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!
Gentle reminder... this is my talk page, where you and I may get to know each other better. Thank you for coming here, and thanks beyond words for your interest in and your contributions to this encyclopedia project! Offline and other online interests sometimes keep me very busy, and that's when I'm slow to respond to echo noties, my talk page and emails. Do me a favor, please forgive me, and again, thank you for being here!Paine Ellsworth
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 amspecificallyandintentionallyasked 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
Editing WP helps me to continue learning, so one vital, very important role for Wikipedia and some other websites on the Internet is...
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. ⸎
Nomination for deletion of Template:Tijuana Radio/doc[edit]
Hello. Please reopen or, in accordance with the RM, close the nomination as to its merits. The nominator "withdrew" the nomination 16 days into the one-week nom!, which was relisted more than a week ago, and was !ivoted upon and discussed by quite a few editors. Is that allowed, that if a nomination is failing after over two weeks and one relist that it can just be closed because the nominator withdraws? And if so, can the nomination which has already had a full over-two-week run then be newly moved to another group nomination? Please close that one as well since the guideline it points to is inaccurate. In other words, what a mess, and partly because the nominator actually lowercased the nommed titles ahead of the nomination (which should all be returned to uppercase going into the nomination, but not for this 2017 one which already has the full discussion that you've negated). Thanks (and yikes). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, the snow close does make sense and is accurate after 16 days. But another editor points out that the RM doesn't make a difference to the new RM which is going for a completely different name for the page. I didn't know we could get around RM discussions just by offering up a different name, at least things mix it up a bit on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor IP2A02+, you might want to rethink all this and give WP:NOTBROKEN a read. That guideline, which represents a community consensus, tells us not to fix redirects that are not broken. When we put ourselves in the reader's shoes, the reader sees twenty instances in the Gauahar Khan article of Big Boss (some #) and all those redirects still get the reader to where they want to go if they click on those links - in the case of Big Boss 7, they still get to the Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 7 article by way of the redirect. That's why a redirect is usually left behind after a page move, so that readers will still get to the article they want. And as editors, we do not have to fix 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 redirects that have been left behind after a page move. Hope this helps, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me ask you to look more closely at that "navigational template", also called a "navbar" and a "navbox" – and at WP:NOTBROKEN, which guides us "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: it is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates, [...]" An example of a subtopic redirect that did not get bypassed is "Amita Chandekar", a contestant in season 3. Most of the other redirects could be bypassed. Remember, the rule is not to bypass redirects; however, there can be exceptions to the rule as noted in the guideline. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there23:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election_2[edit]
Greetings, user:Paine Ellsworth. I see you have changed the decision on the requested move at Talk:2017 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election. I am not opposed to you marking it as "not moved", even after my withdrawal that is fair enough. However, you are mistaken by asserting that I withdrew in due to "wp:SNOW" opposition. I withdrew my nomination in light of discovering policy that applied, warranting me to close this discussion and open a new RM for that page, not because of any opposition. I still stand by my reasoning in that RM even if it is overriden by that of the newer RM and would have held out until the dicussion could be closed "normally" had I not created a new one. I am kindly asking you remove "nominator has withdrawn in light of SNOW opposition," as it is untrue. Thanks BurgeoningContracting14:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, editor BurgeoningContracting, I certainly didn't mean that your withdrawal was "due to" the SNOWy opposition, but only that the opposition was snowy. And yet I can see how the wording might be misunderstood by some editors, so I will make an attempt to clarify and to word it more precisely. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there14:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it. I understand why you put that there myself, but to an editor who is barely coming across this, it could be very easy to misinterpret the situation. BurgeoningContracting15:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.
Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).
Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.
Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hi :) While I won't undo it (as at the end of the day, it was only down to my personal preference at the time of typing the comment that I didn't bold the first word, and I don't want to be pointy), I'd prefer it if you didn't copy-edit my messages for me in the future. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]08:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, please do forgive me if you think I've overstepped. I do that all the time in discussions where the usual format is not followed. I honestly can't promise I won't do it again sometime down the road; however, I will try to remember your wishes. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor a smart kitten!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there08:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
That's a very good question, Dick, and I agonized over it for some time. The article was moved from "...Over..." to "...over..." in May of 2006, and then to simply "Over the Rainbow" (dropped the "Somewhere") in June that same year. So neither title that uses "Somewhere" appears to be appropriate for the article – "Over the Rainbow" remains the original title and the common name of the song. So I dug deeper and found that the vast majority of sources still call the song "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" along with just "Over the Rainbow". The few exceptions are "Somewhere over the Rainbow", "Somewhere over the rainbow", and even "(Somewhere) Over the Rainbow". I think the reason why most sources capitalize "Over" in any case is because that is the actual first word of the songtitle whether or not "Somewhere" is also present. So I went with the sources and IAR'd WP's five-letter rule for prepositions in titles. I considered the usage in sources to be a good reason to ignore the guideline. My bad? P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there21:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better way to ignore the rules would be to not declare either version to be a miscapitalization. But I see you might want to say which one is printworthy. Personally, I'd think following WP style works well here, as the "Somewhere over the Rainbow" version is quite common in sources, even if the other is in the majority. So I'd choose that as the printworthy redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can I ask why you have restored the undiscussed and no consensus title of the article that was erroneously changed without WP:RM? This is a controversial topic and article, undiscussed and non-consensus moves like that aren’t permitted and should be reverted. Now depending on the current move discussion’s outcome, the original title should be changed or remain the same but the undiscussed move that had no consensus should be reverted as it violated WP:RM. Thanks. Vanezi (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor Vanezi! I ask for your forgiveness, because we shouldn't rename pages during an ongoing formal move request. The move request began on 30 Apr, and you restored the title on 5 May with [this edit], while the move request was still open and ongoing. So please be patient while you and the other involved editors continue to sort things out, and wait until the move request is closed by an uninvolved editor, who will make a decision based upon consensus garnered in the survey and discussion. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there09:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the move that I had reverted literally violates WP:RM. How is this relevant to the current move discussion? The current move can still proceed while we restore the last consensus version that was the article title until it was erroneously moved with no discussion or consensus in a controversial topic/article. Vanezi (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have further disagreements, could you please revert the undiscussed move and restore the consensus version of the title until the current move is concluded? I tried but it failed for some reason. Thanks. Vanezi (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually repeat myself, and yet in this case apparently I must... pages should not be moved during an ongoing formal move request, not by you, not by me, not by anyone. Again, please be patient until the move request has been closed. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there09:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, editor Godsy, for coming! This seems to be a rare problem that I think is caused by an anomaly in the Wd module. I'm not well-versed in Lua, so I haven't been able to find the cause. My "bandaid" solution has been to link the redirect to Wikidata directly, which I have done for the Ralph Humphrey (drummer) redirect. That removes the rare occurrence of the error. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Images with misspelled parameter[edit]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk!01:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am also very busy and have been unable to analyze your complex requests. Please be patient, and if you are the IP who is changing |answered=no to |answered=yes, then be aware that you are disabling the request and no other editors will see it listed. To reactivate just change it back to |answered=no. The big box must appear in the discussion in order for other editors to see the listing and perhaps respond. Thank you for coming!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there22:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Vanezi: since at least one other, editor Grandmaster, agrees that the current title is a bit ambiguous, I would not challenge your page move back to the Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present) title. However, I'm sure you're aware of the notice near the top of the talk page that this article is part of WP's contentious topics system of protection. If you do decide to boldly change the title back to the previous name, don't be surprised if it is challenged by other involved editors. In that case, you can always open a fresh move request to revert to the older title. Best to you, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there18:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll move the article back to the original version that was prior to the undiscussed move, "Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present)". I've tried to move it back but it doesn't allow me and gives an error, saying that "Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present)" already exists. If you know, what can I do to solve this problem? Many thanks! Vanezi (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this closure may not be intentional and you did it in good faith. I am willing to ask whether you knew it was reopened for further discussion without intentionally affecting the move already done. Please revert your closure because @Pppery reverted it and later backed off as per no reason why you did that. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor SafariScribe: thank you very much for coming to my talk page! and yes, I did wonder why editor * Pppery * reverted my closure and then self-reverted his revert. His edit summary was, "Actually this is more complicated than I thought, will back out". To be honest, my close was intentional because I monitor the malformed move requests list, and that is where that move request appeared after you moved the page with this edit. I'm not sure what the correct way is to fix all this, but I do know that reopening that move request is definitely not the right answer. That will just land the request back on the malformed requests list. If you think that more discussion is still needed, then an informal discussion in a new section on that talk page might work. Or if you want it to be in the way of a formal move request, then perhaps the correct thing would be to open a fresh move request. Would you like me to do that for you? And thanks again for coming!P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there00:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you made two reverts to the said page some time ago. I presume you were debugging something. Is this still relevant? I mean, we should keep the sandbox up-to-date, to prevent some issues with editors forgetting to synchronize the sandbox with the main module before editing it. Could I revert the sandbox to the up-to-date version, or do you still need that one version which is there currently? Thanks. Janhrach (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.
Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.
Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here.
Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hi Paine, I've reverted [1] but only on technical grounds, the TfD template seems to have been causing the If_both template to throw the following <div style="display:inline-block;Expression error: Unexpected < operator"> error, so I've rolled back the change but it's only a technical issue - I'm not in any way opposed to the deletion discussion etc, so if the TfD template can be added back (I'm way behind on my wiki markup to allow me to do it myself) feel free to undo my change. Nick (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the above, Nickps provided an alternative TfD coding option which appears to be working correctly, so it's back with it's seemingly all important TfD template now. Nick (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're all correct, that's all on me. I should have checked for the disabled type in the code. That's something that is not usually needed for these TfM issues, and it's been awhile since I had to ensure that the notice was disabled. So yes, I should have caught that, and I will be more vigilant in the future. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there15:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]