User talk:CaptainEek

CaptainEek hunting for vandals aboard one of their 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!

Uh oh

Hello, CaptainEek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from 99healthideas (09:46, 5 July 2022)

Hello,

Please guide me on how to write, so that my id would not be blocked or considered a spam user. I am just going to share information not here for marketing purposal.

Thanks Preeti Shah 99healthideas --99healthideas (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@99healthideas Well then what do you want to write about exactly? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to write information about health and wellness 99healthideas (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

99healthideas Writing about medical topics is more difficult than the average article because it requires you to use WP:MEDRS. Read that article thoroughly, and follow the links it discusses, before editing health articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shiv Sena on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes

AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl

Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue

Bureaucrat changes

Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Image on Sunset Boulevard Bridge

Hey, I saw you're trying to move an image on the page Sunset Boulevard Bridge. I tried to do that while I was editing it too, but couldn't figure it out (which I see you're experiencing based on your edit summary). If you do figure out why it's where it is and not where it's listed/supposed to be and/or how to fix it, can you let me know?

Thanks, SpokaneWilly (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Democratic backsliding in Ethiopia

Hi, Why you changed to Democratic backsliding in Ethiopia when it talks about Abiy Ahmed. The Supermind (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The Supermind Well for starters your title was ungrammatical. Second, this allows the article to cover backsliding should Ahmed leave power. Lastly, the previous title was not informative at a glance. Most people have no idea who Abiy Ahmed is, but everybody knows what Ethiopia is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

So, should I absorb Abiy Ahmed in concised section and add topic about the previous government to fit with the title of "Democratic backsliding in Ethiopia"? The Supermind (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Supermind Well you don't need to include that at all, unless the last government was backsliding too, in which case yes that'd be a good addition. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Content Authenticity Inititaive

You tagged the Article as "Advert". I consider the tag as inappropriate and your tagging without explanation less then helpful. I am an independent German journalist and it took considerable efforts to write this article. The CAI is a non-commercial association creating an open standard. The topic is complex and not easy to explain. Two thirds of the article cover an explanation of the way the standard works. So: Where did you discover advertising content? Robertseetzen (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Robertseetzen Hi Robert. Thanks for working on this article. Don't let the tagging doesn't reflect on you, its hard to learn the ropes of Wikipedia, and you chose a bit of a tricky first topic. We're always suspicious of articles about organizations and want them written as neutrally as possible. To that end, I recommend a few fixes. First, don't use external links in the body. Its against our manual of style, and makes me think that the goal of the article is to drive web traffic to the site. Second, everything should be cited. If I see uncited content, it makes me think that its original research, which makes me wonder if the author is associated with the topic. Third, you have a lot of unsubstantiated essay-like claims. Such as Simply put, the CAI standard enables a person to make sound decisions about what content to trust. Without reliable, cryptographically secured statements about the origin of a file, such decisions are also possible and even commonplace, but they are then often made without a robust foundation. It looks like this sentence is trying to promote the CAI, instead of just explaining what it is in a neutral fashion. Wording like "Simply put", "sound decisions", "robust foundation", that's all ad-speak. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I just removed some parts of the article you considered problematic. Having to ask you for your reasons to add that tag should not have been necessary in the first place. Adding that tag without an explanation can be seen as a display of disrespect for the work of others.

I have no idea how to continue work on the article. The topic is rather new. There is almost zero independent content available. One reason might be that the topic is complex. I understand Wikipedia as a place to offer support in understanding complicated topics. In addition, I understand Wikipedia as a platform to offer information on relevant topics. I believe that an association working on an open, freely available standard for tools helping against disinformation is relevant. Even more so if that association has the potential (due to its potent members) to implement or at least propagate that standard on a global level. As a person involved in Wikipedia administration and (as I believe) being confronted with disinformation on a daily basis, you might agree. In addition, you might understand that I'm not motivated to do further work on the article with that advert tag present or looming.

I understand the necessities of scientific working. But without many external sources available, the article can almost only refer to the standard documents and statements of the CAI and C2PA themselves. Which should be, at least regarding the standard docs, enough in itself. Because this is the most reliable information that will ever be available when the inner workings of the standard are discussed. I'd be happy to add references to any critical discussion of the standard and its potential impact. But, until now, even well-known sources with good reputation didn't do much more than rewrite press statements. So, if you would like to see this article evolve and an article I planned for the C2PA to happen in the first place, please offer you opinion on how this might work with that little sources available. Robertseetzen (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

ARCA

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 121#Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale (January 2022) you stated that I should start a new RFC in a better location but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC seems though not well participated to have reached a reasonable consensus namely:

• There was a consensus against bot/insignificant content creation, that is to say the articles needed to be of good quality and contain significant content
• There was a consensus that if the parish has the same name as a settlement the parish should be dealt with in the settlement article. This is standard for other 4th order units elsewhere in the world.
• Several editors stated to have a moratorium on parish RFCs so I see little benefit in starting another one.

