Paine Ellsworth
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Wiki_improvement_barnstar.svg/133px-Wiki_improvement_barnstar.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Spinning_Dancer.gif/112px-Spinning_Dancer.gif)
Best of everything to you and yours! and...
Spread the Good!
![]() | Gentle reminder... this is my talk page, where you and I may get to know each other better. Thank you for coming here, and thanks beyond words for your interest in and your contributions to this encyclopedia project! Offline and other online interests sometimes keep me very busy, and that's when I'm slow to respond to echo noties, my talk page and emails. Do me a favor, please forgive me, and again, thank you for being here! Paine Ellsworth | ![]() |
The Closer:
![]() |
---|
![]()
I shall likely remain a non-admin doing the best I can to enjoy discussions with other editors. I sometimes participate, sometimes help with disagreements and sometimes close discussions when needed. I am no stranger to closing contentious discussions about controversial subjects. I sometimes close the easy talks, too, because if it's in the backlog, then it's fair game!
|
'to help us keep our minds sharp!'
|
|
Recently registered?
editLearn quickly how editors journey thru this awe-inspiring reference work! (and the project that builds it!)
Discussions and notifications... → click the section title in the Table of Contents (ToC) above, or click [show] to see all the discussions →
|
---|
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
WikiProject LinguisticseditHi - editors are currently discussing the topic "Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?", which you may be interested in.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#RfC: Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?
Islamic terrorism in Europe protection changeedit@Paine Ellsworth any way you can change the Islamic terrorism in Europe page back to regular protection, I have many edits I think should be added. Marksaeed2024 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 July 2024edit
Your close of RM of 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi airstrikeseditHello. On 21 July, you closed the Requested Move of 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes as Moved to 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack. However, besides the nominator, there was only one vote supporting the move and the reasoning for it was not based on policies or guidelines. So, your close is premature and the discussion should have been relisted since the discussion only went on for one week with very few participants. Please revert your close and relist the discussion. StellarHalo (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2024editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).
Template flageditHello, could you please replace the watermelon with the Palestinian flag here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWikiProject_Palestine&diff=1232241010&oldid=1177607679 Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
|
"Reticulum-cell sarcoma" listed at Redirects for discussion
editThe redirect Reticulum-cell sarcoma has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 14 § Reticulum-cell sarcoma until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Post move review summary
editFriend Andrewa, perhaps when you are able to find the time, the following has given me pause. I am now perplexed by the whole NAMECHANGES policy situation, and I will not attempt to close another similar RM until I can figure this out. Please help when you can. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Distressing indeed. A blatant and unprovoked personal attack didn't help I am sure. Looking at it... may take a little while as I am frantic IRL and it's now quite involved. Wikipedia is not perfect. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! Please, take your time. The
problemschallenges aren't going anywhere. I never seek perfection, just excellence. Thanks again, my friend! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! Please, take your time. The
- Post move review summary thoughts about Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Fairfield Metro station: Fairfield Metro station (RM) – overturned
- I am compelled to wonder about how to go forward. What happened here is that a local consensus at RM was not sufficient to override the WP:NAMECHANGES article title policy, and yet another local consensus at MRV did override that policy and had the article moved to the new "official" name before it has become the WP:COMMONNAME as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES section of the policy. Was I not using "common sense", as at least one editor at MRV suggested? Well, that's done and in the past, so my question now must be: how should we go forward?
- Should we ignore the plural "sources" that the NAMECHANGES policy requires? That policy requires "sources" that use the new name "routinely". When I closed that move request, there had been no – zero – independent sources given that used the new name routinely. There were several primary sources that noted the name change, and there were some secondary sources before the name change that announced there would be an expected name change, but there were no independent, secondary sources found after the name change that used the new name routinely. After I closed the RM, an editor was able to produce one independent source, patch.com, published the same day, 1 July 2024, that I closed the RM, that used the new name routinely. One independent, secondary source. To date, that is the only independent source that uses the new name routinely. Our policy says "sources". I've run into editors who think there should be 10 or 12 good, independent, secondary sources that use the new name routinely before that new name becomes the common name. In the past, I've been happy with 3 or 4 of those sources. Now I just don't know. The policy isn't specific as to the number of those sources needed, it just says "sources" – plural, more than one. Yet in this case, a page was moved to a new, official name based upon only one independent source that used the new name routinely.
- I should also note my respect for WP:IAR, but I've always thought that to ignore a policy or guideline, and the community agreements that built them, requires very good reason. Nobody, not in the RM nor in the MRV, nobody gave a good reason to ignore the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Yet they did ignore it. So...
