have any malware, and that may be just that I wen't on a another website that had a virus, or something like that. I searched on the variety's website, and found the (not infected) URL. You can probably safely link and cite with it. — I'ma editor2022 ^{(🗣️💬 |📖📚)} 16:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Extorc, would you consider changing the high contrast colours you use for your signature? They are too distracting in talk discussions, and don't help you to make your actual poionts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Consult this guide. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For now I have removed the background. Sorry for the inconvenience. >>> Extorc.talk(); 12:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anand Ranganathan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Anand Ranganathan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Can i get to know why was the previous page on Ranganathan deleted? >>> Extorc.talk 10:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL Alright, I got to know about the older versions. Sorry, I did not know this article used to exist and was deleted, you can delete it. >>> Extorc.talk 10:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries. How did you miss the Draft:Anand Ranganathan did it not show up while creating the page? Venkat TL (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It didnot, all that showed up were pages like Subramania Ranganathan and Darshan Ranganathan and other related pages. >>> Extorc.talk 10:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. Just noticed that you used visual edit, so may be that is why you did not see. If you try to create an article using Source mode, then you will be shown the link to existing draft if one exists, and the deletion log. I dont have the rights to delete, only admins can. If you agree with my request you can put. {{db-g7}} on that page, so the admin deleting it knows your opinion. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

done >>> Extorc.talk 11:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, I may be wrong but it appears like the extraneous characters in your signature is messing up the archive, as a result thread with your signature is not getting auto archived. See this. Please remove unnecessary characters, especially () Venkat TL (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, something appears to be off, threads with my participation arent getting archived. Im not sure if the removal of () will fix it tho. >>> Extorc.talk(); 14:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are aware of the problem and still not doing something to resolve this then it is disruptive on your part. See WP:SIGN . May I suggest that you seek help from WP:VP where folks can help you keep the characters you prefer without breaking Wikipedia archive bots. If I had to guess the problem, I would guess it is due to the presence of () or multiple >. Try to remove them and see if it helps. Venkat TL (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

All right, I will try removing it. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Dani (game developer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dani (game developer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani (game developer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Jurta talk 07:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions reminder

I am assuming this was a mistake or a momentary lapse of judgement. If not, please note that it gets quite serious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what is wrong here. The source cited clearly builds a relation between the jahangirpuri demolition and the Rajasthan demolition. >>> Extorc.talk 17:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 >>> Extorc.talk 18:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Some random allegation by a BJP politician by no means establishes anything. You really need to review WP:RS policies. -- ARBIPA requires that you are expect to know and follow all the applicable policies. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not presented the statements as facts, I have presented them as statements given by BJP leaders. Moreover the source says that it was a controversy and not just some BJP alegations. >>> Extorc.talk 19:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Moreover the statements are added in a balanced way. Both Congress and BJP statements are mentioned. >>> Extorc.talk 12:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 >>> Extorc.talk 12:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The very link between Jahangirpuri and Alwar is just a BJP allegation. You also called it "Congress-ruled", which is serious POV given that the local municipal corporation was controlled by BJP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The source calls the Rajasthan "Congress-ruled".

I am not adding anything on my own. >>> Extorc.talk 12:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If I am getting you right, a statement made by a political party doesn't carry any relevance to it in relation with the case? >>> Extorc.talk 12:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 >>> Extorc.talk 15:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, politician statements are WP:PRIMARY. They cannot be stated as fact. In this case, the very insertion of this content on this page depends on treating it as a fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A question regarding Guhila

Hii Extorc; I visit your userpage and found out that you are passionate about Guhila dynasty. I want to ask you a question Since they were feudatory of Chauhans of Sambhar (in later half of twelfth century AD.). Did their ruler Samar Singh or Mathan Singh fought against Muhmmad of Ghor in Second Battle of Tarain ? 2402:8100:2182:614F:636C:DE3E:B7E4:3F2B (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:2182:614F:636C:DE3E:B7E4:3F2B Hi, as far as I know, according to Ram Vallabh Somani, Guhilas didnot participate in Battle of Kasahdara. Munj Raja and Chauhans fought Ghori. >>> Extorc.talk 05:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: No Sir; I was talking about Battles of Tarain fought by Chauhan Rajputs against Muhmmad of Ghor.

