Paine Ellsworth

Best of everything to you and yours! and...
Spread the Good!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia – its articles, redirects, templates – all your improvements, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable life – both on and off Jimbo's amazing reference work!

      'BE a member of the Wikipedia family!'

'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'

The Closer: non-admin reveal

Disclosure I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. I very much respect admins and have been helped by them many, many times over the years. I also respect the community vettings at RfA that often show the ultimate community respect and trust of an editor. 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! Remember that WP is not a democracy, so discussions are not just a vote. The key factors in all good discussion closures are the arguments written by concerned editors, policy-based rationales, which count very much toward an acceptable decision. Anyway, if you have come to ask about one of my RfC, RM, MRV or other discussion closures, you are very welcome here! I am usually inclined to reopen a discussion if the outcome was "no consensus" and when I am specifically and intentionally asked to do so! (Not so much if I found a consensus – that doesn't mean I cannot be persuaded with a good, sound argument.) Please be very clear about your intentions and do not beat around the bush. That just means please don't expect me to read your mind; I have enough trouble reading my own mind sometimes. Thank you beyond words for your deeply respected concerns! – Paine

'to help us keep our minds sharp!'

'PHILOSOPHIE!'

Recently registered?

    Learn quickly how editors journey thru this awe-inspiring reference work! (and the project that builds it!)

---

---

Older collapsed discussions

Discussions and notifications... → click the section title in the Table of Contents (ToC) above, or click [show] to see all the discussions →

The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ⸎ Administrators' newsletter – July 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024). Administrator changes Elli HouseBlaster Pickersgill-Cunliffe Brianga De728631 Georgewilliamherbert Hyacinth (deceased) ProveIt The Night Watch Technical news Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086) Miscellaneous The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WikiProject Linguistics Hi - 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? Best wishes - 1RightSider (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Thank you very much, editor 1RightSider, for this notice! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Islamic terrorism in Europe protection change @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) To editor Marksaeed2024: I didn't protect that page, because I do not have the tools to make page-protection changes – as a page mover, I can only transfer existing protection when I move a page. Administrators (admins) have the necessary tools. You can make a request at WP:Protection requests to lower the protection level, and then see if an admin will approve it. Thank you for coming to my talk page, and hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC) The Signpost: 22 July 2024 Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book? Obituary: JamesR Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Your close of RM of 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi airstrikes Hello. 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) To editor StellarHalo: thank you very much for coming to my talk page! I don't mind doing this work for you – moving the page back, reopening and relisting the move request – but then what? Even if you were to oppose the page move, another editor can come along, close the request, and move the page anytime after relisting if they see a consensus. So unless you intend to oppose with a strong, policy-based argument, the page will be moved anyway. The move request went a little longer than the seven days minimum required. There were two supports, the nominator counts as one support and another editor also supported. There was no firm opposition. One other editor just made a suggestion as to the use of "massacre" instead of "airstrikes" or "attack", but did not support nor oppose anything else. On Wikipedia, that is consensus. The only way this should be reopened and relisted is if you can write a strong, policy-based opposition argument. What would that be? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC) I would not have asked you to reopen and relist this if I have no intention of contesting the RM myself. I will oppose the move with a strong argument based on WP:COMMONNAME showing that most English-language RS refer to the subject event as an airstrike. I will also be arguing against any support argument that is just WP:OR. StellarHalo (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Okay, and  completed. Thanks again, editor StellarHalo! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – August 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024). Administrator changes Isabelle Belato Ian.thomson Modussiccandi Interface administrator changes Izno CheckUser changes Barkeep49 Technical news Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate. Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked. Arbitration The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Template flag Hello, 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) We will need to establish WP:CONSENSUS first, since there was already a discussion which decided differently. Thanks for including your input there. Tule-hog (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC) It was a "hidden" discussion. The community should have been pinged. 2 people should not have been enough for the change. At least change it back to the Peasant family until new consensus. There are already now more people that want the flag instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC) I agree that more of the community needed to be part of the consensus. The change has already been made to use the flag for now, but I still encourage boosting the discussion in appropriate places to reinforce the longevity of the consensus. Tule-hog (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"Reticulum-cell sarcoma" listed at Redirects for discussion

The 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

Friend 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 problems challenges 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)

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", 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)

References

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

• In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

• Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

• 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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Better automating "include Permanently protected notifier"

Hi, 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)

Dashes and hyphens

Edits 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)

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

My 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)

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)