User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:CapnJackSp. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Illuminati on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shabbat on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Next Singaporean general election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vlachs of Serbia on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Environment and Climate Change Canada on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2022
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Métis on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
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) 08:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks MBlaze Lightning! Merry christmas to you too and a happy new year! Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2023
 
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wilderness therapy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Monty Hall problem on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jenny Lind on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red in February 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of genocides on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Death and funeral of Constantine II of Greece on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Allies of World War II on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Love Jihad
Please add this to the Love jihad article: One Aftab Poonawala murdered his Hindu girlfriend, Shraddha Walkar, cut her dead body into pieces and disposed of the parts in different parts of Delhi.[1] In his statement to the Delhi police he said that he had absolutely no regrets about what he had done and he would be rewarded in “jannah” with 72 “hoors” smelling of ISIS indoctrination.[2]It was originally requested by User:Dahshatgardi 2406:7400:98:E249:408B:9924:FEF2:1A76 (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ill read into it, it might need a bit more specific sourcing/different wording than the one you have given for some parts of the statement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- After going through the article, I dont think the edit is feasible. The article rejects the notion of "Love Jihad" as a hoax; As such it does not acknowledge any specific instances/actions as being "love jihad". Inserting this as standalone is unlikely to be according to the current consensus. If you have a different viewpoint, do raise it on the talk page with appropriate sourcing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- CapnJackSp, this edit should be incorporated into the Wikipedia Love jihad article which is extended confirmed protected. Please do so!-49.205.151.25 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- After going through the article, I dont think the edit is feasible. The article rejects the notion of "Love Jihad" as a hoax; As such it does not acknowledge any specific instances/actions as being "love jihad". Inserting this as standalone is unlikely to be according to the current consensus. If you have a different viewpoint, do raise it on the talk page with appropriate sourcing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- ^ Pandey, Geeta (25 November 2022). "Shraddha Walkar and Aftab Poonawala: India gripped by gruesome 'fridge murder'". BBC News. Retrieved 19 December 2022.
- ^ "Shraddha Walkar murder case: Aftab Poonawalla had extensively read ISIS and Al Qaeda propaganda material". IndyaTv News. 4 December 2022. Retrieved 19 December 2022.
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter helper on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Revert fever
I see what you mean about the reference. But why not just fix it or notify me? The fact that you think a copy-edit is "unnecessary" does not mean that it doesn't improve the article. I am going to either tag it or copy edit it. I will make sure that I don't reinstate the typo tho ;)
- @Elinruby: What I meant by "unnecessary" was that the wording of the sentence was accurate to the source provided for it, didnt seem like any edit was necessary. IMO the older version was more true to the source. Im not too particluar about it though, so if you feel strongly that it should be worded slightly differently you can revert me, no issues. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Also you forgot to sign, that made me confused for a bit as to what this was about 😅.
- heh. Guess I am sorry about the sig too. i am not trying to be annoying, honest. I haven't done either one to that particular article yet, but hi. I copyedit articles on topics I am interested in. I am gearing up for a quick pass through The history of Kasmir. I seem to require additional caffeine before I get started, lol, but I'm mostly harmless. If I fail to respect the engvar or whatever, feel free to let me know. I will keep what you say in mind when I come back to that one. Perhaps you are right, but as I recall that was just an edit for readability. It shouldn't invalidate the reference. There is also such a thing as following the sources too closely, not that I am saying that was the case. 🌻 Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Two-nation theory on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Endemic COVID-19 on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Please add a blank line
Please add a blank line above the, "The Vishwa Hindu Parishad sentence here. Thank you!-2406:7400:98:2CA:2740:1981:5AE6:E5C3 (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I tried and failed to do it.-2406:7400:98:2CA:2740:1981:5AE6:E5C3 (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Coronation of Charles III and Camilla on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Petition (May 2023) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:White nationalism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The nominator withdrew this article from their nomination, early on.[1] No one opposed the withdrawal or offered a rationale to contradict it. If you’ve decided to move it “unilaterally” despite this, it would warrant at least a mention in the written decision. —Michael Z. 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. The title was apparently still left in the list of proposed, and I overlooked it while implementing the close. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. —Michael Z. 13:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Question from Medards 1a (09:38, 27 May 2023)
what is BENDITO song as a roman catholic sings after novena prayer? --Medards 1a (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Medards 1a, I have no idea. Could you provide some context? As a mentor, I am primarily there for guiding you w.r.t policy, not necessarily an expert on other matters. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red - June 2023
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest
Dear Mr Sparrow, I do not think that the discussion has been ready to close. Opponents argue with WP:CONSISTENCY. According to the previous discussion, such an argument does not apply in this case. As well, they ignored the arguments of ‘Czechia’ being a common name in this context. I also do not think that it is a good idea to close a discussion just seven minutes after the last reply in the discussion. Could you, please, provide me an explanation of your decision? Many thanks. Martin Tauchman (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Sure.
