User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 4

Further explanation of Muslim conquest of Egypt close
I'm... really not seeing a consensus here, and the discussion was only open just under 8 days. I would have easily relisted this over closing it; while yes, WP:TOOSOON on its own may not apply to RMs, the arguments being made were along the lines of "per the last discussion", which if the last discussion's consensus isn't countered (which I do not see in any of the comments), should not be discarded. At that point, I really don't see how you can come out with a consensus to move; I'd be closer to "not moved" than "moved" at that point. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  06:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read the last discussion too. The only support votes were "Support per nom", which IMO is not strong enough for that consensus to carry on beyond that RM. I think that it is possible that this discussion could be relisted, though given the arguments present and that it had been inactive for almost a week, I felt it leant for the move given a lack of opposing arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There was only a single support vote other than the OP, and the state of the discussion at the point of closure was clearly not move/no consensus. The close should be undone and the discussion relisted. The grounds for the previous move, principally WP:COMMONNAME, were not overturned or really even addressed in the new RM, which brought no new information to bear. The move summary also appears to confuse the arguments of the discussion, i.e. no one made specific arguments about the proposed title being POV, but rather that the present title of the page was the most strictly WP:NPOV in the sense of both being the best reflection of reliable sources and the clear WP:COMMONNAME, which is likewise a reflection of usage in the balance of reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Theres a lot to unpack here. NPOV is a guideline that directs us to avoid presenting a one sided viewpoint; Since there isnt a "side" between Muslim and Arab descriptors for the conquest, quoting the policy doesnt make much sense. The COMMONNAME policy was proposed with data only in the prior move, and there it was argued against by editors, with the weight of the numbers quoted being questioned. The previous closer noted the WP:CONSISTENCY issues raised by this as well. In light of this, I do not think the close was unusual. And like I said, a discussion that hadnt been touched for a week was unlikely to suddenly gain more traction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:COMMONSENSE. The evidence for WP:COMMONNAME is sitting there plain as day a single thread up, available for all editors to read. Given that the RM is a direct reverse of the previous one, it is also all but incumbent on editors not being obtuse to read the prior RM. Editors also did reference and signpost other editors to both the prior discussion and WP:COMMONNAME in this RM. The close is a clear WP:SUPERVOTE to overturn the previous RM close despite minimal support. The close also does not acknowledge that the OP also ultimately expressed reticence about the RM proposal following discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems inappropriate to jibe about it being "all but incumbent on editors not being obtuse to read the prior RM" when this discussion begins with me affirming my reading of that discussion. I did indeed read it, and I reaffirm it for your benefit. In those previous set of moves, you and others argued for the WP:COMMONNAME. Opponents argued against it, citing WP:PRECISION and the titles being "inaccurate and hindering understanding". In the closure of most of the RMs, the arguments for the move were deemed to be insufficient; the exception being the Egypt page, where it was perceived to be slightly stronger due to an editor's neutral stand compared to the other moves.The arguments for and against the move, stated above, have not changed since then, with one exception; WP:CONSISTENT now favours the former title. The consistency concerns were noted by the closer in the previous RM you reference as well, who pointed editors to start a new RM to settle that issue. As such, with the weight of policy nearly balanced in the previous close, I view our policy to tilt in favour of the move.As for minimal support, remember that the previous RM that was closed as moved also had minimal support (two support votes "per nom"); As a closer, we weigh not on the number of editors but on the weight of the arguments. If you need any other clarifications, do feel free to reach out. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the consistency has changed since the previous move, so you appear to be all but admitting here that the only difference is your opinion, and hence, this was a supervote. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Im not sure how a close based on the arguments that were presented (As WP:CONSISTENT was) and did not see any rebuttal would be a supervote. You have claimed this twice now, so this is clearly something you feel quite strongly about and I doubt I could sway your opinion. I will still make an attmept to clarify your doubt in this regard.The reason I see the WP:CONSISTENT argument raised here to be a valid concern is that in the previous RM, all of the article titles were in contention. As such, if moved, they would be consistent either way. However, as only one of them was moved, it created a WP:CONSISTENCY issue, which was noted in the close earlier. When those arguments were raised in the current RM, they were argued over, but the only argument I saw contesting the WP:CONSISTENT claim was to instead be consistent with the Arab-Byzantine Wars, however, that doesnt exactly fit WP:CONSISTENT. As such, in my reading of the discussion I saw it to be a valid argument with regards to the move. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Iskandar here. This should've at the very least been relisted, in my opinion. I really don't see how the COMMONNAME arguments were ever countered in the new RM, and in the last RM, they were deemed strong enough for there to be a consensus for the CONSISTENCY split. I don't see how that's changed with the new RM, which only really argues CONSISTENCY, where the !votes against look satisfactorily strong to me to at least support a relist. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  22:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Was WP:CONSISTENT raised in previous RMs? I didnt see that being raised as an argument against the move at all, just an acknowledgement from the closer that the move had created a consistency concern that would need to be re-evaluated through an RM. If it was indeed discussed, then I think a relist would be fine. I had closed it cause the discussion had run out, and I saw a valid argument for a move that was mostly balanced vis-à-vis policy earlier. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't, but it's also just one of five WP:CRITERIA that work alongside COMMONNAME. I guess there was a previous argument about PRECISION, and the other three are neutral, but are two criteria enough to override COMMONNAME? I feel like that's borderline and something that should actually be discussed before closing a decision on those grounds unless it's been going on for a long time, and it should probably be fully explained there. (The closing statement here reads like a SUPERVOTE based on CONSISTENT that ignores the existence of COMMONNAME).
 * To me, even if there hasn't been discussion in a while, this is the perfect time to relist the discussion and bring up your concerns. If no new discussion happens, close the discussion when 7 days have passed, there's no deadline. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  11:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. Not a bad idea. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Murder of Maxwell Confait
An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder of Maxwell Confait. 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. Sceptre (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Further explanation of Muslim conquest of Egypt close
I'm... really not seeing a consensus here, and the discussion was only open just under 8 days. I would have easily relisted this over closing it; while yes, WP:TOOSOON on its own may not apply to RMs, the arguments being made were along the lines of "per the last discussion", which if the last discussion's consensus isn't countered (which I do not see in any of the comments), should not be discarded. At that point, I really don't see how you can come out with a consensus to move; I'd be closer to "not moved" than "moved" at that point. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  06:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read the last discussion too. The only support votes were "Support per nom", which IMO is not strong enough for that consensus to carry on beyond that RM. I think that it is possible that this discussion could be relisted, though given the arguments present and that it had been inactive for almost a week, I felt it leant for the move given a lack of opposing arguments. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There was only a single support vote other than the OP, and the state of the discussion at the point of closure was clearly not move/no consensus. The close should be undone and the discussion relisted. The grounds for the previous move, principally WP:COMMONNAME, were not overturned or really even addressed in the new RM, which brought no new information to bear. The move summary also appears to confuse the arguments of the discussion, i.e. no one made specific arguments about the proposed title being POV, but rather that the present title of the page was the most strictly WP:NPOV in the sense of both being the best reflection of reliable sources and the clear WP:COMMONNAME, which is likewise a reflection of usage in the balance of reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Theres a lot to unpack here. NPOV is a guideline that directs us to avoid presenting a one sided viewpoint; Since there isnt a "side" between Muslim and Arab descriptors for the conquest, quoting the policy doesnt make much sense. The COMMONNAME policy was proposed with data only in the prior move, and there it was argued against by editors, with the weight of the numbers quoted being questioned. The previous closer noted the WP:CONSISTENCY issues raised by this as well. In light of this, I do not think the close was unusual. And like I said, a discussion that hadnt been touched for a week was unlikely to suddenly gain more traction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:COMMONSENSE. The evidence for WP:COMMONNAME is sitting there plain as day a single thread up, available for all editors to read. Given that the RM is a direct reverse of the previous one, it is also all but incumbent on editors not being obtuse to read the prior RM. Editors also did reference and signpost other editors to both the prior discussion and WP:COMMONNAME in this RM. The close is a clear WP:SUPERVOTE to overturn the previous RM close despite minimal support. The close also does not acknowledge that the OP also ultimately expressed reticence about the RM proposal following discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems inappropriate to jibe about it being "all but incumbent on editors not being obtuse to read the prior RM" when this discussion begins with me affirming my reading of that discussion. I did indeed read it, and I reaffirm it for your benefit. In those previous set of moves, you and others argued for the WP:COMMONNAME. Opponents argued against it, citing WP:PRECISION and the titles being "inaccurate and hindering understanding". In the closure of most of the RMs, the arguments for the move were deemed to be insufficient; the exception being the Egypt page, where it was perceived to be slightly stronger due to an editor's neutral stand compared to the other moves.The arguments for and against the move, stated above, have not changed since then, with one exception; WP:CONSISTENT now favours the former title. The consistency concerns were noted by the closer in the previous RM you reference as well, who pointed editors to start a new RM to settle that issue. As such, with the weight of policy nearly balanced in the previous close, I view our policy to tilt in favour of the move.As for minimal support, remember that the previous RM that was closed as moved also had minimal support (two support votes "per nom"); As a closer, we weigh not on the number of editors but on the weight of the arguments. If you need any other clarifications, do feel free to reach out. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing about the consistency has changed since the previous move, so you appear to be all but admitting here that the only difference is your opinion, and hence, this was a supervote. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Im not sure how a close based on the arguments that were presented (As WP:CONSISTENT was) and did not see any rebuttal would be a supervote. You have claimed this twice now, so this is clearly something you feel quite strongly about and I doubt I could sway your opinion. I will still make an attmept to clarify your doubt in this regard.The reason I see the WP:CONSISTENT argument raised here to be a valid concern is that in the previous RM, all of the article titles were in contention. As such, if moved, they would be consistent either way. However, as only one of them was moved, it created a WP:CONSISTENCY issue, which was noted in the close earlier. When those arguments were raised in the current RM, they were argued over, but the only argument I saw contesting the WP:CONSISTENT claim was to instead be consistent with the Arab-Byzantine Wars, however, that doesnt exactly fit WP:CONSISTENT. As such, in my reading of the discussion I saw it to be a valid argument with regards to the move. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Iskandar here. This should've at the very least been relisted, in my opinion. I really don't see how the COMMONNAME arguments were ever countered in the new RM, and in the last RM, they were deemed strong enough for there to be a consensus for the CONSISTENCY split. I don't see how that's changed with the new RM, which only really argues CONSISTENCY, where the !votes against look satisfactorily strong to me to at least support a relist. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  22:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Was WP:CONSISTENT raised in previous RMs? I didnt see that being raised as an argument against the move at all, just an acknowledgement from the closer that the move had created a consistency concern that would need to be re-evaluated through an RM. If it was indeed discussed, then I think a relist would be fine. I had closed it cause the discussion had run out, and I saw a valid argument for a move that was mostly balanced vis-à-vis policy earlier. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't, but it's also just one of five WP:CRITERIA that work alongside COMMONNAME. I guess there was a previous argument about PRECISION, and the other three are neutral, but are two criteria enough to override COMMONNAME? I feel like that's borderline and something that should actually be discussed before closing a decision on those grounds unless it's been going on for a long time, and it should probably be fully explained there. (The closing statement here reads like a SUPERVOTE based on CONSISTENT that ignores the existence of COMMONNAME).
 * To me, even if there hasn't been discussion in a while, this is the perfect time to relist the discussion and bring up your concerns. If no new discussion happens, close the discussion when 7 days have passed, there's no deadline. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  11:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. Not a bad idea. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skarmory, going through the new comments does seem to indicate the close was correct, though perhaps could have been worded better. Shall I close this now or would you suggest leaving it to another editor? Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think WP:RMCI's quote of You have ever closed a previous controversial request to move the page applies here, so I would personally leave it to another editor. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  11:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Murder of Maxwell Confait
An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder of Maxwell Confait. 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. Sceptre (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates&#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 19:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#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 03:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent RM closes
Hello CapnJackSp,

This is a tough thing to say because it's going to sound elitist. After all, a year since sign-up is a long time, although you haven't been continuously editing during that period. But I'm looking at your tenure, and I'm seeing very few RM votes compared to RM closes. Now, admins are trusted to close basically any discussions across Wikipedia, but for non-admins, it's not that simple. Now, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and if you want to help out by doing non-controversial stuff like relistings or obvious closes, great. But you shouldn't do contentious closes without a lot of history participating as a normal user in the process. If you want to close Categories for Discussion, then first !vote in CFD and do some category work, for example. In the case of RMs, you shouldn't be closing contentious RMs unless you're participating in RM discussions - how else would you know what the community considers relevant policies, or show that you understand community consensus? This is true even if your closes are fantastic - others simply can't know to "trust" you if you didn't either pass RFA, or show participation in the area first. We don't need "professional closers", we need participants who happen to also close sometimes.

To be clear, this isn't sour grapes for closing the "wrong way", and I'll let others contest your close at WP:MR if they want to. But I would humbly suggest that if you want to close RM discussions, especially "non-easy" discussions, to first participate in them for a long time. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with User:SnowFire, regardless of the close outcome or its relative accuracy. WP:NACD clearly says Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. Now we have a post discussion thread in which two participants disagree with the outcome, and at least one participant suggests you should undo your close. I'll not tell you what to do; to my eyes your close was reasonable, but you should have foreseen some participants would disagree with what they saw as a BADNAC. Your close extends the process and does not conclude it, despite your good faith effort. We expect regular RM participants to close obvious discussions, but SnowFire is quite correct that wikipedians have reasons to expect those non-admins closers to be well-experienced before they start doing so. Closing a controversial process is a bad idea under these circumstances. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @SnowFire, advice from a more experienced editor is never elitist :) . I get your point regarding increased RM participation, and I will try to abide by that. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CapnJackSp. If I can help you to better understand RMs, please call on me. I could even help you learn to draft better closing statements if you'd like to try; yours are not bad but could be stronger. We might visit a few procedures together and do some mock/draft closures for practice. An important introduction is to know when to step into the arena, and when not to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acting like a wikipedian. This thread demonstrates the challenges caused by even a minor disagreement over a weak close. When a trusted admin attempts to put out the fire, their actions are held up and measured against yours. I don't mention this to cause you pain, but to show how a better regard for closes may improve a situation, not prolong it. FTR, I came to your user talk after the RM at Bill O'Reilly, where I still hold your close is a perfectly reasonable one. Do some RM !voting in the next few weeks and if you're okay with it, I'll offer some feedback if needed. You seem to get what we're doing here (and that's why I'm happy to help), but tweaking user behavior towards social norms is a very Wikipedia thing (and I'm always overjoyed when one of my mentees improves). BusterD (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop closing Requested Move processes
I'm looking at your recent edits and I think you are way over your head. Your closes are being taken to Move Review, so it's clear you're not doing something correctly. If you continue to close RMs disruptively, which is what I'm seeing, I will block you and ask the community to ban you from closures of any kind. No more RM closures of any sort. BusterD (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow. I came here to request self-revert their recent BADNAC close at Talk:Ulmus americana. No, Google scholar results is not a higher standard than Ngrams results for determining COMMONNAME. Scholar reflects specialized knowledge. COMMONNAME is about what people searching for the article are more likely to use and recognize. В²C ☎ 17:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @BusterD, I admit that some of my closures may not have been perfect. I would point out that the two RMs that did go to MR were endorsed, and while I agree my closes in those cases could have been worded better, they were not far from what the community desired. Whenever a close of mine is challenged on my T/P, I usually give the editor making the request the benefit of the doubt and reopen the discussion for someone else to close. Of the many pages I have moved, few were contested. Still, as per SnowFire and your suggestion I will take a more active part in RM discussions and a take a break from RM closures for now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone who has had concerns with some of CapnJackSp's closes and a fellow RM participant/closer, I think this is overly aggressive. I see an editor who is probably in a bit over their head, and the section started 37 minutes before this section was opened handles it well. Some help closing at least relatively uncontroversial discussions would be much appreciated in my view, and I would definitely recommend CapnJackSp !vote in some of these controversial discussions they would have otherwise closed, but threatening them with a block if they close even uncontroversial RMs is harsh. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll concede my warning was bold, intended to get the user's attention and immediately stop poor behavior. My choice to create a new thread was therefore intentional. In my assessment the user's closing of several contentious procedures indicates a failure to understand the warning given in WP:NACD. Multiple editors have cautioned them recently on this subject yet they were persisting in such closures. If you haven't already, please read User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 4. Further such activity may lead some uninvolved admin to block them on the spot as disruptive. I almost did. Their reply here in this thread demonstrates appropriate behavior; they would gain more experience participating in discussions before they go back to closing them. The issue is what the OP in the thread above raised: this user is running when they haven't yet demonstrated they can walk. Closers must be perceived to be neutral, capable and trusted, plus be seen as willing to accept critique. Now that they've pledged to do what the OP above has recommended, I'll keep watching the user and provide further help if they're willing to listen. I appreciate your comments, especially when it appears I've been over bold. BusterD (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you kindly for your concern ...
... but truly, I'm not particularly worried about it. I've racked up enough of a life-resume -- published author, elected official, letters to the editor, etc -- that someone who wanted badly enough to find me could. Heck, just take a look at all the factoids I drop on my user page. (Granted, someone unhinged enough to show up on my front stoop would run into an unpleasant surprise.) And it won't get any better in America; the corporations selling data make way too much money to ever let a European-style "right to vanish" be enacted on this side of the pond. My thanks all the same. Also, pinging @Valereee, because at the least this part of the discussion doesn't have much of a place there on ANI.   Ravenswing     07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're comfortable with it, not a problem. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Squirrel Scouts (The Scout Association)&#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 23:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI
I mentioned you in passing here. No response needed IMO but dropping you this note since my headsup ping wouldn't have worked. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was planning to drop a response there anyway, was putting off since I was a bit busy and hadnt dug up diffs. With due respect, I differ on F&F's behaviour; It goes much beyond their last scuffle, and several times their incivility has been pointed out and not been remedied. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Here is a kitten for you.

Coltshark (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) 
 * The kitten is quite cute :) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Amritpal Singh
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Amritpal Singh, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/43&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20CapnJackSp&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1167232628 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amritpal_Singh&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1167232628%7CAmritpal%20Singh%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * Note to future self : This was a spelling error, corrected. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your requested move close on Talk:Fraser Island
Kia ora (and compliments on your ship, Captain) - I was wondering if it would be possible for you to elaborate a bit on how you reached your decision to not move? There's a new move request now, and in the context of that I noticed that the opinion in the discussion was overwhelmingly in favour of moving (11 to 3) and some of the arguments against the move weren't overly convincing. Seems like it should have been a fairly straightforward close in the other direction? Turnagra (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra : A lot of those were just votes (sans arguments, which will basically be ignored by closers). What it came down to was the relevant guideline - WP:NAMECHANGES. That dictates that if in the recent coverage, a substantially bigger number of RS use the new name and not the old, we should also use the new name. The evidence for it was never produced, and in subsequent discussions has been countered. I think Dekimasu's comment there regarding the proposal is quite accurate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Romanization of Ukrainian&#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 16:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)&#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 14:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Fixed penalty notice&#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 17:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Elvish Yadav
Can you help me with expanding Draft:Elvish Yadav 103.39.128.89 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#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 23:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Stephenson 2 DFK 1&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#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, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Skif (anti-tank guided missile)&#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 12:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2024 United States presidential election&#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 05:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 at Women In Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth&#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 09:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Nondualism&#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 01:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

My signature
Try clicking my talk page link from a page other than my talk page Z!t!@n «T@1k»  11:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it works. Thanks! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Z!t!@n «T@1k»  18:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#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 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Requesting some help
@CapnJackSp

This New Indian Express news article seem to produce a August 1947 news clip pictograph from their archives. It's likely to be copyright free and request your assistance in uploading the same to Wikimedia commons, if you can spare some time for the same - (I am myself not confident of those processes).

Though I am not contemplating any immediate use of the same in WP article, it may be supportive confirmation value for few nuanced details like names of the delegates and date of travel.

Thanks &#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak 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, 26 September 2023 (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 CapnJackSp. Thank you. Solblaze (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff
Some sources suggest, Operation Parakram was not an obvious failure. It was a limited military and complete diplomatic success because the intent of Operation Parakram was to practice coercive diplomacy, not attack Pakistan.

Neither victory nor defeat accrued from the standoff. But the outcome was positive: a ceasefire which is holding, scores of old and new CBMs and the peace process. The jihadi threat has diminished, not disappeared. A terrorist attack like at Ayodhya is not likely to start a war but a major terrorist strike could end the peace process. Therefore, unlike the claims of President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the peace process is not irreversible.

Some sources including goverment suggest Operation Parakram was about practicing coercive diplomacy, Primary objective of the operation was not to launch a full-scale military attack on Pakistan but to use military deployments as a means of diplomatic pressure. Coercive diplomacy is a strategy where military force is used to influence an adversary's behavior without necessarily resorting to actual combat.

Some sources suggests Operation Parakram, was a massive exercise in coercive diplomacy, had run out of steam; both sides disengaged. India lost face because of its failure to elicit any strategic gains from Pakistan. This was principally because it took more than three weeks for the three Indian strike corps to reach their wartime locations from eastern and central India. During this period, Pakistan was able not only to internationalize the crisis, but also to send a clear message that any attack inside the portion of Kashmir that it controlled would invite a retaliatory strike. DSP2092 talk  10:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking out your time for accruing these sources. I will look in to them. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#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 03:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hardeep Singh Nijjar
There's an RF opened on Nijjar TALK page. Please give your input. I think Option A, which is the current openinf line is the better option among the ones in RFC. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar  RogerYg (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on the RFC, had not seen it. However, I think talking about your preferred version might be taken to be a form of canvassing by some editors, and in future I would strongly encourage you to just leave invitation for comments without any opinions of your own that may bias the reader.As for the RFC, I am leaning A, though I think the current supporters have made insufficiently convincing arguments for that case. I will probably take some time to formulate my arguments and post only after I go through other arguments as well and I am satisfied that the choice and justification is correct. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Captain, will appreciate your input on Nijjar RFC before they close it.
 * Also, more importantly, have another RFC for Page title page on Talk:Air India Flight 182 to including bombing in the title, as that flight name is very general and misleading title, hiding the actual bombing from the title. And, there are other discussions on Air India page, but it's important to first fix the title before getting into other discussions, which can be done later once the title is fixed.


 * Your input on RFC will be greatly appreciated. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)&#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 05:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello
Email me. We need to talk! Stormbird  (talk)  18:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war&#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 13:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war&#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 15:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#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 22:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Terrorism&#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 07:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Battle of Kosovo&#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 09:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Hi, may you please kindly strike or remove the pre-emptive accusation of stonewalling? I was summarizing the questing being asked by the other user; they are the one challenging the material so I also wish that you not accuse me of "vague statements of doubt". My revert of you was purely due to what I saw as a partial application of WP:ONUS which you are free to disagree with. I do wish they would provide more than assertions and I agree that this discussion can be wrapped up quickly. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! Wasnt accusing you of stonewalling (what was intended, was that "the only way I see this conversation dragging out long enough for me to be bothered by the removal of material is if someone decides to stonewall this converstation"). However, if you feel it was offensive, I have no trouble removing it as it was an extraneous remark not central to the point I was making.The remark about misreading policy was, that unless material is very obviously and egregiously against policy (such as obvious BLP violation), longstanding content should not be removed arbitrarily. If it is removed, and the edit is challenged, the status quo prior to those edits should be maintained.The reason I reverted initially was that I saw it to be obviously relevant and due information, but I dropped the "designated terrorist" label as it was a recent addition (i.e. not "longstanding content") (and was perhaps potentially a BLP violation - though not likely given the citations available). Since I thought those arguments could possibly be made, I kept it out, and reinstated the rest. In future I would hope that if you are reinstating an edit, you go through the changes you are making, since even if you feel you are only undoing a edit citing policy, you are still responsible for the material added/removed in your edit/revert. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah. it takes a lot to offend me; just thought it was maybe a little harsh in the context of a dispute in this topic area but I'm satisfied you meant no harm by it. Wanted to get this sent (as that was the gist of why I'm here on your talk page) before I go over the rest of your reply. Thanks :] &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Hardeep Singh Nijjar


An article that been involved with ( Hardeep Singh Nijjar ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. 2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

split tempate
@CapnJackSp, please add this split tempalte on top of Hardeep Singh Nijjar article, Thanks.

2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Shambuka&#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 15:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Sex&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)