Jump to content

User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

Page Swaps

Thanks for fixing my recent errors with some page moves/swaps. I have had page mover authorization for a while, because I used to be a new page patroller and found a lot of screwed up re-re-redirects during that process. I decided to help out at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but screwed up some procedures. I'll get it right eventually. Just wanted to let you know. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a learning curve, editor DOOMSDAYER520. We all go through it from time to time. Things change over the years and sometimes become almost unrecognizable with all the improvements. No need to open an RM when you grant a request at WP:RM#TR; RMs are for those move proposals that are contested/controversial and may need some discussion. Can't thank you enough for helping out with page moves, and for your other edits as well! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, editor Donner60! and right back atcha! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:R to project namespace

Re these edits, surely just an <includeonly>...</includeonly> is needed? — Qwerfjkltalk 05:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't think so, editor Qwerfjkl... as tested in the [sandbox] and also seen on the [testcases] page, the text of the rcat template was removed by the previous two edits, and <includeonly>...</includeonly>tags remove the text from the template page without making a difference. I've tried some different ideas in the sandbox in preview, but nothing works so far except to leave the rcat template as it is now. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
On further inspection, I believe this is because {{This is a redirect/rcat}} transcludes the page. The fix is probably to check if the page title is Template:R to project namespace. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Cool! Feel free to test that idea. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 Done; works. I don't think this can be tested in preview, precisely because it transcludes itself, so the preview will use the actual text rather than what you want to preview. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
It strikes me that this should probably be done in {{Redirect template}}, as it applies to all rcat templates. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Redirect template}} has been luafied. Not adept at Lua, I cannot be of much help there. How's your Lua? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

To editor MBlaze Lightning: wishing you and yours the Best New Year ever! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Paine Ellsworth!

Happy New Year!

Paine Ellsworth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Moops, and Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paine Ellsworth,

Thanks for the clean-up related to the Requiem for a Tower/Lux Aeterna (Mansell) page merge. I have a question about the addition of the {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} template to the infobox on Lux Aeterna (Mansell). I must admit that I don't quite understand what this template is meant to do, but I suspect that it's not supposed to display as it is in that infobox. If it's functioning as intended, so be it, but I thought you might like to review it. Cheers. Marchije•speak/peek 16:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

To editor Marchije: that was a mis-click on my part and has been corrected. I use TemplateScript, which places links in my left margin to templates I use often. My mouse has a very sensitive click button that sometimes installs a template in a place where it shouldn't be. Thank you for coming to my talk page to let me know! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I figured that it might be a "slip of the finger" type of situation. Thanks again. Marchije•speak/peek 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  19:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notification

User talk:MB#New pages patrol newsletter

Request to explain reasons for closing the requested move "Altaic languages" to "Transeurasian languages."

Also very curious why you believe "also called Transeurasian" is an untrue claim.