Since Guhilas were feduatory of Chauhans at the time they must have taken part in the Tarain-II battles ?? 2402:8100:2183:5C53:CEC9:9F3D:D5:D773 (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:2182:614F:636C:DE3E:B7E4:3F2B Guhilas weren't exactly feduatory of chauhan s, they were defeated by chauhans multiple times in 11 th century. I am certain to a significant degree that the Rawal didn't participate in the battle, but i won't be able to say with 100 percent surity. >>> Extorc.talk 08:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: Wrong Sir, Please check out this post, I asked them through email and they claim they only add their content after assesing good sources. It's unlikely that Mewar family did not participate against a invading army either. Chauhans rule did expand til Mewar for sure. 2402:8100:2182:5289:3E54:F808:375A:5293 (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The website you have shared has absolutely no sources cited. It is not reliable at all. >>> Extorc.talk 12:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: Le, here is the source for Mewar participation

on page number 349

In the final quarter of the 12th century AD (as noted already), Mewar Guhila chief Samantsimha, sought refuge in Vagar area, following his defeat at the hands of Kiritipal of Jalore and the Chalukya of Gujarat along with the loss of his new capital, Samantsimha established his principality centred around his new capital of Baroda sometime around 1171 or so. This probably was short lived. Ojha, holds on basis of Virpur inscription, that having been forced to quit his estates, Samantsimha subsequently found place at court of Prithviraj Chavan III and finally meets a hero' death at the Battle of Train

2409:4051:4E87:981D:9BAF:6534:661F:476E (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We can see over Somānī, R. (1976). History of Mewar, from Earliest Times to 1751 A.D.. India: Mateshwari Publications. p -78-79 that

Samantsingh in Vagada.
After being ousted from Mewar, Samantsingh succeeded to capture a part of Vagada from the local Guhilots ... This proves that Samantsingh ruled in Vagada territory only for a few years, and Amritpal might have reinstated himself before V.E. 1212 (1185 A.D.)

This essentially means that he was ousted from power, then he captured a part of Baroda, and then after being ousted from there as well before the Battle of Tarain could take place and then took refuge in Chauhan dynasty and fought with them.

This doesnt necessarily mean that "Guhilots" fought the battle of Tarain. The ruling Guhilots of Mewar were un-interested in that, as far as I know. >>> Extorc.talk 06:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious editing: warning

Extorc, I came across this recent section, which you opened, on User talk:Akshaypatill, and noted that this post of yours on Talk:Audrey Truschke is pretty scandalous. In it, you ask, rhetorically, "Are there any sources calling this a part of the attacks and threats Truschke received?" and state that "It appears Rutgers did not dismiss the concerns". To prove Rutgers did not, you then quote ""At the same time, Rutgers "emphatically affirms its support for all members of the Hindu community to study and live in an environment in which they not only feel safe, but also fully supported in their religious identity". Well, of course they do; universities typically do. But the quote comes from a source stating "abhor-vile-messages-and-threats-directed-at-audrey-truschke-says-rutgers-university". I can't access scroll.in, which is behind a paywall, so I can't give you an actual quote, but the link is called "abhor-vile-messages-and-threats-directed-at-audrey-truschke-says-rutgers-university". It's right there in the link you have yourself provided. This is very obvious cherry-picking from a source whose actual message is the opposite of what you take from them (and which is even, ironically, just the kind of source you ask for), and is tendentious editing at its finest. So is your attempt on Akshaypatill's page to get together with them to "do" something, in a case where you indeed do not have consensus. And so is your related edit of the article. You have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions for Indian topics. I've a good mind to topic ban you from Indian subjects, especially since I also see a serious recent warning from Kautilya above. If you persist in such tendentious editing as I have described, I will topic ban you. Bishonen | tålk 07:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, here is what the first paragraph of the article says:

The Rutgers University of New Jersey on Monday extended solidarity to historian Audrey Truschke, saying that the institute emphatically supported her academic freedom in pursuing her scholarship, abhorred the vile messages and threats that were being directed at her, and called for an immediate end to them.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Kautilya. I presume the university did not explicitly address vile messages and threats from their own Hindu students, then (a university would not do that); but with that wording, they bloody well did dismiss the "concerns" about Truschke's scholarship. In strong terms. Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC).

PS. I've crossed out my parenthesis above, since the source does not appear to specifically refer to the letter from the Hindu right-wing students. Bishonen | tålk 10:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC).

I would like to know in how is it scandalous to ask a more experienced editor :-

• Whether I should make the edit that I'm proposing.
• Or wait longer as I have been doing since a few days now. >>> Extorc.talk 10:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps you'd like to read my warning again, Extorc. I didn't call your questions to Akshaypatill scandalous; I called this post of yours at Talk:Audrey Truschke scandalous, and explained in detail what I found scandalous about it. Bishonen | tålk 16:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC).

