Wikipedia talk:Consensus#!vote

There is information I would like to add in the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_animal

The information which I would like to add is: There are currently only 2 known animals that re-evolved the ability to extract oxygen from water: Turtles and Sea snakes, which can extract oxygen, through cutaneous respiration, meeting 30% of its oxygen consumption while Turtles use cloacal respiration, some freshwater turtles such as Fitzroy River turtle can reach up to 100% of its oxygen consumption in turbulent and well oxygenated rivers, potentially staying underwater indefinitely thus making them the only reptiles capable of breathing underwater.Campbell JA, Lamar WW. 2004. The Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca and London. 870 pp. 1500 plates. {{ISBN|0-8014-4141-2}}.{{Cite web|url=http://www.fba.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BeastsoftheBasin-FactFiles.pdf |title=Fitzroy River Turtle (Rheodytes leukops)|website=fba.org.au|publisher=Fitzroy Basin Association and Queensland Government |access-date=24 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170218063918/http://www.fba.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BeastsoftheBasin-FactFiles.pdf|archive-date=18 February 2017|url-status=dead}}{{Cite web|url=http://sci-s03.bacs.uq.edu.au/sib/sib-news/july07/mathie.pdf|title=New Dams May Flush Bottom-Breathers Out|date=June 2007|website=bacs.uq.edu.au|publisher=Australasian Science|access-date=24 May 2016|archive-date=13 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171213040419/http://sci-s03.bacs.uq.edu.au/sib/sib-news/july07/mathie.pdf|url-status=dead}} 109.239.24.213 (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:If someone reverts something you wish to add to an article the best place to discuss it is the article's talk page (Talk:Aquatic animal). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist}}

Hey there, I recently edited Ali Niknam page, adding his awards. Today his page was made to redirect to one of his companies. That was made without explanation and now that i've tried to revert the page to it's original variant it is locked and protected. Could you advise me on how to bring this page back as I think those edits were not made correctly? Spokeoino (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, this talk page is not the place to seek answers to this question. Try one of the options at Wikipedia:Questions. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:User:Spokeoino, you should ask at Talk:Ali Niknam.

:Note that after your question, the redirect was reverted, the page was listed at AfD, and the result was “keep”. So, its talk page is the place for questions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|Closing this before the dispute escalates further. As {{u|Nikkimaria}} advised, WP:VP would be the right venue to discuss such a prescriptive change. Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)}}

@Nikkimaria can you clarify why you think edit summaries should or can be optional for reverts of another editors good faith work. an editor spends time and effort and make a good faith effort to improve an article. only to have their edit reverted without reason? thats not right.

please see Wikipedia:Don't revert without explanation

Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary Astropulse (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Edit summaries are optional; changing that would be such a major change of practice that a community-wide discussion would be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::we are talking about only reverts of another editors good faith work. and i strongly believe edit summeries should be required. how should i go about getting community-wide discussion Astropulse (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd suggest the village pump. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment {{user|Astropulse}} Your edit on rearranging some images in the featured article, India, and deleting a couple, was reverted. Before you embark on this community-wide discussion, please mull over what you have done thus far. You have, in succession, opened threads or made edits in:

• Talk:India
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#zigzag_image_placements
• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#edit_summary_should_be_required_for_reverts_of_another_editors_good_faith_work
• User talk:Fowler&fowler, where I reverted your two posts, the second accusing me of stalking you, and have asked you not to post there in the future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:And you reverted my edit on India, never really participated in the talk discussion when i voiced my concerns. You have accused me of bad faith in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#zigzag_image_placements and then again reverted by edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle&diff=prev&oldid=1281896183] without a good reason and continuing to follow me here too. And whats really the purpose of this message? I'll do what i think its right, and i will again mind you - stop this behavior. Astropulse (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

This follows a discussion at User talk:OwenX. I'm looking for input on what other editors think about accounting for editor experience when evaluating consensus and what P+G people feel are relevant in that context. Wikipedia:Consensus is oddly silent on the issue but it is widespread community practice to discount the opinions of SPAs, new editors, and disruptive editors however there also appears to be a broad consensus against favoritism, classism, or cabalism when it comes to consensus and an expectation that all good faith arguments be evaluated on their own merits. Obviously as with so many things on wiki best practice falls somewhere in-between the poles, but interested in what other people think and especially in ways in which P+G speak directly to this issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Consensus says consensus discussions should take into account "reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." Under the expressio unius principle, that eliminates discounting anyone's opinion (except, of course, vandals and the like).

:Assuming the practice you describe is widespread, Consensus should be changed to reflect that. However, I think this is a good place to wp:IAR and keep the policy aspirational. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::By widespread I mean a small minority but not a fringe practice. Some of those practicing it are very prolific so it may be more widespread in the sense of application than in number of editors doing it, for context {{Ping|OwenX}} how many closes do you think you've made in the last year? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:What's the difference between "discounting his comment because he's a newbie" and "discounting his comment because he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about"? Or "discounting the newbie's comment" vs "focusing on the experienced editor who clearly does know the content area and Wikipedia's standards"? Most people are familiar with the concept of leveling up, so they're less offended if we claim to be discounting their comments "because they're newbies" than if we tell them we're discounting their comments because the comment is based on nonsense and ignorance.

:We do discount certain kinds of newbie comments, especially those that appear to be part of an off-wiki campaign. And in some cases, we officially do not allow their participation. WP:ARBECR is an example of "accounting for editor experience when evaluating consensus" and "discount[ing] the opinions of SPAs, [and] new editors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::I hope we would discount the comment of an experienced editor that seems to be part of an off-wiki campaign. We should be judging that by the content of the comment, not by the amount of time the editor has been a Wikipedian. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe that on the rare occasion that an experienced editor has been caught participating in an off-wiki campaign, then we consider going beyond "discounting the comment", and instead try "blocking for meatpuppetry". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::One is useful for determining consensus, and the other is a way of building a walled community that is hostile to new editors. If the editor doesn't understand that's one thing but to ignore it altogether just because they're new is exactly the kind of behaviour that drives new editors away. Long term editors should get no special favouritism, in this or anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My personal rule is: If, despite my extensive knowledge of the English Wikipedia's rules and processes, I still can't easily overcome (in the opinion of a neutral, uninvolved experienced editor) any objection that a newbie posts, then it's my comment that you ought to be discounting. The newbie and I are not operating on a level playing field, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I would agree with that, experienced editors have a massive advantage due to knowledge of policies and guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::The difference is that one is discounting a comment based on who made it and the second is discounting a comment based on what is in that comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The rationale is different, but the effect is the same. And unless the closer explicitly states it, or the editor has magical mind reading powers, there's no way to know what rationale(s) resulted in that effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::In the example here it was explicitly stated by the closer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, in the AFD you indicate above, the closer says they evaluated everything, and then re-evaluated it according to the standards for Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics, which is one of those WP:ARBECR areas. Newbies officially aren't supposed to participate in some WP:CTOP decisions, no matter what we might say or do about ordinary, unrestricted articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Where do they say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::When ARBECR is in force for a subject area, then "only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area", including discussions other than an initial edit request. Since an AFD comment is not an edit request, that would mean non-EXTCONF editors shouldn't participate in AFDs. I believe that American politics is a ARBECR area, though I don't edit much in that area, so I could be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, where does the closer say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)