Thank you. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my talk page, Ignis Cheldon! To your inquiry:
...explain reasons for closing the requested move "Altaic languages" to "Transeurasian languages."
As I mentioned in my closing statement, there was a strong consensus against the page move. Seen in the survey discussion were opposing rationales that outweighed the supporting argument.
very curious why you believe "also called Transeurasian" is an untrue claim.
Brought out in the discussion was that the two terms are not synonymous and cover different subjects, so it is wrong to confuse readers by equating the terms. You might try writing a new section in the article content that explains the similarities and differences. Suggest you run that by other involved editors on the talk page first. Thanks again for coming here! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify, your decision to edit "Altaic also called Transeurasian" to "Altaic" was based exclusively on TaivoLinguist's claim:
"Since "Transeurasian" includes all the things that are irrelevant to historical linguistics and even allows room in the theory for those who don't find evidence for a genetic linguistic relationship (unlike "Altaic"), then "Transeurasian" and "Altaic" are different enough to not be synonyms."
Please confirm whether that is correct. Or perhaps you have made your own conclusion that since Transeurasian and Altaic are not synonyms, therefore "Altaic also called Transeurasian" is an "untrue claim." Please note that the statement "Altaic also called Transeurasian" does not presuppose their being synonymous and the very move request you have canceled was undertaken with the sole purpose to clarify that nuance.
This is important because I am going to proceed with the move review process, and will have to mention your reasoning. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I see that another editor has restored the verbage in the lead with an edit summary, "Restored. Not an 'untrue claim'." Don't know enough to contest that any longer; however, the decision to not move must stand. Do what you think is right. I understand how it is when I think I'm right even though several other editors think I'm wrong. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt and the baseball cap. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Don't know enough to contest that any longer"
Please do not remove these comments until the review is complete. Thank you. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Why on Earth would I do that? Do you think that because I'm not an expert linguist who knows all about the Altaic language family that I also don't know how to read consensus? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
There was no consensus. Austronesier (who reversed your "Altaic also called Transeurasian is an untrue claim" edit) believes "Transeurasian" is the correct term but it is too new and requires more time.
"It's too soon. "Transeurasian" is a relatively new terminological concept."
"Nor do I criticize the term Transeurasian"
On December 23 Taivolinguist wrote the following:
"However, for the purposes of this article and the question at hand, "Should a Transeurasian discussion be separate or part of this article", it seems that the conclusion for me is that "Transeurasian" is either an attempt to fold non-linguistic arguments into a linguistic discussion ("Altaic") or simply punting on the linguistic issue by discussing the Sprachbund of northeast Asia from linguistic, archeological, and DNA perspectives without making a definitive linguistic determination as to genetic or diffusional relationships (using "genetic" in the strictly linguistic sense of languages that can be definitively proven by linguistic methodology alone to be related by descent from a common ancestor). If the former than it should be discussed here, but if the latter then it deserves its own article. Perhaps we need a poll to determine a clear consensus position one way or the other."
With this text he was the first person to suggest the move is a viable option. Which prompted me to initiate the move. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Why on Earth would I do that?"
I am just trying to follow the regulations. Your reasoning is important and must be available to the reviewers. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. I see you haven't been registered on Wikipedia long, so be advised that even if I were to remove any comments and either delete them or archive them, all WP pages have page histories that record every edit we make. For example, here's your talk page history. Even removed edits are available by going into a page's edit history. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
To editor Ignis Cheldon: just to toss it in, you might want to read WP:Consensus, where you will find an explanation about how consensus on Wikipedia is a bit different than the usual definition of the word. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

added
readded Stephen
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Nihiltres

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:US state navigation box

Hello. The backstory is the discussion here at Template talk:US state navigation box#Remove flags... again, your edit removing the code[1], my mistaken revert of an IP here[2], their undo pointing out my mistake[3]; yet, I can still add an image to the navbox as evidenced at my sandbox. I'm I missing something? --DB1729talk 23:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DB1729, and thank you for coming to my talk page! The edits that were made by the IP have been reverted, because the image removed was NOT the main image parameter that can, if |image= is used, place an image to the right of the links in the navbar. The image that was removed was just the flag image in the title bar. So there is still an image parameter in the template. That's why your sandbox template still shows an image. Hope this helps, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. --DB1729talk 00:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  00:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Independent school RM

