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 June 2024 July 2024 to April 2025

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]

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

		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!
	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]

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]

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

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 158 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this cleanup barnstar. Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Extorc, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 2024-09-19 00:00:00. For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your close is reasonable, but consensus is predicated on the move target Museum of Science being retargeted to the disambiguation page Science Museum. I have done this and will go through the handful of links that now require disambiguation, but going forward please be careful to reconcile any redirects or perform other actions consistent with consensus, even if no moves are involved. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mdewman6. Missed my eye. >>> Extorc.talk 09:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not close requested moves where there is any opposition to the move until a full seven days has elapsed. DrKay (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did this at Talk:Christian_X#Requested_move_24_April_2025, less than 12 hours after the last comment and more than 12 hours before seven full days. Srnec (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Got carried away >>> Extorc.talk 10:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extorc You also did this at Western Bears. Should have been re-listed Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere Doesnt appear so. I closed it on 2 May, it was created on 24 April. >>> Extorc.talk 16:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec 2 May is Today. There wasn't enough consensus. It should have been given more time. There wasn’t enough consensus even an argument that Perth Bears was a better interim name. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere You yourself said in the RM that it is better to wait and that you would raise another RM after there is an official announcement. "I will open another after 7 days." >>> Extorc.talk 16:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extorc I think I regret those words. I thought there was going to be unanimous opposition until someone voted in support of it. I actually moved the page. My bad Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Servite et contribuere Chill, Just create another RM when its required. >>> Extorc.talk 16:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I would have opposed the move, but closing a discussion with two supports and one oppose without any analysis of the arguments hardly seems appropriate for a non-admin closure. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of this user talk page, it appears that people have found issue with your RM closures for years now. I would suggest reviewing WP:Non-admin closure and withholding from attempting to close any but the most clearly uncontentious discussions going forward. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest reversing your recent contested closures and re-opening the discussions, as a gesture of good will. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the Christian of Denmark -> Christian RM. >>> Extorc.talk 21:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I wonder if you might want to review, or else expand upon, your decision to apply a non-admin closure of this requested move. As you did not provide any commentary on your decision, it is unclear on what basis the moves were rejected. McPhail (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Almost all the votes on the discussion stated that WP:COMMONNAME for the wrestler was Malakai Black and not what he is currently wrestling with. Just because he changed his employer doesn't change that. That was the consensus from the discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 08:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025 India–Pakistan standoff, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Indian military history and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recectly you have removed a bulk of writing from the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes article with the summary, "UNDUE, doesnot belong here". I do not understand the purpose for your edit. The minister's statement was recorded on 9 May 2025 (today) and hence it was added in the section. Could you elaborate please? Aviator Jr (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to properly assign weight to how much we need to include statements given by ministers. This isn't a very widely reported thing. Only Firstpost has picked it up. Just because one source reports doesnt mean we add it.
Also you added it to the timeline section. If at all, it should be added to the reactions section. @Aviator Jr >>> Extorc.talk 14:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I gave two citations including those by Firstpost and Business Today and there are many more sources reporting the same statement which includes Hindustan Times, India Today, The Free Press Journal and it continues. As for the timeline problem, I would ask you to move it to the section it should be in rather than deleting the entire information. Though, my views are that this statements are developing ones and is not proper for addition to the "Reactions" sections but only in the "Timeline" section. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple reporting of statements is not enough. If you want to corroborate contradiction in Wikipedia's voice, you need sources talking about the contradicting. Can you show me HT, IndiaToday and FPJ talking about the contradiction?
Also Business Today is not a WP:RS on such topics. Its a business magazine. >>> Extorc.talk 15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviator Jr >>> Extorc.talk 15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources:

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pak-defence-ministser-khwaja-asif-drone-intercepted-avoid-location-detection-2722256-2025-05-09
2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/didnt-intercept-indian-drones-because-pakistan-defence-minister-khawaja-asifs-bizarre-explanation-101746781764600.html
3. https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/we-didnt-intercept-indian-drones-because-pakistan-defence-minister-khawaja-asif-trolled-for-another-bizarre-remarks-video

