Jump to content

User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Happy New Year, Paine Ellsworth!

Happy New Year!

Hello Paine Ellsworth: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

To editor 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰: thank you so much! and here's hope that you and yours will have the Happiest New Year ever! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Text color codes for the Miami Dolphins & Los Angeles Chargers over at Module:Gridiron color/data

Hello Paine Ellsworth (talk), I was wondering if you would please change the HTML text color codes for the Miami Dolphins & Los Angeles Chargers over at Module:Gridiron color/data? Specifically, I'm requesting that the HTML text color codes for both teams be changed from  black  to  white . Please make these changes for me? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Charlesaaronthompson, I'd like to help, and yet such changes cannot be made without at least providing reliable sources that support such changes. Still waiting for such a source at Module:Gridiron color#Template-protected edit request on 21 December 2020. Happiest of New Years to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Charlesaaronthompson: Again with trying to force that color combination through in violation of WP:CONTRAST and contradiction of your "apology" at User_talk:Eagles247#I'm_sorry? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Could you take a look at this edit request? Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see my response at the edit request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible disruption, WP:Get the point

Hi. Could you please take a look at this discussion whenever you can? (motivated by a series of edits and reverts) It seems a user is not conducting himself in good faith. Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

To editor Watchlonly: you might think I'm an admin because I've edited pages for you in the past; however, I'm not an admin. So there is little I can do for you in that type of conflict. A better choice might be for all involved to assume the good faith of each other and treat each other with respect and civility. Sometimes one just has to grit one's teeth and hold one's tongue. People understand things so much better when they are explained in a completely neutral manner. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Graph of Reply tool and full-page wikitext edit completion rates
Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

  • The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
  • It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

  • As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
  • There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[1]
  • The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[2] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
  • A large A/B test will start soon.[3] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Human beings are mostly H2O"

Is the use of the superscript on your user page intentional? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! and yes, intentionally silly. Thanks for reading! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Çaylaqqala => Khtsaberd

Hey, I've seen you closed this requested move "per consensus seen below". Could you clarify per which consensus? Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To editor Գարիկ Ավագյան: yes, a controversial proposal that was mostly opposed. The consensus in that discussion was opposed to the rename, so the decision of the discussion was "not moved". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: But per WP:CONS:

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote".

Shouldn't we consider the arguments, not the number of votes? I want to request a rename once again, however, I would like to clarify myself was there consensus and which part from discussion can show that? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
To editor Գարիկ Ավագյան: you assume that the arguments were not considered? that I just counted the votes? Not so. I seriously considered all of the arguments to find strong opposition and consensus against the page move. And I suggest a waiting period of at least one year before proposing the same new title as before. If you begin a new proposal too soon, there is a very small chance of success. The longer the wait, the more likely to be successful. And be sure to have very strong arguments, stronger than before. And thank you very much for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for your reply and your time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It's my pleasure, Գարիկ Ավագյան! and for future reference, when you leave me a message on my talk page, there is no need to ping me. The notification system automatically lets me know when another editor leaves me a message on my talk page. Thanks again and Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 10:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you once again. Happy holidays! Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Initiated type

Hi, you don't need to do this, it's the default. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Redrose64 🌹 ! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron color

Hello Paine, I was wondering if you would please look at my Template-protected edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron color? It's the template-protected edit request regarding the Jacksonville Jaguars' color code formatting. my request is dated 15 February 2021. Please implement my requested changes for me? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Answered at edit request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Jefferson template doc page

EDIT: Fixed, figured it out a minute later Hi Paine, and I hope all is well for you and yours. Turns out, unsurprisingly, that I have no idea of how to pop in "Category:Architect navigational boxes" on the bottom of the {{Thomas Jefferson}} template and, seeing that you had put the doc page up on the template, thought that you may know how. If so, can you please add it? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Randy Kryn: thank you very much, and good catch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and since you just added some good link updates to the template, a useful conversation all around. Almost makes me not want to tear down the Jefferson statues (kidding, hopefully some state or city puts up more of them). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Vice Presidents

Regarding the requests for removal, my reasoning was that none of them were actually on the template.2601:241:300:B610:6DF3:59C0:DCD6:8622 (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That is usually the requirement, but not always. Those navigation bars are there to help readers quickly find other related articles, and even though the subjects' names are not in the navbars, it is thought that they will still aid readers' navigation to similar interests. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A bug in Template:Infobox software...

Hey... just wanted to let you know that this edit to Template:Infobox Software broke screenshot sizes. Can't edit this important template, please revert. ⸺RandomStaplers 02:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor RandomStaplers: in order to revert we need to see examples of screenshot sizes that are broken, and they need to be included on the template's testcases page, if possible. Since all the testcases so far pass all tests, there might be a way to fix things without reverting that edit. Thank you for your help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. I've added the screenshot size testcase and edited the broken part out in the sandbox. ⸺RandomStaplers 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh dear. Now it looks like screenshot collapse is broken now. ⸺RandomStaplers 16:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
To editor RandomStaplers: the problem appears to have been the parameter for the size of the screenshot at the ClockworkMod article. Specifically, the parameter absolutely must have the underscore symbol between the words, as in |screenshot_size=. Without that underscore, the size parameter was ignored and the default size of 300px was used. I fixed that ibox and the testcases table on the testcases page as well. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
To editor RandomStaplers: the ibox template has been fixed to allow the screenshot size parameter without the underscore, so there will be no need to repair any other examples that exist. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Template:R to person" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R to person. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Template:R to person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Fetterman (disambiguation)