- There were two titles proposed for the move; for Eurovision (in general) and Eurovision 2023. I did not see it being demonstrated that Czechia was the common name for Eurovision in general. Eurovision 2023 perhaps had a bit of stronger argument behind it, but coupled with the WP:CONSUB argument raised I did not feel it was sufficiently substantiated by the supporters of the move.
- As for the timing of the close, while I admit that I had not seen the exact time of the comments, I felt that the discussion had mostly slowed down, with fewer new arguments being brought up. If you genuinely feel that the discussion will have new arguments presented for it, or that it will move towards a consensus, I am open to considering a relist. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- But you should also note the WP:NAMECHANGES rule since Eurovision changed the way to refer to Czechia at the beginning of 2023. Let me cite to you from the rule: ‘Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give far more weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.’ Martin Tauchman (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS: And I have to note that we have North Macedonia at the Olympics and Macedonia at the 2000 Summer Olympics. So it seems that in the reality of Wikipedia, WP:NAMECHANGES is higher in the rules hierarchy than WP:CONSUB. Martin Tauchman (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, I cant deliberate on the basis of arguments that you are bringing up now that werent raised in the discussion. I am not an involved party; as such, I can only look at the arguments presented and deliberate on their basis.
- Like I said in my reply, if you want to take up new arguments, I can open the discussion and put it for a relist. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS: And I have to note that we have North Macedonia at the Olympics and Macedonia at the 2000 Summer Olympics. So it seems that in the reality of Wikipedia, WP:NAMECHANGES is higher in the rules hierarchy than WP:CONSUB. Martin Tauchman (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- But you should also note the WP:NAMECHANGES rule since Eurovision changed the way to refer to Czechia at the beginning of 2023. Let me cite to you from the rule: ‘Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give far more weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.’ Martin Tauchman (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Czech Republic Eurovision move closure
Hello, I'm just wondering why you closed the move request at Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest when there was no obvious consensus and discussion was still ongoing? A.D.Hope (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- As I said in the section above, I did not note any new arguments post the 24th, mostly just repetitions of prior arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- My comment comes from 26th May. So, please, read it carefuly. I showed in my comment that even big media did refer to the country as ‘Czechia’ in context of Eurovision with references. This is not a new argument? Martin Tauchman (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did indeed read your comment, as I did for the rest of the editors. It calls for the WP:COMMONNAME argument, and cites multiple news media. That argument was the opening statement itself, which also cited most of the outlets in your comment. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but my statement was in the fact that it is the name that prevails. It was an argument why it is a common name and should be used in this context. It also pointed out the result of the Czech Republic/Czechia RM. You closed it in the middle of the discussion. I think it is obvious that it is not appropriate to close a discussion as ‘no consensus was reached’ when a situation is actively discussed. Martin Tauchman (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I did indeed read your comment, as I did for the rest of the editors. It calls for the WP:COMMONNAME argument, and cites multiple news media. That argument was the opening statement itself, which also cited most of the outlets in your comment. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Even so, there was no consenus and the impact of the closure of the RM at 'Czech Republic' would likely have been discussed; given the last comment was made seven minutes before closure it just felt like a very sudden.
- I don't fully understand why you considered the WP:COMMONNAME argument was weak when myself and another editor provided several examples of 'Czechia' being used in the context of Eurovision, either. If you could explain your reasoning a little I'd appreciate it, thank you. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ill quote a reply from the thread above
There were two titles proposed for the move; for Eurovision (in general) and Eurovision 2023. I did not see it being demonstrated that Czechia was the common name for Eurovision in general. Eurovision 2023 perhaps had a bit of stronger argument behind it, but coupled with the WP:CONSUB argument raised I did not feel it was sufficiently substantiated by the supporters of the move.