The requirement that I can only appeal the restrictions is far far far to infrequent, even if we were only allow 1 appeal every 6 months or year it would be far more appropriate if the number of articles (such as parishes only) could be reviewed more like ever 2 weeks or so (at least in the beginning) probably by an arbitrator or other admin. I we started at say 1 parish a week (in addition to my 1 article a month on anything) and gradually increase the number of parishes ever few weeks I could gradually get the remaining ones missing with little risk of problems.

You also opposed to going from 1 article a week through AFC to 1 article a month without AFC due to the new restriction allowing me to create less content, if you felt this why didn't you instead suggest a motion of allowing me to create 1 article a week without AFC? As Primefac said "While I think it would most definitely benefit Crouch, Swale when they make their inevitable appeal next year to have an actual, well-attended and clear RFC that states whether what they are doing is acceptable to the community or not, I cannot deny that they have held to their restriction and have been doing a good job of writing reasonable articles. I do not understand why they are looking for fewer articles written per year as their relaxation, but if that is what they want that is what they will apparently get.". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale My issue is that the frequency is somewhat arbitrary, when the real issue is there seems to be no consensus on the notability of parishes. Your stated goal is still to create an article for every parish, which is what got you in trouble in the first place. Until there is some discussion that determines that say a certain group of parishes is notable, I think it is best that your submissions be reviewed. Otherwise, I suggest you carefully re-read what I wrote at the ARCA. I have just re-read it, I stand by it, and could not have put it more eloquently. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about the frequency of the reviewing or the frequency in the sense of the number of parishes I can create?

Regarding notability and previous problems there isn't such an issue with notability per WP:GEOLAND and the previous disagreements were over hamlets, suburbs and individual buildings, as far as I'm aware there wasn't any disagreements over parishes.

Would something like:

• Crouch, Swale can create (to start with) 2 articles on current civil parishes a week, the articles must be in accordance with the previous consensus namely (1) the articles must contain a reasonable amount of content (such as at least 5 sentences), (2) must be on current civil parishes and (3) must follow the rule agreed that if a parish has the same name as a settlement it doesn't get a separate article unless all or almost all of the settlement is outside the parish.
• The number of articles he can create a week is to be reviewed every 2 weeks (by an involved or uninvolved administrator) to see if it can be increased.
• The number of articles he can create per week can be reduced anytime by any admin, involved or not.
• If he creates unsuitable articles they can be moved to draftspace/his userspace (or another suitable location) an he is not permitted to move them back without permission from the mover or an admin or create a new article on that topic.
• This restriction runs concurrently with his 1 article a month on any topic and he can appeal his overall restrictions as normal at ARCA.

Would this work? What is the likelihood of problems and wouldn't point 3 be enough to deal with that. Could you please consider this? If every 2 weeks is too frequent or not frequent enough it could be a different time, though reviewing would likely be nothing more than checking some or all of the articles for problems and checking my talk page. If there are any other things that you think would be helpful you can suggest them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale The more complicated a sanction becomes, the more onerous it is to enforce. Simpler is generally better. At least as far as I'm concerned, my preferred course of action is for you to prove that you understand what notability means, that you have had an RfC about the notability of parishes, and then simply ask for your restriction to be lifted altogether. I suggest you do not do this until you are truly ready. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There is already a consensus on this at WP:GEOLAND and the 2020 RFC. Why do I need an express consensus to create the remaining ~3.6%? Almost everywhere else in the world as far as I can see has coverage on their lowest level units so why should that be any different for the ~3.6% of parishes in England? Parishes just like other administrative units are inherently notable so there is no need to start a RFC about if ~3.6% of parishes in England should be treated differently to most other places in the world. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale As WTT pointed out: Handwaving towards WP:GEOLAND or WP:NPLACE don't solve this specific consensus that the articles shouldn't be mass created. But regardless, you might be talking to the wrong Arb. It seems the majority of arbs are favorable to changing your sanctions, but I am not. I am generally uninterested until you show that the underlying issue is fixed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree there is a consensus today that articles shouldn't be mass created with little content but I gave examples like Greenstead Green and Halstead Rural and Shoreswood that do contain significant content. It would be reasonable for me to be able to still produce good articles if I was creating several a week or even several a day but not if it was like 100 a day. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from Meiborg trucking (13:21, 20 July 2022)

looking to change my user name --Meiborg trucking (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Meiborg trucking See WP:RENAME CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