Notice

The article John Fetterman (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pointless disambiguation page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Elliot321: for the future, you might try first blanking the page and using the {{db-g14}} template (speedy deletion) if you think this kind of page should be deleted. Not sure it will work as I've never tried it on a ONEOTHER page. Be sure to heed the guidance at WP:ONEOTHER. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth I wasn't sure if g14 applied since it did disambiguate two pages - the wording is somewhat unclear on it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
To editor Elliot321: most people read WP:TWODABS to mean we should immediately delete a TWODABS page when one of the entries becomes the primary topic. What TWODABS actually tells us is that when there are two topics, and one topic is primary, then there is no need to create a dab page. Becomes vague when the dab page already exists. So then we fall back on WP:ONEOTHER, which guides us to keep the dab page for an unspecified time period to see if editors can find/create other entries for the page. I know... that doesn't explain the g14 vagueness, so sorry if I ramble and digress. For the future, you don't have to ping me when you post on my talk page, because the notification system autopings me. Cheers! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
All good, I don't mind the rambling at all. I feel like these could definitely use some clarification, but that would be... quite a pain to get people to agree to. Oh well.
BTW, on the other topic we were discussing a while back - do you have more time to look at that? I've been looking into changing {{rcat shell}} more (automatically detecting R to and from subpages and namespaces), but I'm not going to make any changes without you on-board (as well as broader consensus, but it seems like you're one of the more prominent editors in this field). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
First, I want to thank you Elliot321 for all the good editing I've seen from you recently! The old Expect no thanks essay has always been heavy with me, so I try to thank good editing whenever I can. And forgive me for being a bit resistant to some of your changes and proposed changes. Guess getting into my seventies isn't helping my objectivity in some cases. Besides expecting no thanks, another thing that takes getting used to is the unwritten and most basic foundation of this project, which is that improvements to this project are made by other editors changing the work we have done. So rather than "hold you back", let me suggest that you continue your good editing. Just keep in mind the ever-present need to garner consensus for some edits, while other edits can be boldly done without an explicit consensus. Oh, and thank you for your compliment! Don't think I'm really "prominent" as I've always tried to maintain a gnomish improminence here. Thanks again, and I hope we'll keep in touch! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
wanted to let you know that I've done a bit of work and have put together a userpage at User:Elliot321/rcat standardization describing what I've done/want to do with regards to automatic application of rcats. Particularly, I've created a sandbox-ish version of {{Wikidata redirect}} at {{Wikidata redirect/hard}} for use in automatic application on hard redirects. Given the name of {{Wikidata redirect}} (like {{Wiktionary redirect}} or {{Commons redirect}}), it does now make sense to me that that should be in use on soft redirects, and look like other soft redirect rcats do. {{Wikidata redirect/hard}} is ideally not the final name - I'm thinking about moving it to {{R with Wikidata}} (currently a shortcut I made to {{Wikidata redirect}}, with very few transclusions), as that would better match the naming for hard redirect categories. Of course, the name doesn't mater too much, as it ideally won't ever be manually applied.
Please let me know what you think - after getting your feedback I'll probably open a larger discussion before implementing these changes, as they'll certainly need some consensus (alongside the bot request whose scope will be massively expanded, since it will remove all of the categories I listed there).
(also please keep in mind that the template and module documentation I wrote for this isn't especially up-to-date since I've been actively developing this, so if something seems off please ask) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, Elliot321, as I've been very occupied lately and am still digesting all this. Best to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries! Whenever you have the time - no deadlines around here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Drum stick#Requested move 16 March 2021

In acknowledgement of your revert, thank you—I wasn't sure if I could expand the existing RM to include a secondary option (and if so, how it is done), or if it absolutely requires a new RM to be generated for the secondary option. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Christopher, Sheridan, OR: still working on your request because it still appears to be malformed. So I might still have to alter your request a little. I'll try to maintain the integrity of your move request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
To editor Christopher, Sheridan, OR: had to remove the video due to copyright concerns. I think your request is free from malformities now. It appears that the linking you did just before your signature, from "Drum stick → Drumstick", was somehow fouling things up. FYI, that would require its own follow-up move request because Drumstick is a disambiguation page with significant content, so a follow-up proposal would have to include moving Drumstick to Drumstick (disambiguation). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoops!

Thanks for moving my close request! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's my pleasure! Paine  

Deprecated?

Hi, re this ediy - since when has <u>...</u> been deprecated? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, the underline tag was deprecated in HTML4.01 as confirmed here and [https://www.tutorialspoint.com/html5/html5_deprecated_tags.htm here] (tutorialspoint is blacklisted). It's been redefined in HTML5 as confirmed here. I converted it to the text-decoration style while trying to find and eliminate the lint errors on my page. Thanks for coming! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Horowitz family

It seems that any attempt to leave this page as an article, rather than a redirect, is being reverted. This goes against the consensus you found in the RM. Can you maybe recommend the course of action, not familiar with this type of situation. Thanks! 162.208.168.92 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP162+ – this is being discussed at Talk:Horowitz family#Cuts, pastes, moves, and new content, and it appears that reducing the page to a redirect was the result of a misunderstanding. Hopefully things will go more smoothly from this point. Thank you very much for your help with these pages! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Infobox musical artist