Hi Paine, thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Independent school. However, it seems to me that there was enough consensus to support the move. There were 9 participants, of which 5 supported the move to "private school", which is the undisputable common name. There was also one comment by Necrothesp. They didn't give explicit support for the move, but they did agree "private schools" and "independent schools" are the same thing, at least in the UK. There was some opposition around WP:RETAIN, but it was shown that both terms are used in the UK and Australia. Also, per MOS:COMMONALITY we should use the name used in all countries, rather than the one used in only some of them. To sum up: most editors supported the move per WP:COMMONNAME. The issues raised by the minority of opposers were rebutted. Would you mind reconsidering your close? Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Vpab15, and thank you for coming to my talk page! I thought that was one of the best debates I've seen. Both sides were rooted in policy, the arguments were strong on both sides, and of course the numbers were close, but not close enough to make it crystal clear that there was either "consensus" or "no consensus". So I did pretty much agonize over it for a good while. In the end, I did not quite see a consensus to move as Wikipedia defines the term. My suggestion would be for you to find ways to strengthen the pro-move argument, and try again in a few months with a fresh request. I would think it wrong to reclose it with consensus that I just do not quite see. The best I can do is to reopen and relist the request a second time, and let another editor close it. If that's what you really want, let me know. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Paine, thanks for your quick reply. I guess we disagree about the strength of the consensus. I would really appreciate it if you relist a second time. Thanks. Vpab15 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
And done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not a case where "both sides are rooted in policy". The principle argument against was that there is a WP:RETAIN angle, but that was clearly rebutted for both the UK and Australia, where it was demonstrated that Private School is in wide use. This wasn't a close debate, it was a very clear consensus to move, when viewed through the evidence. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Amakuru! Happy New Year and thank you for being here! Rather than seeing successful rebuttals, I see strong, global args for RETAIN and such, with rebuttals of rebuttals uncontested, so we can hopefully agree to disagree. Do see a growing consensus to move since I relisted, though. I shall be happy to let someone else decide. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 17:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, and a happy new year to you too. Apologies, I should have said that up front 😊 - hope it's a good one for you and yours, and productive editing for all of us here. Anyway, as you say I don't see the above the way you're suggesting. RETAIN doesn't apply if alternative terms are freely used in the country in question, which has been demonstrated; so the COMMONNAME is the policy that matters. Anyway, let's wait and see what happens. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I really don't see the value in reopening this as it stands. I'd suggest that a better way to resolve this would be to instigate a move review, especially as this would almost certainly increase the viewings on the topic. Also worth pointing out that one of the supports was a sock. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi YorkshireExpat, and welcome to my talk page! You may have noticed at the top of this page that I am usually pretty amenable when it comes to my no-consensus decisions. On a few occasions I've even reopened and relisted such RMs a third time. In this case it was just a second relisting. Frankly I agree with you, mainly because the request has been well-visited by several editors at this point, so this relisting probably won't change anything (although I have seen such reopenings where consensus did indeed emerge). In the end, we're not really in any hurry here on Wikipedia, so if even one editor thinks a consensus might be achieved and such would improve this reference work, then I say let's be patient and see what happens. Thanks again for coming! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress

You've messed up the links on other articles while moving and deleting redirects. Please fix it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

To editor Roman Reigns Fanboy: editors are jumping the gun by renaming the page before the open move request is closed. I've had to move it back twice now, and will get the page move-protected if necessary. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay but please do not delete the redirects. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)

Hi. Thanks for taking the time, but I have concerns about the closing at Talk:14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)#Requested move 26 December 2022.

  • The result was presented as not moved, and not no consensus, implying a consensus that the current title is best (see WP:THREEOUTCOMES). I don’t see that in the opposition comments: some mention other versions or simply oppose the move. Deciding not moved has repercussions as a precedent for further move requests.
  • The only guideline cited in the decision is WP:COMMONNAME, but the decision is in favour of a title for which Google Books returns 56 results (only eight of them showing the actual title in the snippet),[4], rejecting one showing 428 results.[5] None of the opposition votes asserted the current title as most commonly used, much less demonstrated that it is.
  • As an RM is not a WP:VOTE, shouldn’t the decision say something about the rationale to move, how it was supposedly countered as invalid, and the rationales given by opposing editors?

So I am requesting that you to clarify at the top of the RM how the decision was made, or at least change the result to no consensus. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michael Z., and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! The points you make above are all valid in the general handling of move requests; however, in this specific request the opposing arguments were strong enough to overcome the supporting args, which presented as a clear consensus to keep the current article title. I've been closing for awhile now, and I always disregard the number of !votes, taking into account the arguments/rationales only. Can't help if that sometimes coincides with the !vote count as it seems to in this case. I did agonize a little between "not moved" and "no consensus", but in the end I thought that the objective tilt was toward the former. I have expanded my closing statement a bit as requested. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure message

You closed discussion in Talk:Quantum supremacy § Requested move 3 January 2023 stating that there was a consensus to continue with the current article title. I disagree with your analysis. There are currently two editors (Michaelmalak and myself) supporting the move, and two editors (Tercer and Smedja) opposing. I agree that there is not a consensus to move the page, but that's different from there being a consensus to continue with the current title.      — Freoh 15:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi editor Freoh, and thank you for coming to my talk page! I agree with you and must ask your forgiveness, because for some reason I missed your bolded "support". Your rationale was noted, but without a bulleted support at the beginning, it just sort of blended in with the nom's rationale. My bad. Editor Michaelmalak, I've reclosed the request as "no consensus". Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Houghton Hall

After Talk:Houghton Hall, Yorkshire#Requested move 21 January 2022 and User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 22#Houghton Hall there was a RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 25#Sussex and Yorkshire disambiguators where there was quite a clear consensus to to use the longer forms so could you please modify the close to move back to Houghton Hall, East Riding of Yorkshire please, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Renamed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 Reverted – see User talk:Necrothesp#Houghton Hall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Article categories in redirects?