- I don't know how we should go forward with move requests that have proposed a title change to a new, official name when there are no independent sources, or only one source, that uses the new name routinely, when there should be at the very least two "sources" as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Can anyone see this dilemma clearly and give me guidance as to how we should go forward?
- After rereading [this other policy] about primary and secondary sources, maybe I was being too restrictive about using specifically secondary sources that used the new name routinely? I'm still at a loss to understand how to go forward. We are still supposed to give "due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions",[1] aren't we?
- One last thought... there is no way I would take this to the next level that would follow a MRV decision with which I disagree. Not my style. Worst comes to worst, I will just refrain from closing this type of RM and hope that whoever does close them will do a better job than I have done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
edit- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Better automating "include Permanently protected notifier"
editHi, I've seen you add {{Permanently protected}} to multiple pages with the edit summary "include Permanently protected notifier". Nothing wrong, despite me using MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext instead.
As far as I can see, you seem to have Category:Wikipedia_template-protected_edit_requests watchlisted. I think it would save you some work if you went to WP:BOTREQ. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi IP 142+, and thank you for coming to my talk page! I've never actually made a bot request in all my years. And I don't come across the need for the template all that often. It applies to all higher forms of protected pages (not just templates) from extended-confirmed-protected on up. If it is put on a semi-protected page's talk page, it just stays invisible. And the text changes for different protections, and so forth. It's really not all that time-consuming. When I find a rare page that needs it, I add it and move on. Like magic! Thanks again, and thank you very much for noticing! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, understood "needs editorial discretion." Btw, I really like the refreshing rotated exclamation mark, talk header, and editnotices. If there existed a Category:Wikipedians_who_use_rotated_text, I'd be interested and curious about the history. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, thank you so much! The exclamation mark is just in italics, as in
''!''
, or<em>!</em>
– the headers and edit notices are the result of my coming across the rotation code and shamelessly copying it from Alexis Jazz's talk page. So I know nothing of its history, but perhaps AJ knows something? The code for template rotation is:<div style="-moz-transform:rotate(-1deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-1deg); transform:rotate(-1deg);position:relative;margin:3em 0 3em 0;">{{(template name)}}</div>
- for a minus one degree rotation. Again, thanks so very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, thank you so much! The exclamation mark is just in italics, as in
- Ah, understood "needs editorial discretion." Btw, I really like the refreshing rotated exclamation mark, talk header, and editnotices. If there existed a Category:Wikipedians_who_use_rotated_text, I'd be interested and curious about the history. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Dashes and hyphens
editEdits like this one and this one mess up the record of what the article titles were when the RM was proposed. Can you please stop doing that? When I submitted the RMs, these article titles had a hyphen. I also don't see anything wrong with the original location of the RM at Talk:Charles de Chambrun. The RM instructions describe how to put an RM discussion in a different place than one of the articles proposed to be moved, and I thought hosting it at the dab page would naturally show which article titles needed to be disambiguated from each other. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It appears that several people have done similar edits. Maybe there is some reason to do them that I'm not aware of, but I think it confuses the record. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- To editor BarrelProof: those edits are the result of a move request appearing as a "malformed request". These show up regularly near the bottom of the WP:RM page and are fixed by several editors who, like myself, monitor them. When a multiple move request is made, then the request should be placed on the first article's talk page. If a different page needs to be referenced, such as a dab page, then a link to that page can be made in the nomination statement. Sometimes, to centralize discussion, a move request is placed on for example a WikiProject's talk page. That is the reason for the rare exception noted in the RM instructions. Thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll put RMs on one of the affected articles in the future. I had thought that putting it on the dab page would be friendly because people would need to consult the dab page anyway in order to understand the motivation for the RM, but that has other downsides as well. In the future, when someone renames an article after I submit an RM, I may revert their move to avoid this "malformed" categorization. I don't like the RM record to misrepresent the status quo ante. I just added comments to the User talk pages of two editors who did that recently to discourage it in the future. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- To editor BarrelProof: just had a thought... you have probably already considered this. Wouldn't it be better if you were to go ahead and move an article from an incorrect hyphen to a correct endash before you begin an RM? That would solve the problem of editors taking it upon themselves to move the article (against the RM tag which specifically sez to NOT move an article while it's undergoing an RM). I wouldn't make a move like that, but some editors seem to be passionate about fixing the hyphen-to-endash when they see it, which results in your RM becoming malformed, which prompts other editors like me to "fix" your RM. So just curious, would it be against your principles to make the minor move first? Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it crossed my mind, but I've had a couple of reasons for not wanting to do that in the cases where I think opening an RM is desirable. Leaving it where it is makes the dashed title less of an incumbent and helps show that it needs some kind of change, and I only open RMs when I think a simple change to a dash is not the right approach. There also may be no need for the dashed redirect if it doesn't already exist. Maybe I'm being obstinate and should reconsider, but I'm already done with all titles that contained hyphenated date ranges since 1700 (only a few remaining that currently all have an RM opened), and each century moving backwards has fewer titles like this. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- To editor BarrelProof: just had a thought... you have probably already considered this. Wouldn't it be better if you were to go ahead and move an article from an incorrect hyphen to a correct endash before you begin an RM? That would solve the problem of editors taking it upon themselves to move the article (against the RM tag which specifically sez to NOT move an article while it's undergoing an RM). I wouldn't make a move like that, but some editors seem to be passionate about fixing the hyphen-to-endash when they see it, which results in your RM becoming malformed, which prompts other editors like me to "fix" your RM. So just curious, would it be against your principles to make the minor move first? Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't have a problem with that, but you might have to continue to put up with those editors who are passionate about correcting the "little things" without looking at talk pages for open formal requests. I've edited the lead of WP:RM to clarify and to support the RM tag that gets placed at the top of the article's page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
NAC at Talk:Piecewise
editMy RM at Talk:Piecewise#Requested_move_20_July_2024 was closed in [1]. My [2] should be allowed in light of your edits like [3] in #Dashes and hyphens. User:Steel1943 was successfully updating the RM templates and the nomination statements
(EDIT: of other RMs). It does not look proper for people WP:INVOLVED in discussing whether it's permissible to change a requested move in this way
.
The latest comments and Polyamorph's relist showed a consensus towards Piecewise function and against my nom target. It's unfair to them to have a procedural close just because I edited my nom to match consensus. There was no P&G wikilink in the close. IPs can't close, and this may look like a improper proxy close on behalf of me.
However, I'm not sure if I still want it reopened. This RM is a train wreck. I previously noted it's may digress into WP:PM, WP:PROPSPLIT or WP:AFD. Idk how a "move" close could be implemented towards Piecewise function in contrast to the previous nom target. What should we do? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea why I'm mentioned here: I have never edited Talk:Piecewise ... see the edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mentioned you because your comment suggests that editors are allowed to edit RMs while discussions are open. Perhaps these separate discussions should be centralized in a RfC. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per the discussion on my talk page, IHDFC anymore about this, so feel free to do or discuss whatever without me. Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It has something to do with your bringing dab date ranges into MOS:DATERANGE compliance, Steel Man. Unfortunately that malformed one or two of BarrelProof's ongoing move requests. See above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well ... the moves weren't malformed until my edits were partially edited. More details are on my talk page. Paine, I know you tend to take the same type of care, so I know you know what I mean there. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do know what you mean, and thank you for the nod, Steel Man! Paine 00:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- About that reference to your edits being partially edited, please note that some of your edits that you're referring to were edits of someone else's remarks on Talk pages. It's generally considered inappropriate to change the record of what someone else said and when they said it. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well ... the moves weren't malformed until my edits were partially edited. More details are on my talk page. Paine, I know you tend to take the same type of care, so I know you know what I mean there. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mentioned you because your comment suggests that editors are allowed to edit RMs while discussions are open. Perhaps these separate discussions should be centralized in a RfC. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor IP 142+! I have reread your move request and have decided to change it. Please be patient as it will take a little time. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can also chose to selectively revert my RM retargeting on that article and talkpage. This is if you believe it is possible to move to Piecewise function. After all, the evidence that I am 174.92.25.207 is circumstantial.
- I also want to apologize for my own part in pushing the boundaries of P&G. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, it seems that you are deciding in [4] that consensus exists anyway. I moved my post-move cleanup complexity concerns to Talk:Piecewise#c-142.113.140.146-20240825001500-Post_move. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there was consensus to move away from the Piecewise title, but no consensus for any other title. I responded to your post-RM note. Thanks again, IP 142+! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review the RM!
- Oh, and the post-RM cleanup didn't prove at all as difficult as I feared. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there was consensus to move away from the Piecewise title, but no consensus for any other title. I responded to your post-RM note. Thanks again, IP 142+! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)