@Paine Ellsworth: Hi, just curious if I could request to add module4 to the source code? Since my previous edit request has been reverted and I don't wish to argue or debate further with those 2 editor since they are not understanding enough and sorry to say this, quite stubborn as well. I believe adding module4 to directly below module3 is considered non-controversial changes hence I would like your view on it before I submit an request. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I know you think your edit was helpful, and I did too so I added the parameters. The other editors appear to be "regulars" on that page, which just means they are protective in a stewardship kind of way. So to get your ideas accepted, you would want to assume an air of gentle persistence with them. We don't get our way by name-calling or using words like "stubborn" to describe fellow volunteer editors. As for adding a 4th module, my words probably won't be helpful, because I don't know enough about adding modules to infoboxes to know if it would or would not be controversial. If you think it would be a helpful improvement, then I would suggest going ahead with an informal discussion on the template's talk page to see what the involved editors think of the idea. Always remember the 4th pillar and assume good faith as much as possible! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks your for giving your view on it. I'm not blaming you and on reverting the edit request, you're just doing your work and I completely understand it. In addition, sorry for my tone against the 2 editor. Once again, thanks you and sorry. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It's my pleasure! and you are very welcome! I remember the old adage, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." And thank you so much for your contributions! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Audacy

Please revert your move back again. The consensus is outdated and was based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. The company is no longer Entercom. As it stands the article is at a plainly factually incorrect title. WP:NOTBURO and all that. oknazevad (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi oknazevad and welcome! I addressed these concerns at Talk:Entercom#Post move request, so please join in there. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3: yes, thank you, I was aware of this. And it must be volatile when you consider when the Battle of Chawinda happened so long ago. I was 16 at the time, and now I'm 71. Truth does sometimes hurt. That does not change its nature. The RfC is a discussion about the disputed result of the battle; therefore, the Dispute templates do apply and should be reinstated until the issue is resolved! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, ARBIPA editors are trained to stick to much higher standards than the rest of Wikipedia is used to. In particular, we don't claim to know the "truth". Neither do we believe any one who claims to know it. Take care. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
That appears to explain your stance on the article's talk page. When one cannot claim to know the truth, then one cannot possibly know what is not the truth, either. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Just so you know, each and every person has their own version of what they think "truth" means. Over the years I've come to agree with Wikipedia's version of the word, which goes hand-in-hand with verifiability. That is why I take the stance I do in the RfC. Sources agree on two facts, and those two facts lead to clear conclusions. What is hard to stomach is the fact that so much of the wool being pulled over the eyes on that talk page is being done by editors from the defeated side, and yet I am optimistic that objective editors will see and understand the truthful/verified decisive outcome of that battle and not get it mixed up with the inconclusiveness of the overall war. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Redirects from molecular formulas

A tag has been placed on Category:Redirects from molecular formulas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Liz: actually that category has been emptying since yesterday when Category:Redirects from chemical formulas was created as the result of renaming the rcat template from {{R from molecular formula}}. Because of server lag, I was waiting for the category to empty so as to tag it as a category redirect, which has been done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion on a move close

Hi Paine, could you look at Talk:Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority#Requested move 21 March 2021, and see if you concur with the close? I don't, but am not ready to talk to the closer yet. (You can choose not to get involved, or to respond privately. if you'd rather.) Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi BilCat, thank you for asking, and I would have seen that move request as a bit of a tough call with the number of IPs involved and the allegation of canvassing, tho' not backed with facts. I think I would have taken all that into consideration as well and included it in my closing statement. At this point it would seem that the best route would be for you to discuss it with the closer on her talk page and hope for the best. Thanks again for coming to my talk page with this! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

move of Overseas France teams in the main competition of the Coupe de France

Hi, I'm interested in how you arrived at your decision regarding consensus on the above move. From what I can see, the raw vote count is 5 support v 2 oppose, with a comment (mine) which clearly leans oppose. However, on closer inspection, two of the support votes are from the same user (neither give any information to back up the support) and a third support vote also doesn't give any information to back it up. I would say this looks more like a no consensus close to me. Regards, Gricehead (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gricehead, and thank you for coming to my talk page!
two of the support votes [of the five] are from the same user
If this is true then it would certainly change things. In support of the page move we see:
  1. Joseph2302 (nom)
  2. GiantSnowman
  3. Dr Salvus
  4. Krelana
  5. Red Slash
Are you saying that one of these is a sockpuppet? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am saying there are two support votes from Dr Salvus. I wasn't counting the nominator as a support vote. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
To editor Gricehead: okay, I see the second Dr Salvus !vote (his sig change threw me off). His second !vote was not in support of the nomination, though, he was supporting the suggestion from Govvy with his second !vote. To answer your question, in requested moves the nomination is (unless specifically stated by a neutral nomination) counted as one support for the page move. And as you know, the result is not necessarily the result of a !vote count, but relies on the overall arguments as well. If a supporter says "support per nom", that is a valid agreement with the nom's rationale to make the page move. I weighed all the rationales and found the outcome to be a pretty obvious consensus for the page move. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert the move?

At Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia/Racism in Ethiopia? The RM was closed as move, relisted following vocal objections by a single editor who logged in his object, then nobody else participated in the move. It's still is pretty clear as a consensus for move with a single objection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus: thank you for coming to my talk page! At this point would have to agree with you about the present consensus; however, as you know, consensus can change. The reverted page move is the result of the MRV. It is usual for a page move to be reverted when the MRV discussion results in reopening and relisting a move request. See also the discussion on the MRV closer's talk page. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 10:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:R to historic name

Template:R to historic name has been nominated for merging with Template:R to former name. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tamwin (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification, Tamwin! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I failed to tag you

I tried to tag you in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Palantir but failed due to bad spelling. This message is to reduce clutter on that page with a corrected ping. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No problemo, Thryduulf, and in fact, your spelling actually looks more elegant. I used to do this all the time, which is why I now copy and paste usernames when I go to tag someone. That's my "tip of the day" to you, because you remind me of me. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Template:R case" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R case. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Template:R case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, IP192+, for the heads up! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, about rcats

Would you mind giving your thoughts on User:Elli/rcat standardization sometime soon? I'd like to get consensus to get this implemented in {{rcat shell}} automatically, followed by a bot to remove all the duplicated templates - but since we've had conflicts here before, I'd like to get us to have consensus before I take any action otherwise. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

To editor Elli: first off let me say that even though I've had questions in the past about your ideas, deep down I actually like them a lot! I've been working with redirect categorization since I first registered here. The fact that there are millions and millions of redirects, while daunting, has not swayed me from the task of manually categorizing redirects at every opportunity. Underlying all this has been my wondering if at least some of this task of R catting could be more automated. That is how I view your effort; I view it as an enthusiastic attempt to make the task of redirect categorization more automated, and that's what I like about it. I still have questions, and will probably have more questions as we go along; and yet, I also want to be supportive as much as possible.
One question I have about the automation is that it looks like it's the same or similar to how the protection cats are added by the Rcat shell template. If that is the case, you should know that adding an empty Rcat shell to a protected redirect will still result in sorting the redirect to the Miscellaneous redirects category. So it seems that adding an empty Rcat shell to, say, a Wikidata redirect, which would include the {{Wikidata redirect}} template, will also sort the redirect to Category:Miscellaneous redirects. That would inflate the category quite a bit if that's what would happen. Sorry but I find that to go against the present purpose of that category. Of course, if your automation just transcludes the {{Wikidata redirect}} template to a redirect, then the Rcat shell wouldn't be empty, and the Misc. R cat would not become inflated. How does that work exactly? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
So, that is more of an implementation question really, that can go either way. I'm not sure what we should do.
I think what would make sense is to create a separate category, for bot-tagged "uncategorized" redirects. This would allow the queue to be dealt with more quickly. It could still be possible to manually tag them for the "Miscellaeous redirects", which would retain its current function (training newer/uncertain users about rcats in a timely manner).
Does that sound decent? I've actually wanted a general category of uncategorized redirects for a while, and I don't think that would be a bad thing to have. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
To editor Elli: okay, I hope you will forgive my ignorance when it comes to bots, Lua modules and so on. If I understand correctly, you say that you can program the bot so that the Rcat shell can sense that it has been placed by the bot (not manually) and so will not sort the redirect to the Misc. R cat but to a different (new) cat instead? If you can do that, then yes, it sounds very decent. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: yes, exactly. I'd add a parameter to the template, say |bot-added=, that the bot would use, that would add it to a different category instead (only done if the redirect is not in any rcats that aren't sensed automatically, ofc, because if it is then it wouldn't sort to Miscellaneous redirects). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds very good, Elli, and I wonder how you plan to implement the {{Automatic redirect categories}} template? Will it be meta'd inside the Rcat shell? or will it be a stand-alone implementation? (if it's stand-alone, then it could be used to sort to the new category, and changes to the Rcat shell would be rendered unnecessary.) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to meta- it into Rcat shell, like the protection ones currently are - I don't see a reason ever that these categories shouldn't be added, and doing it automatically makes it easier for everyone. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree, and as long as it works as expected it would definitely be a boon to rcatting. Perhaps it can be tested on a relatively small sample of redirects? I also still have the question as regards the {{NASTRO comment}}-tagged redirects. You have said that the bot won't touch them since it has no need to. However, adding the {{Wikidata redirect}} rcat template to the Rcat shell will still double tag the asteroid redirects, isn't that correct? Is there a way to sense that a redirect is already tagged and not double tag it? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The {{NASTRO comment}} situation is an interesting one. I think it would make more sense to make {{NASTRO comment}} invoke the rcat shell, since there shouldn't really be any rcats on those other than the ones it can automatically apply, if that makes sense. Then, we'd be able to do a small (in comparison) bot task to remove the the independent rcat shell from pages with {{NASTRO comment}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Alternatively, just remove the {{R Wikidata}} from the {{NASTRO comment}} template. It's not like they're always even linked to Wikidata. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this choice is a better one. I've been known to add the Rcat shell a second time to asteroid redirects so as to include them in more categories. Better to remove {{Wikidata redirect}} from NASTRO; however, that might require a consensus at WT:SS. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, I doubt there'd be too much disagreement, as it's a technical issue that doesn't really change much. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Then a notice on the template's talk page about the removal and what can be expected should suffice. Next question... do you plan to test this on a few redirects using Template:Redirect category shell/sandbox? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
...I'm so sorry, for some reason I lost track of this conversation. I've tested this in a few cases before to make sure everything works, though before implementing at a large scale I'd be sure to test again. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted Early European modern humans

