User talk:Transcleanupgal

this is just to make a blue link appear

if i fucked up, (and you're right side up) message me. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Trypanaresta plagiata, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

thos was a grammer edit, I found going through random articles, the chile bit was already in the article, I don't think what i wrote needed a citation, this i rolled back with slightly different wording per WP:BLUE Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus versus majority vote

Hey. I'm responding to this edit summary. Wikipedia operates on a consensus mechanism for almost every discussion and decision on the site, including RfCs like the one on Vector 2022. This means that when the discussion has run its course, an experienced editor or panel of editors who are uninvolved in the discussion will close it by reading all of the arguments presented and where necessary weigh those arguments against relevant policies and guidelines. The upshot of this means that it is possible for the majority to say they support the question, but for the close to find either a consensus against it or no consensus at all.

The only real exceptions to this are to a few explicit elections to bodies like ArbCom and Stewards. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

agreed, even assuming WP:VINE as policy (which it is far from) this would only matter if the majority opposes the change, the support votes would need to be checked still, however those posintions are reversed in this case, where there may have been an improper closure. Transcleanupgal (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you're referring to the November 2022 RfC, I'm not aware anyone has yet attempted to close the current one, whether properly or improperly. I'm also not seeing anything particularly faulty with the November 2022 closure, as it seems like a reasonable summary of that discussion. As for determining the consensus of the current RfC, I don't envy the editor or editors who volunteer for that task, as it's already mammoth like in size. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

yes i am talking about the november rfc where there seemed to be no consensus. however no resulf was posted and they just went along with it, and it didn't satisfy WP:200 either, and the width issue was not fixed, as well as ignoring the logged out perception, and also the fact that them just disliking it Should be the most important factor when making a UI change, and obviouly, if the majority dislikes a change that affects everyone, it would be a negative change, no matter , even 33% opposition should prevent such a change from happening, let alone 50%. just because it followed Wikipedia rules doesn't mean there were no problems. Transcleanupgal (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

and it didn't, one of the closers DIDN'T EVEN CHECK ALL THE OPPOSES AND IS LYING ABOUT THEIR REASONING ON THE OTHER CLOSERS FUCKING TALK PAGE, IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE A ADMINISTRATOR, RUN A CHECK REOPEN THE DISCUSSION AND RUN A CHECK USER IMMEDIETLY. Transcleanupgal (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Check User checks are only authorised for a limited number of reasons by global policy. A potentially faulty closure of an RfC is not one of those reasons.

As for "didn't even check all the opposes", it looks like that editor has already addressed this in a reply on that same talk page. It's pretty clear that that comment was solely made in relation to rereading parts of the RfC as part of re-familiarisation with the close, in relation to the queries from yourself and Tvx1. I've closed long discussions as part of a panel before, and I can assure you that all aspects of the discussion are considered and discussed by the closers at the time of closing. Having been an editor for a long time, having had many interactions with both of the closers of the November 2022 RfC, and having reviewed some of that discussion myself, I trust their closure to be the correct one even if I would have phrased it differently due to how I write versus how they write. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

you cannot trust people you know online to do the right thing without checking yourself, you cannot be 100% sure that what I am saying is correct even if you change your view, as you bring up, i missed that they were talking about rechecking it. You need to review all of the discussion, not just some of it, to get a determinate answer as to if it's right or not. Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

With regards to a majority vote being the sole deciding factor, I would encourage you to read about the tyranny of the majority. As for whether like or dislike of a change should be the most important factor, there's actually a rather substantial body of research on the psychology behind UX redesign, and the frequent outcries of "But this is just worse" from a vocal subset of users. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

With regards to a majority vote being the sole deciding factor, that is not what i'm saying at all, i'm just saying a majority vote should be required to implement changes like this, in fact, one of the closers brought up what was, from his point of view, a majority support. and the pdf you linked puts organizations resisting user resistance in a negative light in the first paragraph, that a very big if that's not mentioned here. Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Badgering

Please stop badgering the opposers. It doesn't reflect well on anyone. Yes, I'm making some replies myself, but I'm only replying when there's a specific cogent point to be made, not willy-nilly "but I don't like it" in response to "I do like it". IWantTheOldInterfaceBack (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

honest question. when did i do that? what are the specific insances? (so I can stop doing that in the future) Transcleanupgal (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You've argued directly with (as opposed to argued with responses to, which there are several more cases of) opposes #64, #85, #86, #87, #88, #89, #94, #102. Especially egregious are #88 in which you discounted the user's vote for being their opinion (all of these votes are fundamentally opinions, including yours), #89 in which you refused to comment on the points the user was making and instead declared their opinion "invalid", and #102 in which you yelled in all caps a point that has already been made and addressed repeatedly (and calmly) elsewhere. You've badgered over 7% of opposes and 0% of supports. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8552:14FA:1343:4303 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP editor here. Transcleanupgal you've made your points on the RfC, I would gently advise that maybe you should take a break from the RfC, and go and edit some articles or contribute to other talk pages relating to your other editing interests. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

They deleted someone else from their talk page (which they're allowed to do, though it's not a good look) who encouraged them to stop badgering, as "likely troll spouting patent nonsense", so I anticipate our messages will disappear shortly too. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8552:14FA:1343:4303 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes #88 was bad, and I should of heeded warning with #102 ( although that felt like a WP:CPOVP editor and I had no medications), howeber the point made for #89 is just factually wrong, MY opinion on the same issue is also invalid in this case; I thought i made that quite clear. also by your definition: I was considering badgering one support comment. but admittedly that would make myself worse, I am not deleting your messages, they make an actual point, the other did not Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to remove myself from the discussion for now: i've crearly made some poor decisions. Transcleanupgal (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

the other did not
I disagree with that assessment; the now-removed comment pointed out your comments that came close to disruptive editing, and you have dismissed it in your reversion, partly because [you were] asking [IWantTheOldInterfaceBack] in particular. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

those comments were based on facts, or at least what i thought of as facts, Voting is not evil and neither is commenting counterpoints, the only reason why #102 is a problem to me is that it was completely uncivil, I'd rather this be discussion be left as is, as it is seriously negatively impacting my mental health. Transcleanupgal (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)