• I think the part ".......her academic freedom in pursuing her scholarship, abhorred the vile messages and threats that were being directed at her and called for an immediate end to them" is directed at the harassment she generally faces on Twitter by Hindutva advocates and not by the students. I don't see any vile messages and thearts in the actual letter. [1]. I had raised the same issue and TB had replied 'I think this is a fair observation - let me think of a way out.' This is more like a content dispute. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Bishonen, also, URL links are often subject to manipulation for SEO (Search engine optimization) for ranking higher in search results on Google, Yahoo etc. So I will advice against sanctioning users based on just these links without actually checking what goes in the article. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Please reformat your vote for Proposal C on Kashmir Files page, otherwisw it may be missed. Start with bullet point and Proposal C as your prefernce, then give other details. Thanks Jhy.rjwk (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 15:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have made the reformat. I hope it is in the desired format now? >>> Extorc.talk 15:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Restore reason seems to be untrue?

This discussion is moot and ignore this if you wish, but despite your edit summary in this revert, you appear to not have added any reliable source for the claim that a temple was converted. The source you added appears to only say that VHP thinks there was a temple, but I'm unable to access the full chapter. Can you quote the part of the new source which made you think that addition was warranted? Hemantha (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, at that time, the scope of this article was not clear to me and I assumed all forms temple to mosque conversions of any degree would count as "conversion". Only later I was guided about this by M.Bitton.
Now I understand that only Mosques that were built by forcibly destroying a temple would be counted here.
Earlier I was accounting "spoila used to build Mosque" as conversion as well. >>> Extorc.talk 06:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

M.Bitton is wrong to the extent of being nonsensical - in most cases, we cannot conclude to historical certainty whether a temple was "forcibly" repurposed to a mosque. If we believe court-chroniclers of Muslim rulers, every demolition appears to be an imposition, in the service of weeding out infidels. But once we take a look at socioeconomic conditions and texts of other kind, nuances appear.

Anyway, Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque belongs to the page. Gyanvapi-esque situation. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

So are you fine with me restoring the Quwwatul Islam column in the table? >>> Extorc.talk 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - to the best of my knowledge, as in the case of Gyanvapi, there is no doubt among scholars that the mosque stands atop a desecrated temple. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you respond here >>> Extorc.talk 12:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Some further discussions

Since the AFD had been closed, I would like to further discuss the topic here, sorry for any disturbances if has: The text from NYT is "The words 'Russian' and 'Fascist' do not seem to go together comfortably, *but the fact is the Russian Fascists, although few in number, were a dynamic element among the two million emigres who had abandoned their homeland in the wake of the Revolution.*" So it does say that "the fact is the Russian Fascists, although few in number" which means it does exist. Of course, if so, maybe the topic should be "Russian Fascist" but not "Fascism in Russia", so let's move to the article from uchicago/The Journal of Modern History, on page 399, it writes "the importance of the URP derives in large measure from its introduction of a style of right-wing politics which was as novel for Russia as it was for much of Europe, and which gained for the Union the dubious distinction of being called, in a recent American text, 'Europe's first fascist organization.' It was this also which led a Soviet biographer of V. M. Purishkevich, a leading figure of the URP, to write of him in 1925 that he was a fascist who set the style ten years before fascism arose as a political movement." On page 400, it writes "the movement has been described as a Russian fascism, a forerunner of fascism, and as a Russian version of national socialism." Of course the author also writes "but for that, they were not alone responsible. They could not become the leaders or the creators of a national revolution as long as the monarchy survived and as long as they proclaimed their loyalty to it and to its head... By that test, there could be no fascism or national socialism in tsarist Russia." Personally speaking I think this is the author's opinion since he had stated that "the movement has been described as a Russian fascism, a forerunner of fascism, and as a Russian version of national socialism."

Another question is that I thought these materials are enough and persuasive, but after re-analyzing I'm also a little bit concerned now, so I would like to offer some more materials:

• an article from New Internationalist writes "Russia and its satellite states, however, were not to be allowed such props – here the free market had to reign in all its magnificent implacability. Right-wing economists like Harvard's Jeffrey Sachs were sent in as consultants to ensure that the rules were followed and no soft options adopted. The glorious results of this 'peace settlement' were manifest last year, following the collapse of the rouble, in the sight of Russians begging for food in the streets in scenes that might have embarrassed even Tsar Nicholas II. The resurgence of extremist nationalism and fascism in Russia and Eastern Europe may yet be harbingers of another whirlwind that will engulf us all."
• an article from The Washington Post discusses about Vladimir Zhirinovsky and concerns about his fascist policies, as he also met a veteran in Austria who belongs to Adolf Hitler's elite Waffen SS.
• an article from Jewish Telegraphic Agency says that "At the one-and-a-half hour meeting on Tuesday, the Jewish activists also discussed anti-Semitism and fascism in Russia."

--ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 12:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jat people into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 20:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wiae sure, I will act in an informed way from the next time. Is there any correction that I can make a right now? >>> Extorc.talk 21:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Extorc, with this edit I have added the attribution for you. You can use it (or the example in the above message) next time you copy content from one Wikipedia page to another. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 21:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)