Hi there. I wanted to ask you about your relist note. It seems proper procedure wasn't followed when this was first overturned/relisted, when it should have been immediately moved back at the beginning of the relist period (See WP:MRV #6). Your actions yesterday moving it back, while appreciated, appears to have now added an additional 7 days to the listing period, which you note. But is it appropriate for you to reference your own actions with passivity and without acknowledging your part? All this has done is delay getting a decision on a topic that has 12 participants, eight of whom oppose the move? I know these aren't headcounts, but it seems more than enough participation for someone to make a determination at this point. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pinchme123, and welcome to my tp! Acceptable procedure was followed back on the 22nd of May, because it is not uncommon for MRV closers to go with the page move if they think there won't be any change in the outcome. My only issue with that is the move request does not get relisted at WP:RM (and WikiProjects) unless the old title is restored and the RM template is put back in place. That doesn't seem to have hampered things, tho, because participation did continue after the MRV relist. I have been busy offline and had not noticed the MRV until the day I returned. I did see the increase in opposition to the page move, so I decided to restore the previous title and the RM template. I did not look closely at the survey and discussion; however, I will be happy to look at it more closely to evaluate and perhaps to concur with your opinion. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Paine Ellsworth. I appreciate your explanation and it does help me make sense of how things go about. As for you taking a look to evaluate, I hope I didn't give the impression I'd expect you to come to the same outcome as is my opinion in the discussion itself, only that you may look and decide there indeed has been enough input to make a determination one way or another. Anyway, thanks for helping out already, and for any future work you might do on the page. --17:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It's my pleasure! Paine  17:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Botched move proposal

Hi Paine, do you know how to fix botched move proposals? See Talk:Lunar Gateway#Requested move 1 June 2021. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BilCat: It looks like CRS-20 (talk · contribs) screwed it up right at the start. I fixed it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Yup, and thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
That's ditto, Redrose64, thank you very much for all your help! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

  • Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
  • The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

TC template

I will probably have to have someone go through with a bot and change the erroneous parameter on the small number of articles. It also appears quite a few articles aren't categorized into those task forces either (they are relatively new compared to the others) as I saw when I went to edit a talk page... UGH... NoahTalk 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

To editor Noah: sometimes the work feels like a hurricane, sometimes maybe even a tornado. One thing's sure... there will always be another cyclone!>) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RFA

Perhaps you should consider putting yourself forward for further tools. So many of my supporters are better contributors than I. My success so far, such as it is, has been to stay largely out of the spotlight and just soldier. Please contact me if I'm out of line or need additional eyes. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words, BusterD! Up near the top of this page is the reason I probably won't go through a second RfA. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Participation in a signpost interview

Hi Paine, hope that you're. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a member of WikiProject Redirect? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject redirects interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

To editor Tom (LT): be glad to answer some questions about the project! Most of the members are WikiGnomes who bask in the shade of unobserved editing. That's what I've been doing for pretty much the entire time I've been a registered editor. We mostly try to avoid the "limelight". I'm okay, though, with helping out if it helps the redirects project. Have a few offline errands to perform and will hopefully be back soon. Thank you very much for asking! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks :). Looking forward to your responses, Tom (LT) (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
To editor Tom (LT): is there a date by which this should be done? I've become unusually busy offline for a few days. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I hope within the next month. If I can get some other people to contribute to the interview I hope to have it in the September edition of the signpost, or even later if it takes a bit longer.Tom (LT) (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

To editor Tom (LT): Please see User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox. Wasn't sure how you wanted to format it in your sandbox, so there you will find my responses. Thank you so much for this chance to bring more light to our projects! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I've copied it back to my sandbox and formatted it a bit and will see if I can get a few more responders. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) Linking back to that page from the edit summary might have been useful; it took five minutes for me to find out how in the world you were the one who posted Paine's replies onto your page. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I'll make a dummy edit so at least the fact I copied from Paine's sandbox is recorded in the page history. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
To editors 1234qwer1234qwer4 and Tom (LT): only 5 minutes? Just goes to show how good one gets at research when one deals with redirects. To do the job right often takes a lot of research in a short period of time. Good gardenin' on you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 00:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Karnataka Legislative Assembly election, 2013

Template:Karnataka Legislative Assembly election, 2013 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Karnataka state assembly elections, 2004

Template:Karnataka state assembly elections, 2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021_2

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, I mentioned you at ANI in the last hour. Should have done it as a ping, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

To editor Sitush: 'sokay, thank you for letting me know! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Malformed discussion

FYI, I moved the discussion you started about malformed requested moves to my bot's talk. Part of my ~bimonthly archiving to get my talk page back down to a reasonable size.

I don't follow why Government of New Zealand is an "incorrect name". There was once a consensus to move to that name. Ngrams indicates that many sources use that name. Government of the United States is a valid redirect, as is United States Government. These are all just {{R from alternative name}} titles.

{{R from incorrect name}} – an erroneous name – implies, with some sense of urgency, that something needs to be fixed. "Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target without the use of a piped link that hides the correct details." That's not what this is. At the moment, the "incorrect name" template is basically ignored. Nobody that I'm aware of is taking any action based on it.