...Did you really just leave a sitting member of arbcom a templated DS notice? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there an exception to the notification protocol for ArbCom members? I hadn't noticed CaptainEek participating in any GENSEX ArbCom cases over the last 12 months, so I wasn't sure they were AWARE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No but common sense would tell you that an arbcom member is aware of DS/GS, or you could, you know, make a comment in your own words instead of templating them. Seems almost vindictive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Since the templates were edited this year to read as more neutral notifications, I didn't know anyone regarded them as vindictive. My reading of the situation was that the Captain had made a GENSEX edit perhaps without realizing they had done so or fully considering the implications of the organizational hierarchy they prefer for this article. In similar situations I often share templates, and don't regard doing so as "vindictive". Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial Eek has been formally alerted so in that technical sense you didn't do anything wrong. But Eek is already WP:AWARE as a sitting arb under awareness criteria 3 In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, I when I placed the notice I could not remember having seen CaptainEek participate in any GENSEX arbitrations in the last 12 months. I still can't, to be honest. Newimpartial (talk)

• Well at least this gives me a good afternoon chuckle. I appreciate hewing to the letter of the law, but I am already quite familiar with the DS, especially since I voted to implement GENSEX :P At any rate, it reminds me of the importance of overhauling AWARENESS, which is already written out as part of DS reform. I know I'm behind on rolling out DS reform, but I hope to have it out after the deletion case is over, some personal matters resolve, and I have more free time. But I do have agree that in general I don't think ArbCom members need to be made aware of DS, except when the DS is particularly obscure. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that !vote from February 2021 doesn't establish AWAREness, by the letter of the law. :) Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"Bludgeoning" Principle in the current deletion discussions ArbCom case

Hi CaptainEek,

I would post this at the proposed decision talk page but I don't want it reverted without consideration by anyone who treats IP editors as noon-Wikipedians who should not be allowed to even comment on ArbCom-related topics.

The wording proposed includes

Participants get one !vote, and a reasonable number of replies to make the most salient points but editors need not try to rebut all or even some of the comments they disagree with. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and weakens the strength of discussions.

While I agree with the sentiment, I fear it can be read in a way that is not intended. The clause that begins that "editors need not try to rebut ..." can be taken as pointing to different positions on a spectrum from "there is no formal requirement to make rebuttals, but that such are welcome" through advice to be selective in what to rebut, to advising that rebuttals are generally unwise. I think this should be clarified as I suspect that the intent is more the latter but appears to be closer to the former. Perhaps something more like:

"Participants get one !vote, and a reasonable number of replies to make the most salient points, and are advised to trust that their contributions will be considered. Providing replies and rebuttals which repeat points already made can weaken discussions and exhaust other editors. Such contributions, even when made in good faith, can dissuade other editors further participating, waste time, and may potentially be seen as disruptive."

I know that Barkeep49 and Donald Albury have already voted on this principle, so pinging them in case they might find this comment relevant / helpful. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from Praizz (13:11, 24 July 2022)

How do I write an artist article for my self --Praizz (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Praizz You don't. Its a bad idea. Wikipedia is not for self promotion. If you'd like some publicity, I suggest talking to an advertising agency, or using something like Everybody Wiki. If you are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, someone else will write it for you in time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Libertarian Party (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from Billsfan56 (22:32, 27 July 2022)

Hi thank you. Needing to change buffalo bills players name from "Gabriel Davis" to "Gave Davis" is this at all possible? he just officially changed his name today. Thank you! --Billsfan56 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Billsfan56 Do you have a reliable source that backs that up? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Caste system in India on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in August 2022

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239 Online events: New: Alphabet run: C and D | Indigenous women | Refugees | Comedians, Comics and other Performers Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration focus on UEFA Women's Euro 2022, August 8–21 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

KevinL submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Ahoy, it's a delight to be able to nominate CaptainEek to be Editor of the Week. The Cap'n is one of the very most engaged, thoughtful, and fun editors I have had the privilege of working with. They're best known for being an arbitrator and an upstanding administrator, but what I find most impressive is how they've stuck with an impressive amount of content work through it all. CaptainEek has been the primary contributor for everything from Cactus wren and Vermilion flycatcher to Gallic Wars and Giant pumpkin. In addition to their many accolades, CaptainEek has a reputation for being creative, patient, and deeply kind. This nomination was seconded by Enterprisey

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)