Paine Ellsworth

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

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

      'BE a member of the Wikipedia family!'

'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'

The Closer: non-admin reveal

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

'to help us keep our minds sharp!'

'PHILOSOPHIE!'

Recently registered?

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

---

---

Older collapsed discussions

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

The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ⸎ Administrators' newsletter – July 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024). Administrator changes Elli HouseBlaster Pickersgill-Cunliffe Brianga De728631 Georgewilliamherbert Hyacinth (deceased) ProveIt The Night Watch Technical news Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086) Miscellaneous The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WikiProject Linguistics Hi - editors are currently discussing the topic "Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?", which you may be interested in. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#RfC: Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes? Best wishes - 1RightSider (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Thank you very much, editor 1RightSider, for this notice! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe protection change

@Paine Ellsworth any way you can change the Islamic terrorism in Europe page back to regular protection, I have many edits I think should be added. Marksaeed2024 (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Marksaeed2024: I didn't protect that page, because I do not have the tools to make page-protection changes – as a page mover, I can only transfer existing protection when I move a page. Administrators (admins) have the necessary tools. You can make a request at WP:Protection requests to lower the protection level, and then see if an admin will approve it. Thank you for coming to my talk page, and hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

• Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

• News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

• Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

• In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

• Obituary: JamesR

• Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

• Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Post move review summary

Friend Andrewa, perhaps when you are able to find the time, the following has given me pause. I am now perplexed by the whole NAMECHANGES policy situation, and I will not attempt to close another similar RM until I can figure this out. Please help when you can. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Distressing indeed. A blatant and unprovoked personal attack didn't help I am sure. Looking at it... may take a little while as I am frantic IRL and it's now quite involved. Wikipedia is not perfect. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Please, take your time. The problems challenges aren't going anywhere. I never seek perfection, just excellence. Thanks again, my friend! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Post move review summary thoughts about Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Fairfield Metro station: Fairfield Metro station (RM) – overturned

I am compelled to wonder about how to go forward. What happened here is that a local consensus at RM was not sufficient to override the WP:NAMECHANGES article title policy, and yet another local consensus at MRV did override that policy and had the article moved to the new "official" name before it has become the WP:COMMONNAME as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES section of the policy. Was I not using "common sense", as at least one editor at MRV suggested? Well, that's done and in the past, so my question now must be: how should we go forward?

Should we ignore the plural "sources" that the NAMECHANGES policy requires? That policy requires "sources" that use the new name "routinely". When I closed that move request, there had been no – zero – independent sources given that used the new name routinely. There were several primary sources that noted the name change, and there were some secondary sources before the name change that announced there would be an expected name change, but there were no independent, secondary sources found after the name change that used the new name routinely. After I closed the RM, an editor was able to produce one independent source, patch.com, published the same day, 1 July 2024, that I closed the RM, that used the new name routinely. One independent, secondary source. To date, that is the only independent source that uses the new name routinely. Our policy says "sources". I've run into editors who think there should be 10 or 12 good, independent, secondary sources that use the new name routinely before that new name becomes the common name. In the past, I've been happy with 3 or 4 of those sources. Now I just don't know. The policy isn't specific as to the number of those sources needed, it just says "sources" – plural, more than one. Yet in this case, a page was moved to a new, official name based upon only one independent source that used the new name routinely.

I should also note my respect for WP:IAR, but I've always thought that to ignore a policy or guideline, and the community agreements that built them, requires very good reason. Nobody, not in the RM nor in the MRV, nobody gave a good reason to ignore the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Yet they did ignore it. So...

I don't know how we should go forward with move requests that have proposed a title change to a new, official name when there are no independent sources, or only one source, that uses the new name routinely, when there should be at the very least two "sources" as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Can anyone see this dilemma clearly and give me guidance as to how we should go forward?

After rereading [this other policy] about primary and secondary sources, maybe I was being too restrictive about using specifically secondary sources that used the new name routinely? I'm still at a loss to understand how to go forward. We are still supposed to give "due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", aren't we?

One last thought... there is no way I would take this to the next level that would follow a MRV decision with which I disagree. Not my style. Worst comes to worst, I will just refrain from closing this type of RM and hope that whoever does close them will do a better job than I have done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Your close of RM of 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi airstrikes

Hello. On 21 July, you closed the Requested Move of 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes as Moved to 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack. However, besides the nominator, there was only one vote supporting the move and the reasoning for it was not based on policies or guidelines. So, your close is premature and the discussion should have been relisted since the discussion only went on for one week with very few participants. Please revert your close and relist the discussion. StellarHalo (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

To editor StellarHalo: thank you very much for coming to my talk page! I don't mind doing this work for you – moving the page back, reopening and relisting the move request – but then what? Even if you were to oppose the page move, another editor can come along, close the request, and move the page anytime after relisting if they see a consensus. So unless you intend to oppose with a strong, policy-based argument, the page will be moved anyway. The move request went a little longer than the seven days minimum required. There were two supports, the nominator counts as one support and another editor also supported. There was no firm opposition. One other editor just made a suggestion as to the use of "massacre" instead of "airstrikes" or "attack", but did not support nor oppose anything else. On Wikipedia, that is consensus. The only way this should be reopened and relisted is if you can write a strong, policy-based opposition argument. What would that be? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not have asked you to reopen and relist this if I have no intention of contesting the RM myself. I will oppose the move with a strong argument based on WP:COMMONNAME showing that most English-language RS refer to the subject event as an airstrike. I will also be arguing against any support argument that is just WP:OR. StellarHalo (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and  completed. Thanks again, editor StellarHalo! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)