Finally, I've cleared Category:Pages with templates requiring substitution down to just 30 items (up until yesterday there were hundreds of pages in that category). Most of what's left seems to be caused by {{Thank You IP}}, which requires substution because it auto-signs when substituted. This is counter to the behavior of other similar templates such as {{Thank you}}, {{Thank you very much}}, {{Thank}}, and {{WikiThanks}}, none of which auto-sign or require substitution. I'd like to solve this issue by removing the auto-sign feature and substitution requirement from {{Thank You IP}}. The signature is located in an unconventional place, before the Please consider creating an account for yourself! line rather than at the end of that line, which would be the usual place to expect a signature. I fixed one of these, but it's a tedious job to "substitute" after the fact, keeping the original signature that the editor put in the usual place.

Sorry this is a malformed message because it covers three different topics.  Thanks wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Nah, c'mon Wbm1058, we've been working together long enough to be able to hit each other up with more than one topic at a time. It's no big deal, and I certainly would not refer to your message as malformed in any conceivable way. Okay, as I recall it was, in this case, the consensus of editors in the move request, presently located at Talk:New Zealand Government/Archive 1#Requested move 1 July 2020, that the old title, Government of New Zealand, was "incorrect" compared with the article's present title. Not sure how I came across that RM, except that I've been keeping a little bit of an eye on some editors' closes, to include editor buidhe. That is why I tagged the subject and talk page redirects with {{R from incorrect name}}. Curious as to why you would remove that rcat template from the talk page but not the subject page? Putting that aside for now, thank you very much for clearing that subst. category! It's been several years since I created {{Thank You IP}}. IIRC, it had to be substituted before I added the autosigs in 2015; however, I don't see why you can't fix it to clear that subst. category. There are many times I've seen recently where editors have added their sigs even when the template they were using did an autosig, which of course results in sig duplications. So I guess it's okay to remove that auto sig. And the subst. too, if you think that would help. I've always seen sigs come before that italicized message to IPs to create an account. Oh well, Happy August to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey Paine, I'm glad you think it's no big deal to cover three topics in one post, 'cause that was supposed to be a joke! I didn't notice the "incorrect" on the subject page (until after you reverted me and I reviewed the situation) because the patrol-categories I was working only flag the talk. Removing that was just a "while I'm on this page I'll do this too" thing. As I said I don't generally pay much attention to that template. But, in general, just because an RM consensus agrees on a "common" title doesn't immediately mean that all the alternatives are wrong; they're just not preferred. Thanks for agreeing on the removal of the signature substitution from your template. wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kadabra (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadabra. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Template:R from initials" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:R from initials. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Template:R from initials until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tevildo (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

To editor Tevildo: thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

question about RFC

Hi there I saw your comments on the RFC here I don't understand what does "No consequences" outcome meant here and now which RFC should be followed the one in 2018? or the one in 2015? LiamKhan469 (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi editor LiamKhan469, the precise wording is "no consensus", and the closer thought that meant "inconclusive" for the battle result was the strongest status quo. Which previous RfC/discussion to follow was explained in the next-to-last paragraph of the close, which begins "The question then posed is what this no consensus result means --", and was clear enough. Hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction. You can ask me more questions or you can get in touch with the closer on their talk page, as well. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 23:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I have another question that can we do another RFC there to add "Pakistan victory"/"Inconclusive" altogether (as suggested by the user who closed the RFC) because this page has been subject to frequent edit wars so a more neutral result there can be helpful in reducing the number of vandalism. What do you think? LiamKhan469 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
To editor LiamKhan469: not sure what the right answer is. To me it seems like some editors have an agenda and other editors are confused by the various sources. Those sources I read say that the entire conflict's result was inconclusive, but the final battle (of Chawinda) was a clearcut victory for Pakistan and not the least bit inconclusive. Just not sure if another RfC would make a difference. So sorry. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 7#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Religion task force until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhrContribs 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

To editor ­dudhhr: thank you very much for this notification! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Your comment at RM

I didn't intend the comment here as a personal attack, but since you've understood it that way, I'm happy to withdraw it. I think it would make most sense to delete the first sentence, rather than striking it, and in that case it would make sense to delete your comment also. Would you be happy with this?Havelock Jones (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

As you wish. Just a gentle reminder that some editors have very thin skins. I learned that the hard way, so hopefully you won't have to. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I've done that. To be clear, I was intending to be complimentary when I referred to you as "usually sensible". Havelock Jones (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I understand and thank you for that! You hopefully see that your words implied that the two supporters were not being sensible in that specific case? We try to address the content written by others without commenting about the editors themselves. Not always easy, however it's been a good idea for a long time. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

A typo you may want to fix

Hello Paine, I noticed the second sentence under the heading "Purpose" in Template:Infobox Australian place reads: "... may be substed." Maybe you'd like to fix it. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 07:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To editor Simon: hi! and yes, you'll see that one all over. It's become an acceptable abbreviation for "substituted" on Wikipedia. That and similar are used all over the project. Also, just so you know, even though that template is protected, its documentation page is unprotected. Template documentation pages are usually unprotected from editing. So even if an editor can't edit a template, they can still make changes to its documentation. Thank you so much for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the info, Paine, especially that an editor can change the documentation. And it's good to have learned about all of those titus saved.  :-) Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
It's my pleasure! Paine  14:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