Hey, P.I.E.. Do we really put a bunch of mainspace article categories within redirects, like is done Here? Please advise me, oh wise one. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @WikiWikiWayne: It's not prohibited (see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects), and happens often - particularly if the category applies to the redirect but not to the page that the redir points to. For example, Category:1993 births belongs on Tyre Nichols because he was born in 1993, but it does not belong on Killing of Tyre Nichols because a killing cannot be said to have a year of birth. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Redrose64 🌹! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Monkeypox

Hi, thanks for your help with the template. It's been an age since I last added one. Best regards, Graham.Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Pleasure, editor Graham Beards! Going to treat your request as technical and move it back. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks.Graham Beards (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I noticed your note at Template:R with Wikidata item/doc. I'm not sure this actually still true; I seem to be able to do this. Can you confirm this? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

To editor Qwerfjkl: this refers to situations where an editor finds a redirect that, say, targets a section in a Wikipedia article. The editor also sees that there is a Wikidata item for that redirect that links to articles on other-language Wikis, but the item page does not link to the enwiki redirect. So the editor can use the first parameter to link to the Wikidata item page. Or, if the editor thinks the redirect would be a valid link from Wikidata, then they can use the hack to link the item page to the redirect, and then the first parameter would not have to be used. I know that Wikidata editors are working to fix this, but I haven't heard that it's been fixed yet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Overview of Backlog-reduction progress
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page
  • Membership news and results of elections
  • Closing words
– Your Guild coordinators: Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Move request

Hello @Paine Ellsworth I have created Lag Jaa Gale (TV series) which I want to be moved to Lag Ja Gale without leaving a redirect. I'm creator and I assume it's totally Uncontroversial requests. If you could assist me with the page move or guide me with the relevant venue to ask for assistance. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 14:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

To editor C1K98V: thank you for coming to my talk page! Like to archive these messages rather than to delete them. Sorry I didn't get back to you quickly, and was going to suggest keeping the redirect and tagging it with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and either {{R from alternative spelling}} or {{R from misspelling}}, whichever applies. I see you did have the redirect deleted, and that's okay, no big deal. That article you wrote looks like a very good page on the television series! Keep up the good work, and again, thanks for coming! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Redirect with commas and ampersand

PE. How do I create a long redirect that has commas and an ampersand? Cement, Tolenas & Tidewater Railroad Company truncates after the first comma. Teach me, don't launch it. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 05:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I bludgeoned my way in. It's up. Thanks! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 05:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Gun laws in Washington

Just wanted to quickly explain my edit at Talk:Gun laws in Washington. It really is a dab page, not a SIA, so I converted it right before I also updated the talk page. Someone reverted the main page without also reverting the talk page, so that's how it wound up like that. Not planning to go back to it, so I do sincerely appreciate the clean up there. Station1 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Good template good pacement

This is a to-the-point addition :-) Referring to our earlier discussion in this area (when IMO a similar template not being useful in /doc area), it follows that this is a useful placement. Adding the number of transclusions in taht template might be helpful too (motivating the protection for Talkpage visitors). DePiep (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That is a very useful template. I try my best to only use useful templates on Wikipedia. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:-) DePiep (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Postnominals

Thanks for adding MCIfA to the list ... but it has just been removed from the lead of Chloe Duckworth (can't get umlaut on phone) with edit comment saying that Memberships aren't listed, only Fellowships (CIfA doesn't have fellowships). So should we not have added it to the template - my bad? I'm not a postnoms geek: please advise. Thanks. PamD 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @PamD: If you can type the ampersand & and semicolon ; in your mobile, you should be able to enter the letter as a HTML character entity reference: in this case &euml; produces ë - Chloë Duckworth. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Redrose64 Thanks: trying it here ... &eum; ... but it was a lot quicker to use the redirect which I knew existed. Will remember that useful listing for another time. PamD 13:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah, got it wrong. PamD 13:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah, looking again (on serious computer) I can see I missed the "l"! So ... ë ... that should do it. Thanks again. PamD 14:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
To editor PamD: before we let it go, I've placed the template in the ibox, since the reverter's es clearly stated it's not to be used "inline". We'll see. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

