User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1

 <div style="background-color: Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started.  Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)   Hello, CapnJackSp, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting started
 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Finding your way around
 * Table of contents
 * Directories and indexes
 * Department directory
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Editing articles
 * How to develop an article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting help
 * Frequently asked questions
 * Cheatsheet
 * Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
 * The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
 * Help pages
 * Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How you can help
 * Community Portal
 * Join a WikiProject
 * Follow Wikipedia etiquette
 * Practice civility
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

January 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to COVID-19 vaccination in India have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: COVID-19 vaccination in India was changed by CapnJackSp (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866089 on 2022-01-11T20:23:53+00:00

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a disruptive editing, and is sanctionable. Please do not do it again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stick to what sources say
In your edits (one, two), you've extrapolated from what Mohalla Tech and Persistent said in their responses to claim that they "rejected claims made by the Wire". Both of them said only that they were uninvolved with the app. They said nothing about other claims by the Wire - like the app's features, data gathering and hijacking abilities to name a few.

The above notice of discretionary sanctions is very important. Please read it thoroughly. WP:V is one of the pillars of Wikipedia and adhering closely to verifiable sources is a requirement in areas under WP:DS. hemantha (brief) 17:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unnecessary edit, but I dont have any issues since your version is just as accurate. In future, try to ping me on the talk page itself instead of on my talk page.
 * Your reference to the DS notice makes little to no sense. That notice is in an unrelated matter, and I fail to make any sense of your second paragraph.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think the notice is unrelated to this, you need to read through WP:ARBIPA more closely. It's a broadly construed DS notice applicable to all India related articles. I know it's galling at first, but that's how it is. hemantha (brief) 03:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am saying that this is a content dispute on which we are working on while DS warns against misconduct ,therefore it is unrelated to this matter because I am not engaging in any supposed misconduct. I do not think my edit can be misconstrued to have been done in bad faith. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Todd Ames Hunter&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Article titles&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 10:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Presidency of Richard Nixon into Foreign policy of the Richard Nixon administration. 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing some other edit. The India related content currently on Presidency of Richard Nixon was moved by someone from Richard Nixon, from an edit I had made (which was similar to my edit on Foreign policy of the Richard Nixon administration). I believe I had taken a part of that material from India US relations though it also had additions made by me. In future I will add relevant attributes regardless. Thanks.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that woud be helpful.— Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, CapnJackSp, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help with coverage of women from India. When you create your first biography, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will positively look into it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics
You are reminded to edit with a neutral tone and provide valid reasons for your reverts. STSC (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is in response to this edit? Here, you changed the "largely", which implied there were multiple issues (which there are, and have been elaborated on in the article itself), to wording that implies a singular issue. That issue is currently being discussed on the main page. If there is any more clarification needed, let me know. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Newbie? Sock?
Hello, CapnJackSp, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. STSC (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is my only account. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics
Hi! At 11:16, 9 February 2022 you made an edit on the page Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics with the description "Section restored to last version before disruptive edits." With this change, you also reverted intermediate edits that you falsely deemed disruptive, including mine (I changed quotation marks to align with MOS:", added wikilinks, and made changes to references based on the guidelines found on the page Template:Cite web), and a cleanup of bare URLs. As your edit cannot be undone now due to conflicting intermediate edits, the incorrectly reverted changes can only be restored manually. I know that you did not mean to do anything counterproductive, but please correct the mistakes, and next time pay more attention before you make any accusations and/or revert any edits. Thank you in advance! Zsovar3 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I knew that there were definitely going to be some relevant edits that were going to get reverted as well, but I didnt have much option given the massive amounts of disruptive edits which would have taken an inordinate amount of time to fix. Please do add any edits that are constructive, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PS-Ill go through your edits and fix the urls and stuff, thanks for the heads up. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Restored your edits, could you look it over once? Feel free to add anything to it. Cheers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I will monitor edits on the page at least until the temporary protection is over, if there are any developments, I will add them to the section. Thank you for your work! Zsovar3 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Hello CapnJackSp! Your additions to 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * To me, this seems a bit extreme for the usage of a single sentence, but if you want, I'll rephrase the sentence. Thanks! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why cant you write in your own words. Please dont edit if you cant. This is second WP:CLOP violation. This is the final warning. Another violation will be reported to admins. Venkat TL (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Before you make threats or incorrect accusations, check first if the matter you are quoting is correct. The second "violation", as you claim, is in my own words. Self revert, or I do think it needs to go to the admins. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please post the actual and your version in a new comment below. Venkat TL (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)I would prefer that you comment in descending order by time-You seem to have inserted this reply in between. Feel free to move both these messages below my message. 2)I think both of the sentences can be easily accessed using the "history section". Im having a hard time responding to the barrage of messages, templates and warnings(real and concocted) nthat you are throwing at me.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)(note that this comment has been moved to be better comprehendable, under the comment to which it was a reply)
 * You are disputing my assessment that your version is a CLOP violation. So I asked you to put both side by side. We can then discuss that and seek Third opinion if we still disagree. WP:DRVenkat TL (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You could have done that as well, but anyway. 1)The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India 2)This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India. Since both are standalone sentences, someone who wrrites 1, cannot claim copyright of 2.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa Please [A] review the version marked (1) and (2) above, CapJackSp is claiming that this is not a CLOP Violation. CNN is the source here. [B] And he is calling my Copyright violation warning as concocted and inappropriate. Appreciate if you can give your opinion on both. Venkat TL (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In ref to part "B", the message may be misconstrued as presented by the user. The word "concocted" was the second Clop warning - Which is outside the purview of WP:CLOP. Am unable to find any policy saying we can not use material written in our own words. Cheers.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The dispute here is that what you are calling as "Written in CapJackSp's own words" is still a WP:CLOP violation, hence the second warning. Venkat TL (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am saying that I did not believe it to be a CLOP violation. When you said"Why cant you write in your own words. Please dont edit if you cant. This is second WP:CLOP violation. This is the final warning. Another violation will be reported to admins", is what I have called a "concocted" warning. Your sentence makes it seem like I am disputing the first CLOP as well, which I am not. I was under the impression that singlar sentences could be lifted from a source, as long as it was cited. However, Ignorance is not an excuse, so I accept the first warning, but still contest the other as incorrect.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Wait for the third person, to review and comment. Venkat TL (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just for ref, the source is CNNCaptain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Captain Jack Sparrow, you are mistaken when you say it's okay to copy a single sentence from a source as long as you cite the source. That's wrong. Don't copy anything from your sources. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please.— Diannaa (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Hi @Diannaa, I think there may be some misunderstanding. I didnt know we couldnt take a single line initially, but later I corrected my sentence to "This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India" which I thought was sufficiently different. Do let me know if it still violates CLOP. Thanks. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @CapnJackSp Please confirm that you have actually read the entire page WP:CLOP. A one word reply will be sufficient. Venkat TL (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both versions are far too close to the source wording to be acceptable. Changing one or two words is not adequate paraphrasing. The content needs to be re-written entirely and not contain any wording from the source at all. — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa This user has again violated copyright rules by unnecessarily adding massive amount of copyrighted text on the article talk page when one or two lines would have sufficed. Please check and revdel. Venkat TL (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:Close paraphrasing and failure of attributions also need to be repaired.
 * Diff C4
 * Source Quote=
 * Line added by Capjackspr (without quote)
 * Diff C5
 * Source Quote=
 * Line added by Capjackspr =
 * Apart from WP:CLOP, CapnJackSp Inappropriately dropped 'allegedly' to confirm the alleged crime in Wikipedia voice. Attribution was also dropped.
 * Diff C6
 * Source Quote=
 * Line added by Capjackspr =
 * Violating internal copyright without providing attribution.
 * Diff C8 The content added, was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.