DRASTIC description RfC close

Paine Ellsworth, please can you either properly close the DRASTIC description, taking into account all the comments solicited, or undo your close so that I can may reopen it as per WP:RFC policy? The RfC was opened to build consensus on a neutral description of the group, and was withdrawn under unusual circumstances, leaving us with the problem unresolved. The current "internet activists" description is not neutral, and more consistent with the WP:GLOBALTIMES description than other WP:RS descriptions. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That one was closed only as a courtesy "official" closure since it was effectively closed by the proposer. "Withdrawn" is an accepted closure on Wikipedia. As has been noted both in my official closure and at WP:CR, further discussion is invited if any editor sees the need for it as you seem to. Since that RfC appears to have been long, drawn-out and insufficient, fresh perspectives will only be found by opening a new and better-focused discussion. If you think that one or more issues are unresolved, then please feel free to do so. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
"Withdrawn" is an accepted closure, but WP:RFC says another editor may reopen it. Since you closed it as a courtesy, and since it was me that requested the closure, please can you undo the closure per my request here? I would like to reopen the RfC according to the WP:RFC policy, so that we can build consensus on the matter. Thanks. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Due to the convoluted meanderings of that RfC, I don't think reopening it would be wise. I think you had the right idea to ask for it to be closed. I think that the only thing that will be accomplished by reopening it will be to add to the confusion. It would be better if a new, more focused and reasoned talk were to be opened. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, the RfC did not present an WP:RFCNEUTRAL statement, which is why Adoring nanny, JPxG and My very best wishes objected to it and presented more options. I would not call the addition of those two options "convoluted meanderings" and I find the OP's withdrawal of the RfC to be highly unusual, especially as they insist on removing a descriptor that lead to them opening the RfC in the first place. Your close of the RfC didn't meet the WP:CLOSE guidance, and reopening the RfC is acquiesced as per the WP:RFC policy, which I why I ask you to kindly undo your close. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Which is why a new, better RfC has been opened, so there's no need to re-open the old one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
In this case of a withdrawn RfC, the closure was only to confirm the withdrawal. So the only one who has any say in whether or not it is reopened would be the editor who withdrew it. As long as the old RfC is referenced in the new RfC, editors will review the old RfC. That appears to be how editors should proceed in this case. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 18:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
FYI, @217.35.76.147: pinging only editors who agree with you to discussions like this can be considered a form of WP:CANVAS, and is not comporting with WP guidelines. Repeated examples of this behavior could very easily result in your IP address being blocked. Please be more careful. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
To editor Shibbolethink: in all fairness, this discussion has not been one of canvassing on the IP's part. I think it's been made clear that the old RfC should not be reopened unless you as the proposer want to reopen it. So on that point, IP 217+ and I are in disagreement. So no canvassing being done here. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, an important correction: WP:RFC says anyone can restart an RfC, not just the OP. This is why I asked you to undo your close of the RfC, which I think would have been the wisest course of action. Now we will have to consult the community on how to close this RfC, and whether we can factor in comments from the last RfC, which they posted with a non WP:RFCNEUTRAL statement, after deleting "scientists" as a descriptor from the article, and withdrew under these unusual circumstances. Even more unusual is Slatersteven calling for a snow close, claiming I am the one dissenting opinion. This is bizarre. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's correct, and the specific wording includes "as long as the discussion has not been closed". That's an important clause that means when the RfC has been closed, nobody should restart it except perhaps for the editor who withdrew it. My undoing the closure, a closure that was requested at WP:CR by yourself, would not change the fact that the RfC had been closed, which according to WP:RFC very simply means that the RfC is over, ended. And if anyone wants to continue from there, then a new RfC should be opened. That is what has happened. So as long as the old RfC has been referenced, then all should be good. I hope the new RfC will garner a consensus that will be acceptable to all. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Template edit request

Hi! I recently requested an image edit to Portal:Afghanistan. And while the consensus you asked is kind of challenging to give, I will try my best to summarize it:

  • The fact that Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is currently internationally recognised while it's successor is not makes it confusing. To avoid such problems, both the flags were mentioned as such in this page with their current government's status. Sources such as Britannica still considers the tricolour as the official.(1) while Al Jazeera accepts the new norm(2). And WP:NPOV was dealt with examples such as in Chinese Wikipedia where they removed both the flags from the lead section(page).
  • Coming to why the flag should be changed, the Afghan government was overthrown by Taliban, and reintroduced their past symbols as past symbols were considered part of resistance.(1)(2)(3)(4) Considering the fact that a publication made by the emirate contained this symbol.(1)
  • Going through the archives, I found out discussions where people argued whether or not to accept the current de-facto government. Such discussions(1)(2)(3)(4) led to conclusions favouring the present government.
  • The page Afghanistan has Taliban's flag in the lead and Islamic republic described as something which existed between 2004-2021 is also worth mentioning.

I'll admit this being a poor research, might be able to prove the required consensus. What do you think? Interesting Geek (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

To editor Interesting Geek: thank you for coming to my talk page! Looking into this and checking the above links you provided. The flag change you want to edit appears to affect the template to the right, {{Portal|Afghanistan}}, and thus far I have not seen a consensus of editors to change the flag in that template. Can you link to a discussion that is specifically about changing the flag in this template? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 01:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth, The best discussion would be this RFC where they had Broad consensus in favour of updating the article to reflect current regime. It is still hard to prove which flag to be used, but to eliminate potential NPOV or such, both or no flags should be shown. I would just wait it out to see any major developments. Interesting Geek (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes I agree that waiting it out is a good idea! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC Question

Hi P.I. Ellsworth,

I hope you don't mind me contacting you, but I've noticed that you seem knowledgeable about how RfC's work and I was hoping you could point me in the right direction here. There is an RFC that has been going on for almost three weeks, and had no replies until today for almost two weeks. Today, an involved editor pinged six users asking for their contribution, and there are concerns about canvasing, specifically about whether they pinged a partisan crowd.