As for the timing of the close, while I admit that I had not seen the exact time of the comments, I felt that the discussion had mostly slowed down, with fewer new arguments being brought up. If you genuinely feel that the discussion will have new arguments presented for it, or that it will move towards a consensus, I am open to considering a relist.
- Elaborating further, from my reading of the discussion, while many titles for 2023 Eurovision had been shown to use Czechia, multiple RS also stuck with the old name. It seems to be in transition as of now, meaning that it may be appropriate to change later. WP:CONSUB argument was also not countered in the discussion, and these led me to call the argument to move "weak".
- Do note though; I am no longer open to relisting the discussion, as a considerable amount of time has passed. However, you can open a new request at any time you want. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- My comment comes from 26th May. So, please, read it carefuly. I showed in my comment that even big media did refer to the country as ‘Czechia’ in context of Eurovision with references. This is not a new argument? Martin Tauchman (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Question from SharkDude1234 (16:02, 30 May 2023)
Sir/Madam, how do I submit a draft I wrote about the maliciousness on free Robux generators? --SharkDude1234 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Replied on t/p Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ron DeSantis on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Question from SharkDude1234 (12:05, 3 June 2023)
Just curious but what happens if I get banned for disruptive editing. I heard about it before and I am curious. --SharkDude1234 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @SharkDude1234, Users get banned for disruptive editing if they break Wikipedia rules repeatedly. If you get banned, you are allowed to appeal the ban. Otherwise, you can no longer edit wikipedia. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Move of 2022–2023 Dnieper campaign
Hi, I believe that the move was unjustified. First of all because the nomination itself was misleading. For this article WP:COMMONNAME does not apply because, contrary to what the nominator @Mzajac claims, the campaign does not have an accepted name in the sources, it does not appear as a separate phenomenon at all. The name of the river appears there only to place the events described in the sources in space. In general, one may wonder whether the term 'campaign' is adequate in relation to the events described. But this is a secondary issue.
Besides, the sources cited do not meet the requirement of statistical reliability. The nominator simply collected several dozen sources that use his preferred name 'Dnipro', and for greater credibility he also provided several sources that use the name 'Dniper'. We have no information whether these two samples are in any way representative of the whole. Given that a large part of the nominator's activity consists of 'Ukrainianising' and, as he puts it, 'decolonising' the toponyms that exist in the region, I think there is reason to believe that this nomination was driven by his personal bias rather than a desire to convey an objective state of knowledge. Marcelus (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, you should have raised these points in the discussion... Would you like me to reopen the discussion and leave it for someone else to close? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Marcelus pinging for reply. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes; some of this points were raised or at least signalled, but you are right they need to be said explicit Marcelus (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you’re all about objective knowledge then why did you feel the need to disparage decolonization of knowledge, tacitly promoting nineteenth-century colonial POV, and slag me personally and in your complaint?
- If you don’t like the consensus, you can challenge it without advocating WP:BIAS and accusing me of bad WP:FAITH. —Michael Z. 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding selection of sources, as I clearly stated in the nomination, I combed through the cited references in the article and used all the English-language ones. I even made sure there were no duplicates. If you didn’t like the sampling you could have said so and conducted better research. I did the homework. You still can too if you want to actually demonstrate something wrong with mine. —Michael Z. 13:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This was a premature close, and there was only a single support other than the nom (and he had begun by opposing). Can I ask you to revert it? The debate was not even advertised to the India project. This is an important article, and arguably not suitable for a non-admin close. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldnt characterize it as premature, given that no one had made a comment in four days, and the editor who changed his vote and was persuaded to agree would, in my mind, only make the argument for the close stronger. However, I have no objections to letting someone more experienced close this, so I am reopening the discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks - and for notifying the Indian project. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elections in Cuba on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please explain your closing statement on Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023? I understand not counting heads, but there was a strong consensus behind this move that was backed up by policy (WP:CONCISE WP:CONSISTENT, WP:PRECISE and WP:CODENAME). How were users "unable to justify their choice as being better beyond doubt" when the move was broadly supported? Users cited the previously mentioned policies and noted the multitude of sources describing the event as a coup attempt. Per WP:NHC, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. ... The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."