  1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
  2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Screenshot showing the talk page design changes that are currently available as beta features at all Wikimedia wikis. These features include information about the number of people and comments within each discussion.
Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome

@Paine Ellsworth thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. This is much appreciated. In a nutshell, my personal mission is to support Wikipedia to benefit from emerging infrastructures to cite open source software by persistent identfiers, such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOI). I understand that all modifications to templates (like adding another optional attribute) are consensus-based and take time. Could you maybe advise (-> RTFM / FAQ) how long such iterations usually take (from a request for improvement to implementation) [weeks, months, longer] ? This is probably a very naive newbie question... PIXEL2021 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, PIXEL2021! Yes, sometimes there is little or no opposition to new parameters, and sometimes it takes longer. Probably helps to be as detailed as you can be, and in this case it helps if you know how to edit templates using [wikimarkup]. That seems to be what the editor wants who turned down the proposal at Template talk:Infobox organization. That's just temporary until a viable sandbox version is made. Then the request can be reopened and revisited. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
To editor PIXEL2021: have placed a new parameter, |ror_id= in the [sandbox] and [testcases] of {{Infobox organization}}. Wasn't exactly sure where to put it, so it's placed after "affiliations" and before "budget". Is that a good placement? or can you think of a better place for the parameter to go? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for demonstrating how the sandbox environment ist used! The placement looks very good to me. So by analogy, I should/could do the same for a new optional DOI parameter for Template:Infobox software/doc via the Template:Infobox software/sandbox, correct ? PIXEL2021 (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, it's a pleasure! Yes, in fact it's almost always a good idea to test edits in the sandbox of a template before "going live". Goes especially for templates that are high-use or high-risk. High-use means the template is used on 2,000 – 100,000 pages, and high-risk are those used on more than 100,000 pages. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
To editor PIXEL2021: went ahead and implemented the new ROR parameter in the ibox template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Awesome, thank you so much for pushing this ! Will update the ROR for Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) and similiar organisations ASAP. However, I tried to follow the procedure you laid out for the ROR parameter in Template:Infobox organization for Template:Infobox software/sandbox first and then in Template:Infobox software/testcases for the parameters ROR and DOI. Both make sense as a software can have its own unique DOI while also being associated with an organisation / ROR ID (e.g. OSGeo). For some reason (which is currently beyond my newbee skills), publishing these changes in the sandbox "do not show" (label|data 27 and label|data 28). The changes are recorded in the revisions of both sandbox and testcases. Can you please advise how to fix this ? PIXEL2021 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, it's my pleasure and glad to be of help, PIXEL2021! Just fyi, you don't have to ping me here on my talk page where notification is automatic when you post here. We should probably slow down a little for now, because if you've been following your edit request, you know that it's been opposed with a suggestion to use WP:Authority control instead. Discussion is ongoing. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and advice. PIXEL2021 (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for new parameter on Template:Infobox musical artist

Hi there! I hope this is the right place to share this. I posted a proposal for a new parameter that will be beneficial for Wikipedia readers on the talk page for Template: Infobox musical artist, however the page seems to be somewhat inactive and requires consent from an administrator. Here is my proposal and I hope you agree:

I am advocating a new parameter to reasonably replace "Associated acts". This parameter, "Protégé of" will be specifically reserved for Musical Acts billed as Individuals. Theoretically, this parameter will serve the same function as "Spinoff of" with musical groups, giving readers the ability to see which artist, producer, or talent manager discovered the subject of the article.

The inclusion of this parameter comes adds encyclopedic value as the figure who discovered an artist is a key characteristic of how the artists' career plays out event-wise, what makes them distinctive, and will be information that is found in the article. In the modern day music industry and the future, an artists success is nearly based entirely on connections and collaboration.[1] Readers need the ability to briefly skim at the infobox and see which individual is best associated with the success of the article subject – adding to the encyclopedic value of why that artist is worthy of a Wikipedia article. In many cases, an artist is most known for being under the wing of another artist or producer, or in other cases, a reader may not know who was the individual to sign (to their label), mentor, or executive produce the career/discography of an artist. If this is new information to the reader, it may serve as incentive to read the entire article and give context behind their discovery.

This parameter will tie-in seamlessly with all other information on the Musical artist Infobox as well as the article. A rule for this parameter is that the individual must already be mentioned in the article and cited, must executive produce their breakout project (album or EP that launched their career into mainstream notability), and must have a proof of signing to that individuals record label or company. "Protégé of" will consist of typically no more that 1 name mentioned – however in some cases of a joint-venture signing, there may be 2 or 3 names mentioned.