I haven't been involved in RfC's involving a possible canvassing issue, so I am not quite sure how to proceed.

Thank you for any guidance you can provide, BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

To editor BilledMammal: thank you for coming to my talk page! On the subject of canvassing, we can start here with the behavioral guideline, where canvassing is defined and compared with non-canvassing ways to invite others to a discussion. In that guideline we also discover what to do about canvassing. The longer we stay with Wikipedia, the more likely we will be victims of canvassing, and each editor has their own way of dealing. Some editors prefer that other editors take steps to deal with it, and some editors go so far as to monitor RfC and ANI for the purpose of catching canvassers and other wrongdoers to make them stop their disruptive editing. So like most Wikipedia editing, how each of us handles canvassing is pretty much a personal choice. Hope this helps, and thanks again for asking! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you; it does help. I'll keep that in mind in the future - and thank you for your friendliness here! BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It's my pleasure! Paine  02:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox gene

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Your recent change to Module:Infobox gene has created a lot of "expressed in" links to disambiguation pages Colon, Appendix, Fundus, and perhaps others I haven't noted yet. I'm not sufficiently adept in Lua to figure out where this is coming from, but it doesn't seem to be from Wikidata, since the Wikidata item for Colon, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5982337, correctly links to the Wikipedia article Colon (anatomy), not to the disambiguation page. Hope you can figure out the cause and the fix! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

To editor R'n'B: still learning LUA myself, so I have reverted the requested edit and notified the editor that the proposal needs to be tweaked. Those mainspace links to the dab pages should begin to disappear as the server catches up. Thank you for letting me know! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
To editor R'n'B: the code has been updated and engaged. Let me know if you discern that there are any further concerns. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems to have worked, since I don't see any spurious links to dab pages coming back. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, 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 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!
Hello Paine Ellsworth:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, usernamekiran! My favorite holiday, so right back atcha! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 23:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words. ❤ I appreciate it very much. And you have my apologies in advance in case the tone in my messages may sound a bit too harsh. However my presence in the discussion isn't helpful, it will be better for you there without me. Take care and have a beautiful day! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, SilentResident, sincerely. Well, so far the review is in favor of endorsement, and you'll remember that after I pointed out to you in the move request that others might perceive you as badgering, and you stopped responding, the end result turned out to be the granting of your move request. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how editors respond to the issues raised in the MRV. Best of Everything to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, Imia isn't my request. I may appear as such, but having a single name is my request because every article title in the topic area got a signle name. I would gladly even support Kardak over Imia, had the facts and statistics supported it. I bet some editors may hear this in disbelief, especially those who haven't looked into my RM comments in depth (the ones near the top of the RM), where my strong dislike for double standards is quite evident in my replies to certain editors. Even if this was really a nationalist page move, then the editors who are familiar with the history of the region, would laugh considering how both names in the slashed double name formula are of Greek origin (yes, both) and Greeks living in both sides of the Aegean sea appear to have used both names contemporarily. What people are not aware is that it is exactly the double standards being the primary force of my motivation here with this RM. Treating this dispute differently than any other disputes serves only as a butter in the bread of POV warriors with political agendas who love giving wp:undue weight to alternative names. In my 10 years as Wikipedia editor, I have seen enough of that POV name warring at the WP:BALKANS topic area, which Imia too is part. Anyways, Sorry if my strong dislike for nationalisms got in the way of using more sober tones in my messages. That wasn't intended. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have replied to your apology on FOARP's talk page but I felt I wanted to leave you a more personal message here on your talk page if you dont mind? Listen, there is no need to be hard on yourself. You did nothing wrong. You believed what was right and you pursued it. That's all. The fact that you felt there was something that in your view iy seemed off and you attempted to correct it, doesn't necessarily mean it was a waste of time for the others. You did what you had to do. That's all. you did the best in your capacity so that it gets corrected and balanced in the way you believe it is better, and that alone is worth a praise and recognition, not apology! Apologizing for doing the right thing isn't going to help Wikipedia. If you want to help, that is to continue the scrutiny that has characterized your efforts (like how we saw at Imia at least). This is how everybody should be doing, IMO if we want to keep POV warriors at check. Wishing you a good day and if there is anything I can do for you, please don't hesitate to come to my talk page! Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Even in the most heated of debates, I admire how you remained kind and calm and I think we all can learn from that. And thank you for your kind words the other day! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Darn! Just noticed that I didn't thank you for this, ❖ SilentResident ❖, and I do thank you very much! Happy holidays to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda Arendt, and Happiest of Holidays to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Reviews have value, even when affirmative.

RE Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Imia/Kardak (closed). I only posted a few words there, but it was very complicated case, I could see very well where you were coming from, and there were times when I was contemplating strong support of your nomination. In the end, I fell as I !voted, but it was not obvious. It was a fair nomination, not a waste of time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, SmokeyJoe, I just mentioned that because there are always one or more editors who think that it is a waste of editor's time. I thought then and still do that moving the page was a bad call. However the consensus is that I was wrong. It's happened before and it will probably happen again. Best of the Holidays to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_21&oldid=1073770163"