So, which arguments should be dismissed? Many policies were cited by supporters of the move, yet you ignore them in your closing statement, not explaining why you personally "doubt" such arguments. At the very least you should take the time to provide a more detailed explanation on how those supporting the move contradicted policy, used personal opinion, were fallacious or showed no understanding. Users spent their time discussing this move, so it is the least you can do for them. WMrapids (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, Ill explain.I closed as no consensus because while the title in place is indeed at odds with our policy on codenames, that isn't enough for a move. For a move request, you must also demonstrate the proposed title's merits, not just the demerits of the current title. The WP:COMMONNAME policy wont apply here, because just as you accepted in the discussion, the proposed title is not the common name of the event. WP:PRECISE doesn't favour either, as both require the year as a qualifier, and with the year, both are unambiguous. Not sure why you quoted WP:CONCISE, that would lean towards Operation Gideon if applied here.That is why, in my close, I acknowledged that the present title was not ideal, but owing to lack of sufficient grounds for the new name, I closed as NC. And again, as in my closure, I request you to try and find a better title (or if you want, to start a new RM with better arguments, though that's unlikely to be very productive).Lastly, I find it to be in quite poor faith to repeatedly imply bias on part of the closer before making an attempt to understand their reasoning, as you did in your post above. Do keep that in mind for the future. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't say you had a bias, so I don't know why you are bringing that up? I appreciate that you took the time to overlook the discussion, though there are some concerns as you seem to have missed some key details in the discussion. You're acknowledging that the current title doesn't align with policy. Thanks. The "merits" of the proposed title were also apparent since the majority of sources described the event as a "coup", so you are also overlooking that. We are not discussing WP:COMMONNAME, so not sure why you mentioned that (could have been an error, like my WP:CONCISE accident). Per WP:PRECISE:
"Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that"
. So, the date, location and action are described in the title which is precise enough to "define the topical scope of the article", though your opinion that "both are unambiguous" goes exactly against what WP:PRECISE calls for. So WP:PRECISE should be applicable. As for the confusion, I meant WP:CONSISTENT, not WP:CONCISE. There is a consistent pattern of Venezuela coup articles and this would fit right in. So, this is nothing personally against you, but I think a WP:Move review may be warranted since you overlooked and went against some key arguments and policies while closing this move.--WMrapids (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)- You didnt say it outright, but you boldfaced sections about bias, apart from the general tone ("personally doubt") which is why I said it appeared to imply so.
I talked of WP:COMMONNAME as it was one of the points raised several times (including nom), and I was being asked to elaborate on my closure and why I closed a RM in a particular way.
WP:CONSISTENT was raised, but contested, with the argument being that the self coup attempts and previous coups and coup attempts that were cited were not similar to the event at hand. I did not see a consensus regarding the applicability of the policy.
I think you misunderstood what I said about WP:PRECISE. Operation Gideon 2020 and 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt are both unambiguously about the same event. I think you are mistaking WP:PRECISE as a guideline that mandates descriptive titles, which it doesnt.
If you wish to take this to MRV, no issues. Just ping me if you do. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- You didnt say it outright, but you boldfaced sections about bias, apart from the general tone ("personally doubt") which is why I said it appeared to imply so.
- I didn't say you had a bias, so I don't know why you are bringing that up? I appreciate that you took the time to overlook the discussion, though there are some concerns as you seem to have missed some key details in the discussion. You're acknowledging that the current title doesn't align with policy. Thanks. The "merits" of the proposed title were also apparent since the majority of sources described the event as a "coup", so you are also overlooking that. We are not discussing WP:COMMONNAME, so not sure why you mentioned that (could have been an error, like my WP:CONCISE accident). Per WP:PRECISE:
Move review for Operation Gideon (2020)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Maxwell Confait RM
I'd like to object to your closure of the article, particularly because I feel like you've fallen into the synthesis trap that many of the other users in the discussion also fell into. I might be sounding like a broken record by this point, but there is a simple flowchart of how we deal with MOS:GENDERID cases:
- May Confait's gender be questioned? The answer to this is – unequivocally – yes.
- What name did Confait prefer to use? The answer to this, from examining reliable sources, is Michelle.
As I've mentioned, any other considerations are, ultimately, irrelevant; the community has long been against carving out any sort of exception to MOS:GENDERID (if anything, it's become stricter as of late). MOS:GENDERID is written in such a way that, in the vast majority of cases, we avoid nitpicking of someone's gender identity.
Additionally, I think you put too much weight on the transgender vs. transvestite distinction; when we're talking about people who lived in the post-Stonewall/pre-AIDS era, this distinction was much blurrier. As has been mentioned in the previous RM and MRV, Confait is often mentioned in RSes as an example of discrimination and hate crime against transgender sex workers (e.g.: Siegal, Nina (20 June 2001). "The Crying Game". Salon.). In this context, "Confait was a transvestite, not transgender" is an argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.
Additionally, in closing the RM, you mentioned that Confait only used the name Michelle whilst engaging in sex work. As far as I'm aware, there are no reliable sources that actually say that, which makes this sort of argument ultimately original research.
A discussion closer is expected to discard, inter alia, arguments that "flatly contradict established policy" or "show no understanding of the issue". It's my contention that many of these argument against moving the article would either be violations of NOR or the MoS, or otherwise show a poor understanding of the article subject, and I would like you to reconsider your closure. Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can explain my rationale behind closing it like I did, from my understanding of the discussion.
May Confait's gender be questioned? Yes, RS do present them in different ways.
What name did Confait prefer to use? The answer to this, from examining reliable sources, is uncertain. It is stated quite often that they were sometimes referred to as Michelle, but not that they chose to identify as such themselves beyond their work. That is the transvestite vs transgender thing I mentioned.
The second line or arguments came from the fact that the name "Michelle" was commonly used without the surname - "Michelle Confait" was not identifiied by sources as being the self identity of the person. One of the sources that does use the term "chosen name" to describe Michelle also does not use the surname.
I did not see a solid rebuttal to these arguments, which is why I closed as NC.
I agree that details get blurry, and that MOS:GENDERID should address these issues better than the current band-aid solution of reusing the policy for living people and applying it to the dead as well. But as of now, thats what we have. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)- I'm sorry, but the answer to the second question is not "uncertain" at all; all of the RSes provided are uniform on the fact that Confait preferred to known as Michelle. You're engaging in the same original research that others in the discussion by assuming that only applied to their work. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we accept that argument (and Im not certain we should, given that if the claims were entirely OR they would have been countered easily in the RM), the proposal needed to show that they preferred "Michelle Confait" and not just "Michelle". That was also pointed out, and was the basis of one of the opposes that was not countered at all. And Im not researching stuff, just reading the discussion. The closer isnt an involved party. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the answer to the second question is not "uncertain" at all; all of the RSes provided are uniform on the fact that Confait preferred to known as Michelle. You're engaging in the same original research that others in the discussion by assuming that only applied to their work. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump RM
I'm objecting to your relisting of this discussion. Many participants engaged in discussion throughout, and chronologically those discussions reveal that editors who supported the move were doing so after WP:PAG-based reasons were provided for supporting the move. I think your requirement of every single !voter providing a justification is a hurdle you've invented yourself, and would like to see you reverse your relisting and close as moved. Coupled with the prior withdrawn RM directly above the one you relisted, I think there is clearly a lot of thought that went into the name we arrived at. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- A relist means that I believe that the arguments presented were insufficient to draw a definite conclusion, and as such trying to revert the relist and close anyway would require a supervote on my part.
If you disagree with my assessment, you can either 1) Leave RM as is, without changing anything ; New closer will close it within a week, or 2) List it for closure at Requests for Closure, where an editor will probably close it sooner. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)- I will choose option 3, and challenge your action at Move review. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Move review for Veracity of statements by Donald Trump
An editor has asked for a Move review of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- The discussion wasnt closed bruh 💀 Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- One of the possible outcomes at WP:RMCI is relisting. Not sure why this wouldn't be something that couldn't be reviewed like any other action as a WP:NAC. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi, I noticed you had closed the move discussion for Talk:Madonna (Madonna album)#Requested move 19 June 2023, even though it has only been a week since the beginning of the discussion. It's a bit premature to label it as "no consensus" only seven days in, and I would like to wait for more responses as well. Additionally, there was a reply sent on the last day and I had no chance to reply. Can you kindly re-open the move discussion? Thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. I did not seriously consider that it would receive further discussion, hence the close. Reopened. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)