In conclusion, this parameter will simply be a version of "Spinoff_of" except for individual artists. Associated acts, over a period of time got too cluttered and spammy; this resolves that issue and provides readers a meaningful replacement that incentivizes further research, extracts important information, justifies the subjects encyclopedic notability, and gives otherwise unknown information to readers of Wikipedia. A makeshift version has been implemented by myself and other members including @JuanBoss105 and @Rosie McConnel without my prompt or awareness, however they were reversed due to lack of consensus on here. When I added with this edit, it has been met with acceptance and non-revertion among editors. Here are examples of how this parameter will be used:

StreetKnockerzEnt (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

To editor StreetKnockerzEnt: thank you very much for coming to my talk page! I'll be glad to look things over and then perhaps respond at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#New parameter vote (Protégé of). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I contacted directly because the talk page seems to be mostly inactive; I’ve even contacted another frequent editor, Binksternet, and have gotten no response. I’d like to hear your opinion on whether this parameter should be implemented or not; and if so, how it could be done. StreetKnockerzEnt (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.mi.edu/in-the-know/importance-networking-music-industry/

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter


Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December and our Annual Report for 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC).

Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes.

Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

test – Invitation to participate in WP:TCC

I, test editor, invite you to participate in The Core Contest.
Each participant improves one vital or core article during a ≈45 day period, with monetary rewards at stake!
This is an excellent opportunity to make a "bang-for-your-buck" improvement to Wikipedia through a burst of focused effort that will be felt most by the casual user. See a fuller explanation here.
Hurry up and reserve an article now!
16:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
To invite other editors, place this at the end their talk page: {{subst:User:Festucalex/sandbox/tcc-invite}}

Ref. User talk:Aza24#Invitation template for WP:TCC

Gravedancing

@Paine Ellsworth @Spicy @Bbb23 Stop WP:GRAVEDANCING 92.40.197.55 (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC close

Hi Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your close. Even though the wording has been slightly modified from "and the 1991 nationwide uprisings" to "and the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in Iraq", they still both mean the same thing, which means the statement remains a problem for the lead. Enough sources have been provided in that RFC to show the statement is disputed, and a majority of editors in that RFC also agree that this content is better suited for the body of the article where different narratives can be better explained. - MA Javadi (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello editor MA Javadi. Let me look this over and then give you a full response. Thank you for your patience, because I have a lot on my plate these days, both on and offline. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
If it is the case that "a majority of editors in that RFC also agree that this content is better suited for the body of the article where different narratives can be better explained", then there should be no problem with removing or changing the wording. If there is still a problem with that, then a fresh RfC should be opened to deal with it. The old RfC can then be referenced with a link to it. Hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in WP:TCC

I, Paine Ellsworth, invite you to participate in The Core Contest.
Each participant improves one vital or core article during a ≈45 day period, with monetary rewards at stake!
This is an excellent opportunity to make a "bang-for-your-buck" improvement to Wikipedia through a burst of focused effort that will be felt most by the casual user. See a fuller explanation here.
Hurry up and reserve an article now!
08:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
To invite other editors, place the following on their talk page:
==Invitation to participate in The Core Contest==
{{subst:User:Festucalex/sandbox/tcc-invite}}

Ref. User talk:Aza24#Invitation template for WP:TCC

Invitation to participate in WP:TCC_2

I, Paine Ellsworth, invite you to participate in The Core Contest.
Each participant improves one vital or core article during a ≈45 day period, with monetary rewards at stake!
This is an excellent opportunity to make a "bang-for-your-buck" improvement to Wikipedia through a burst of focused effort that will be felt most by the casual user. See a fuller explanation here.
Hurry up and reserve an article now!
08:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
To invite other editors, place the following on their talk page:
==Invitation to participate in The Core Contest==
{{subst:User:Festucalex/sandbox/tcc-invite}}