I understand the other points. Thank you. Aviator Jr (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand on the point that contradictions like these either don't belong on the page or belong in the reactions section since they are not a part of the direct military or diplomatic engagement. @Aviator Jr >>> Extorc.talk 18:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include it in the "Casualties" section? It is more accurate as other related info are in the same place. Aviator Jr (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could see you have removed the section without Talk page discussion which I started. Noted on IndiaTV. But the claim is also reported by multiple reliable Indian sources: Economic Times (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/op-sindoor-3-pakistani-jets-including-one-f-16-two-jf-17s-shot-down-by-india-as-tensions-escalate/videoshow/121006254.cms) NDTV (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistan-f-16-shot-down-by-indian-surface-to-air-missile-sources-8365253 ) India Today (https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/india-shoots-down-pakistan-air-force-s-f-16-jf-17-after-pakistan-tried-to-attack-multiple-locations-2025-05-08-989369 ) DD News (state broadcaster) (https://ddnews.gov.in/en/pakistans-f-16-and-2-jf-17-jets-shot-down-by-india/) Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it's valid to include India’s claimed shootdowns with clear attribution, just like Pakistan's counterclaims are included. These are attributed reports from government sources in reliable media, which meets WP:RS for attributed claims in military disputes.  abhilashkrishn ^talk 15:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhilashkrishn Economic times is barely a RS on daily factual reporting. Also I removed because if you notice, broader WP:RS are avoiding this piece of news like HT, Indian Express which Indian authorities are avoiding confirmation. Pakistan's counter claims are included because the Pakistani government are openly claiming them. >>> Extorc.talk 18:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhilashkrishn NDTV particularly has done questionable reporting recently. Sharing a doctored video of DG ISPR accepting the loss of 2 JF17s. Till a broader set of sources report or Govt of India claims that it shot down aircraft, I dont think it should be included.

You see I myself supported the inclusion initially, owing to the fact that these sources are indeed reliable but the current situation requires closer inspection. >>> Extorc.talk 18:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Extorc Thanks for your response. I understand your concerns regarding the reliability of certain sources. However, the shootdown claim has been reported by multiple major Indian media outlets, including DD News, Economic Times, NDTV, India Today, and India TV, all of which are typically considered reliable when reporting on national matters.

Since you've mentioned that sources like HT and Indian Express are unreliable in this case, could you please clarify which Indian media outlets you would consider credible for such claims since most of the Indian media reported the same? It would be helpful to understand your viewpoint on the matter, as this could guide us in determining what aligns with Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability policies.

I believe that presenting the claim from these sources, alongside Pakistan's counterclaim, would balance the article as required by WP:NPOV and WP:V. Looking forward to your insights!  abhilashkrishn ^talk 18:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhilashkrishn I think there was a misunderstanding. I said "broader WP:RS" ie other RS like HT and Indian Express. HT and Indian Express are WP:RS.
>>> Extorc.talk 19:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Extorc Just because these 2 medias does not report it make it unrealiable? What we are adding is India's claim and I think the govt State media has the authority to declare their claim. What do you think?  abhilashkrishn ^talk 19:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think both HT and Indian Express are of higher quality than NDTV and IndiaToday. I just say that we wait. I don't consider DD coverage as official confirmation. MEA is literally carrying out briefs, claiming their victories.
If you notice, whenever such info is surfaced, first Non RS like Zee, ABP, IndiaTV report it. Then NDTV, IndiaToday. At last the higher quality sources like HT, IE report it.

@Abhilashkrishn >>> Extorc.talk 19:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance @Extorc  abhilashkrishn ^talk 19:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Extorc, in the open Indian military history arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as

  All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.

  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
  • All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
  • Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
  • Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
• The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
• WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
• Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
• A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
• Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
  1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
  2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
  3. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
  4. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
  5. The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
• Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
• AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
• Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
  1. Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
  2. Human activity in India
  3. Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
  4. Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
  5. Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
  6. India–Pakistan relations
  7. Indian WP:BLPs or biographies

Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Kishan Bharvad 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/Murder of Kishan Bharvad 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 until the discussion has finished.

Wareon (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Director General of Military Operations (India), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]