 * Diff C9 The content added was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights. Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , do note that this has all been raised prior on ADE by Venkat, and by raising and re raising these issues he seems to be attempting to bring up old issues to target me. This is mostly a copy paste of his message on ADE. Description of diff C8, C9 are blatantly false - And further, has already been discussed between you and I. In their first line, they claim I was unnecessarily doing a copyvio on the talk page, when indeed that entire section is needed to cover my edits. The user had themselves asked me to quote from the source. The rest of his concerns have been repaired.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Violating internal copyright without providing attribution.
 * Diff C8 The content added, was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.
 * Diff C9 The content added was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights. Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , do note that this has all been raised prior on ADE by Venkat, and by raising and re raising these issues he seems to be attempting to bring up old issues to target me. This is mostly a copy paste of his message on ADE. Description of diff C8, C9 are blatantly false - And further, has already been discussed between you and I. In their first line, they claim I was unnecessarily doing a copyvio on the talk page, when indeed that entire section is needed to cover my edits. The user had themselves asked me to quote from the source. The rest of his concerns have been repaired.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Violating internal copyright without providing attribution.
 * Diff C8 The content added, was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.
 * Diff C9 The content added was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights. Venkat TL (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , do note that this has all been raised prior on ADE by Venkat, and by raising and re raising these issues he seems to be attempting to bring up old issues to target me. This is mostly a copy paste of his message on ADE. Description of diff C8, C9 are blatantly false - And further, has already been discussed between you and I. In their first line, they claim I was unnecessarily doing a copyvio on the talk page, when indeed that entire section is needed to cover my edits. The user had themselves asked me to quote from the source. The rest of his concerns have been repaired.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No no. I did not post this to ask you to comment there. It is mandatory to Give the participants notification while starting NPOV thread. See the talk page discussion where you have already commented is linked on the top of the thread. The NPOV noticeboard post was created so that fresh minds can review this and share their comments. There is no point if WE (WE  = the participants of the dispute), keep repeating the same points we already made on the article talk page? So I suggest you remove your last comment and just watch the discussion page. And you can jump in to reply if necessary but first let the others comment. (cc @DaxServer) Venkat TL (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummmm..... Was I part of the dispute? I think the only thing I contributed was a single line about technicality of WP:OTHERSOURCES, nothing more on the actual content dispute. Ill still look into the relevant sections of the policy and revert if needed, Im kinda new to the NPOV noticeboards ettiquette. Care to drop the relevant sections? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reason I posted this notificaiton message here was because You had commented once and and signed in that thread named Background on the talk page. So it became mandatory for me to inform you about that NPOV thread on the same issue. It is upto you, if you consider yourself part of this dispute or not. I mean there is no compulsion for you to participate in the NPOV discussion thread, that I have posted. This notification was posted here as a mandatory courtesy, This rule is written on the top of the WP:NPOV page. I still suggest, that you should remove your last comment from the NPOV page and let other people comment first. If you have something to say in reply you can add it there later on. Venkat TL (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Is this some sort of unspoken rule or something? I had a cursory look and found nothing. Anyway others have commented there, should be fine. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an unspoken rule. I had read it on WP:DRN or some other page, that asked users to only link the talk page thread, not to repeat the comments already made at talk page, since the link is there for everyone to see. Can't recall where exactly but I will share the link if I find it. Venkat TL (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Same 3 users who had already expressed their opinions have commented. We have made 0 progress on that NPOVN thread. Venkat TL (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand not repeating the comments verbatim, but I think atleast my edit should be fine, its a lot more information than WP:OSE. You can take up issues with other editors on their talk page. Happy editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Sharon A. Hill&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Koala&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you revert well sourced edit, as you did at Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics. 22:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Provide diffs of your edit, and the consensus that you had achieved before making the edit, please. Else this is just an incorrect usage of the template. Sign your posts from next time.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI
" There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)"}}

Please read the text before you reply
In this reply (and a little less egregiously before), the points you make show that you didn't read my post at all. If you find unable to add your own viewpoints apart from "support" or "oppose", please feel free to restrict your replies to those statements. Hemantha (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * For example, I'd said The other source you use, Indian Express is simply quoting an Okkuta leader and has nothing on their supposed 'dispute resolution' attempts. You claim Indian Express gives the name as well. I've shown that I've read the article, and have said that IE or the quote they use don't say anything about dispute resolution. Yet you've added an uninformed reply. Hemantha (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hemantha, If you read my reply, it refers to your prior revert of my edit here, where you struck the edit with "being anonymous" cited as one of the reasons. The rebuttal to your statements regarding anonymous statements made to the Print was also addressed in my reply. The points you make show that you didn't read my post at all. Kindly do make an effort to do so in future.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I've addressed that as well in my post here. The named quote is for a completely different thing and makes no claim about "dispute resolution". I can find a lot of other quotes from that person before and after Jan 2022. How are they relevant to the issue being discussed - namely that UJMO was involved in dispute resolution? Stop trying to introduce irrelevant things. Hemantha (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you believe it is irrelevant, then state why on the talk page. I gave my reason why it is relevant (prominent org for local welfare of muslims). Additionally, you do not seem to have still read my reply. Hemantha, If you read my reply, it refers to your prior revert of my edit here, where you struck the edit with "being anonymous" cited as one of the reasons would have cleared your doubt about what statement I was referring to if you had bothered to check the ref and the IE article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest of that reply about Print/Wire is pure nonsense. IE or the Print isn't reporting that they participated in dispute resolution. Each publication only quotes a member saying they did so. Hemantha (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You may argue that, if you wish, on the article talk page. I may disagree with you, but this is a much more relevant thing to discuss.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant to the talk page. Your uninformed replies unnecessarily add to the text and the WP:BLUDGEONING makes it harder to actually discuss the content. Hemantha (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, indeed relevant to the talk page. Since it is a part of a dispute you have with other editors as well, the merit of the material must be discussed on the talk page and not individually. I wonder how you can accuse me of WP:BLUDGEONING when the number of inputs made by me are dwarfed by your barrage of messages. If I'm making a point that you are unable to dispute, its not an issue with my argument, but with your reasoning.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm warning you once more. The quote "colleges where there are 1,500 to 2,000 students" doesn't say anything about increase. It says about large numbers. I've repeatedly explained how rise is different from large. Your continued insistence that Rise in numbers- Covered by the statement saying that higher no. of students showed you didn't read my post or the replies. Stop replying if you don't understand. Hemantha (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are making random arguments devoid of reason here. When someone says that originally uniforms were not mandatory, but were made mandatory later as handling larger no. of students is difficult without a uniform, what is the inference? Every time we disagree, you come here and say that I didnt read your post. I read your post, disagreed with it, and gave a reply covering your objections. I object to you stating repeatedly how I am not reading what you wrote, when my replies make it amply clear that I am indeed reading them. However, I will also propose a version on the talk page that will be more acceptable to you, for the sake of dispute resolution alone.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Hemantha. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Edit warring on Tek Fog
Start a talk page thread. Explain your concerns and proposal. Stop Edit warring Venkat TL (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude I literally just did, you didnt even give me two minutes to do it. And what edit warring? Now a single revert is edit warring? Stop making false accusations here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Next time start a thread instead of edit warring. It is not a false accusation. you need to read WP:EDITWAR again to make sure you understand it properly, or seek help from an admin who can explain it to you in simpler words. Venkat TL (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you could direct me to an admin that is willing to explain to me how a single revert of your edit would be counted as edit warring. Also, "Next time start a thread"- I did start a thread, long before your second reply here. You can visit that thread here. However, seeing as you replied to said thread, you seem to be aware of its existence. Thanks, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Obligatory ping.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your ping failed. The tag was added without any talk page thread elaborating the problem. It was re-added again without starting any talk page thread. Next time start a talk page thread first. Discuss and add the tag only after making clear that the tag is justified. This will prevent future edit war. A single revert without discussing first is indeed edit warring. Please read WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD for details. Venkat TL (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why my ping didnt work, but I think you have been already informed in the Teahouse discussion that it was not edit warring - I hope you will avoid making such improper allegations in future. I think you need to refresh your memory of WP:EDITWAR . And I would encourage you to acknowledge the fact that I immediately after the edit, started a talk page discussion, which is also reflected by my edit summary. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It did not work because you did not complete all the conditions of WP:PING. @Tigraan is not an admin, He noted "in his book", so it was his opinion, An opinion not widely held by the Wikipedia community. It is better you seek clarification from admins of WP:ANEW. You were warned because you edit warred. Whether you started a discussion after edit warring does not pre-empt the fact that you edit warred without discussion. Next time focus on discussion and hold on the revert button. Venkat TL (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that you removed a notice, not information, without discussion. The fault is on you part, not with the editor who introduced it. Again, where is the "Consensus" about a single revert being considered edit warring? I doubt any reasonable discussion can have that output. There was no edit warring by me. The notice is supposed to stay till the issues are resolved. If you want to remove it without any correction, make sure you take consensus first in future.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, since pinged me, I might as well answer... Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) My opinion of what is or is not edit warring is only just my opinion, sure. But whether or not I am an admin is irrelevant. If you really want to go by "weight" (a bad idea IMO), argue about my edit count or something. (If you want admin action, actually go to the admin noticeboards; that is also a bad idea at this stage IMO.)
 * 2) I was probably unclear in my Teahouse post. If CJS had both introduced the template and reverted Venkat’s removal, then it might have been edit warring under a broad reading of the term. However, they only did the revert. I cannot imagine a situation where a single edit to the relevant material constitutes edit warring, nor how anyone could think that is the case.
 * 3) Regardless of whether CJS’s edit was objectively edit warring or not, it was not obvious edit warring, and as such Venkat should not have called it edit warring, per WP:AGF. Such language can only inflame things. The standard advice (see the related WP:ASPERSIONS) is that you should only make accusations of improper conduct if you are ready to go to an admin noticeboard and defend them.
 * 4) Regardless of whether CJS’s edit was edit warring, reverting the revert, thus doing the second edit, is at least as much edit-warring. That is even more true when combined with the usefulness of edit summaries.
 * 5) I happen to agree with the removal of the template (basically for the reasons Elemimele gave on the talk page), but CJS’s conduct was waaay better in this dispute (so far).
 * 6) When such disputes occur, any of the two editors can open a talk page discussion. Blindly reverting with an edit summary of "open a discussion" is not very productive. If we go by the letter of the "law" (WP:BURDEN), in the template case, it is onto CJS to gain consensus for the template. In the same way, it is onto Venkat to open a discussion after this re-introduction of content. Waiting until the other side takes all the necessary procedural steps and jumping on them if they fail one is WP:WIKILAWYERing.
 * I admit that I have often labelled reinstating an edit without discussion as "edit warring". (But it does depend on the context.) The recommended process is WP:BRD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tek Fog, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * In Special:Diff/1075006916, you removed material claiming the it was "covered in detail in the sections above" when it was not, there was a section on the database but not that the database was used to send automated messages targeting individuals. Then you followed it up with Special:Diff/1075185207 where you restored a word and removed the same material again with the feature in your edit summary being "added information back that had been removed in my previous edit, removed the rest of the redundant material". If you thought that it won't get noticed, you are mistaken. This is just the latest in the series of tendentious conduct that you have indulged in since you came here, if this continues you are going to get sanctioned. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tayi, I am willing to accept that you made this as a honest mistake. I would advise you to read through this section of my talk page, the full edit summary of my edit, as well as this section of the talk page of the article in question. The supposed "dispute" seems to have been resolved at the time of writing, with my edits being passed with minor modification. If you still have any issues, feel free to let me know. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest of your edit summary in Special:Diff/1075185207 says "WP:ONUS, W:BRD should be followed by editors wishing to introduce material. Kindly ping me if making a talk section." Onus is about whether to include or omit verifiable material, while your contention was that the material was a repetition, not that it should be omitted. If you wanted it omitted then you should have been transparent about it and provided an appropriate reason, rather than try to remove it under false pretenses. Mentioning BRD is ironic since that edit itself was a second revert.
 * The talk page discussion shows the same tendentious behavior where you repeatedly insist that "the exact same stuff is covered in much more detail in the same section" till another editor intervened and restored it. You made some superficial changes to the sentence afterwards which was accepted, not your earlier attempts at removing it.
 * I'll repeat if you continue to act like this, you are inviting sanctions. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that you have gone through the relevant sections. As to your doubts, here are the clarifications:-
 * 1) BRD is indeed applicable here. Venkat introduced material, I removed a small part of it which had been covered. He reverted without discussion. Thus, my second revert calling for BRD is completely justified here. And when Venkat opened a talk page discussion, I replied to his concerns, accepting a compromise when offered by a third editor.
 * 2)ONUS is applicable to the best of my understanding - The matter was about whether or not the known, verifiable information should have been included in the section (the counter argument being that it had been repeated and should be disposed of). If you are aware of a better rule that would be applicable here, do let me know. Nevertheless, BRD alone would require a discussion prior to a revert by Venkat, with the ONUS being redundant if you do not consider it to be applicable.
 * 3)Material was indeed removed, and a part of it stays removed even after the conclusion of the discussion. The third editor made a partial restoration of my removal, with minor word changes elsewhere to mach the particular RS they had referenced. I accepted a compromise offered by the third editor as I have found it to not be worth my time to engage in arguments over insignificant changes, as I have expressed to you earlier.
 * 4)If such edits do lead to sanctions, I would be rather disappointed. It seems to me fairly obvious that an editor reinstating material without discussion can be reverted - And if in the course of discussion, such a dispute is resolved amicably with a part of the revert being accepted, there seems to be hardly any issue with the actions of the reverting editor.
 * Still, if you have any issues, feel free to let me know at my talk page here or on the relevant talk page of an article, as long as you give me a ping.  I am still rather new compared to a lot of editors, and am bound to make mistakes sometimes - you have pointed out a few before, for which I thank you. At the same time, I do not think that I am required to be less bold on account of my inexperience - nor should I take the words of more experienced editors at face value, even if I hold their opinion in high regard. I will be open to discussion if you wish, and do keep pointing out any mistakes that you may see on my part. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored the rest of the information as well. Since you are still claiming that the information in the lines that you removed, i.e the database being used to send automated hate messages and the phrases in the those messages being derived from a central document, is already covered, you need to specify exactly where? It was simply absent from the article after you removed it. It also constituted half the paragraph and not a "small part". The previous section talks about the existence of a database of citizens and not how the automated messages work.
 * Trying to whitewash material under false presences such as this is indeed sanctionable, however much might try to wiki-lawyer around process and regardless of whether you are experienced or not or whether you would find it disappointing. You have been warned numerous times and alerted about DS in this topic area, the rest is up to you. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 09:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tayi, do note that by restoring the material against the current consensus, you are the one doing disruptive edits here, and as such, I have reverted your latest edit. If you see my edit(Special:Diff/1075185207), I had included the part about the database being centralised- The third editor seems to have removed it, which I have added back for your benefit. If you still want to include the material, kindly provide reason as to why the material covered under "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" should be repeated in the section Automated messaging, preferably on the talk page where other editors can also add their concerns.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been warned twice legitimately on my talk page, yes. I have not repeated that behaviour since. I am also aware about DS, true. What Im not aware of is the fact that reverting unilateral, duplicate material inserted without consensus is somehow "disruptive". If you could clarify that part, would be nice.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)
 * I've opened a thread on your conduct at WP:AE. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Doing citations
In general (there are a few exceptions) references in English go after punctuation. It is the opposite way round in Russian. (See MOS:CITEPUNCT)

If a citation is already used in the article, we like to have the citations consolidated. What we do it to use the name feature like this

In this edit you made two style errors:
 * You put the reference before the punctuation mark like you would in Russian.
 * You copied and pasted an existing citation into the article, instead of using the reference name feature.

There was another problem. The citation did not support the statement that the database is centralised. You should have read the source you were citing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, I hadnt noticed the punctuation error. The other part I am replying on the article talk page. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:October Surprise conspiracy theory&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)