Ref. User talk:Aza24#Invitation template for WP:TCC

Move request re-opening

Hello, I am wondering if the move request on this page could be re-opened, and possibly approved. A personal family member teaches electrical engineering, and I never heard him use the term Sheffer stroke. Indexcard88 (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello editor Indexcard88. Let me look this over and then give you a full response. Thank you for your patience, because I have a lot on my plate these days, both on and offline. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, because I myself did a double take. Thank you for coming to my talk page! I am trained in digital electronics and was instructed to call it a NAND gate. The problem though is that the article is about a term used in Boolean functions and propositional calculus, not in electronics nor in electrical engineering. Unless sources can be provided to show that the common name is something else in Boolean functions and propositional calculus, then the article's title, "Sheffer stroke", should stay where it's been for more than twenty years! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023

Dear Paine Ellsworth: may I impose on your kind clarifications again, to tell me how to "unstick" the above move request? With the new update to WP:NCWS (added last sentence of lede, per consensus resolution here), the reason given for the prior (contested) move from "alphabet" to "script" appears to vanish. I noted this at the bottom of the move request thread. Does it still need to linger until May 8? – .Raven  .talk 13:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

To editor .Raven: thank you very much for coming to my talk page! The seven-day relist period is about to elapse, so resolution should hopefully come sooner than later. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed it did! Thank you very much! – .Raven  .talk 02:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  02:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Plea

Hello P.E., please, if you have some spare time, would you check something for me - it's a protected template inclusion request here? I would really appreciate it, but thank you anyway and in advance. ౪ Santa ౪99° 21:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, editor ౪ Santa ౪, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! Definitely plan to look into that template and your request. It's been awhile since I've worked with that template and its sub-templates, so please be patient while I refamiliarize myself with it. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Superb, thank you very much, and take your time, of course. Please ping me for any questions you may have regarding agency, links, parameters, and so on. ౪ Santa ౪99° 01:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  02:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hello, can you do me a favor and close this dispute. The dispute seems to be resolved, but now it seems like it has deviated from its course with the people inquiring each other’s motives. Okiyo9228 (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Okiyo9228, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! I would love to close that discussion for you, but it has long been a WP tradition that specific requests for closure must go through WP:CR. So if, after reading WP:CLOSE, you still think that discussion needs to be formally closed, then please request the close at WP:CR. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks,
“ Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion” Does that mean I can close it? Okiyo9228 (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
If you think that consensus is clear, then yes, you can close it and suggest you cite the statement you quoted above, and where you found it, in your closing statement. Be prepared, because some editors may disagree with you, so you might have to justify your closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Okiyo9228 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
my pleasure! Paine  15:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Precision

Just to let you know, editor Captain Jack Sparrow, I do understand your PRECISION argument. I think one reason editors did not come to agreement on the two article titles is because, at present, Hindutva terrorism fails RECOGNIZABLE and is supported by PRECISION, while Hindu terrorism fails PRECISION while being supported by RECOGNIZABLE. If I've read the discussions correctly, there are some editors who want the Hindu terrorism title so they can broaden the scope of the article, which at present is pretty much all about Hindutva terrorism. They seem to want to add more subtopics to the article under the title of Hindu terrorism. This might be why none of the closers so far have wanted to change the article title from its current "Hindu terrorism". They seem to want to leave room for expansion of the article's scope. But you appear to want the scope to remain what it is now, so I wonder why you don't want to let those other editors begin to expand the scope of the article under the "Hindu terrorism" title? Just curious, really, and I would understand if you want to completely ignore and dismiss this inquiry. I really did mean it when I said I wish you the best going forward. We're all volunteer editors here, and I do respect your enthusiasm where WP improvement is concerned. Thank you very much for that! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Im not entirely opposed to expanding the scope, though I think the two should be separated. I havent given much weight to those arguments as those who want to expand the scope havent actually brought up incidents that would be classified as "Hindu Terrorism" . It has been about a month since the title was changed, yet the only meaningful content about Hindu Terror is the opening paragraph (and even that is in context of Hindutva Terrorism only). What I dont want is editors just hand waving and asking for time to drag out the process enough that people stop participating and they keep the contents and the title that they want.
And about the PRECISION argument, thanks for letting me know. What I was conveying when I talked about RECOGNISABLE argument, was that while Hindutva Terrorism may not be the most recognisable term, I didnt think it was obscure enough to invoke the policy cited. While we should look for a more recognisable titles, we shouldnt lose sight of other policies. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
As an addendum, the idea that some editors are "expanding" the scope by naming it Hindu Terrorism is also flawed; It assumes that Hindutva is simply a subset of Hinduism, an argument inherently flawed as discussed on the talk page. