Open main menu

One of CaptainEek's favorite ships, the IJN Yamato.

Editor Feedback, Talk, and Sea Shanty Singing Area

All Hands on Deck! There's conversation to be had with other editors!

Contents

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
In consideration of your well-reasoned and detailed analysis of the RfC regarding inclusion of text about Donald Trump's mental health. — JFG talk 09:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
+1 - I just read your close, Captain. Excellent work. You deserve more accolades considering the level of difficulty for that RfC. Thank you for your very precise, well thought out response. Atsme Talk 📧 16:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

5GEdit

Thanks for writing a detailed closing statement for 5G RfC. However, how did you find out that there was a CONSENSUS for including the paragraph in question when the majority of editors who commented there were against it? Have you checked the definition of WP:CONSENSUS? By my reading, there was anything but consensus there. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, the second half of the paragraph has been long removed from the article; as nobody objected, it should be assumed that the removal met with consensus. Why proposing to restore it? — kashmīrī TALK 07:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: Thanks for asking, and glad to explain. Consensus is not based off of numerical votes. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. Consensus is instead based off the strength of the arguments (see WP:NHC). Now I'll agree, if a discussion is 10 to 1, or even 3 to 1, for a particular issue, the majority is probably going to win. But for issues like 5G, where the votes were essentially even, the strength of the arguments has to be considered, and is often the deciding factor. Using straight numbers is also vulnerable to sock/meat puppetry, and canvassing. If you believe my close went against procedure, you can always raise a request for review at the admin's noticeboard, or get support to open a new RfC, but I hope you'll stand behind the consensus as I've read it.
In terms of the second part of the paragraph: my understanding was that no-one had objected to it because it was being discussed on the talk page, and the outcome would bring consensus for the paragraph. I didn't see strong opposition to the second half of the paragraph, and the RfC seemed to be about the paragraph essentially as written. However, if folks feel the second half is unwarranted, they can discuss and remove it. Pending further discussion, I believe it should enter the article. Once its in the article, someone can be bold and remove it, and if no one objects this time around, then consensus could be assumed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I did not say that the close was against the procedure. My worry is, in your close you argued that there was a consensus, whereas it is clear that all the sides in the dispute presented strong arguments and the editors ultimately failed to reach a consensus. In my view the RfC should be either let run or, if a close is needed, closed as WP:NOCONSENSUS. — kashmīrī TALK 09:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: Ah, I see your concern. However, no consensus often is the result of lack of discussion, or lack of discussion of policy. In this case however, the issue had been discussed to death. The discussion was almost 3 months old, and hadn't been edited in weeks. And my close took the position that all sides had not had strong arguments. In fact, I specifically said that the "no" votes had a weak argument that wasn't based in policy. However, even if I concluded there was no consensus, that would just mean the article reverts to either the original version before discussion, which has...exactly this paragraph, or to the current version, which also has the paragraph. But I do believe there was policy based consensus that had formed after a reasonable and thorough discussion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Question from GrandsedonaEdit

Hello Captain Eek,I want help while editing a random article, I came across an article where internal linking is given to another language Wikipedia article, can you please guide me as to how to get the other language Wikipedia article to English.Grandsedona (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@GrandSedona: Howdy hello! Could you link me the article and say where in the article the specific problem is? Thanks! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions and collaboration regarding the close of the Australia RfC about including religion in the infobox. It was a pleasure to work with you. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC) DannyS712

barnstarEdit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For excellent work on the committee close of RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox? in Australia Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Pristimantis repensEdit

Hello, I have trouble understanding why did you introduce so many duplicate references with this edit to Pristimantis repens? Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Micromesistius: Hmmm, that was certainly not intentional. I think it was a consequence of me using visual editor to make the edit? I made the edit in VE, but then got a 404 error, which wouldn't let me save the edit. Thus I copied the edit from VE, reloaded the page, and pasted the edit back in VE and then saved it. I guess VE is not as smart as I had hoped, and thus duplicated the refs instead of handling them nicely. I will attempt to try to clean that up, thanks for letting me know! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 15:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

GreetingsEdit

  Nice to meet you ~
~ Thanks ~ I do respect EEng as one (LOL) ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "CaptainEek".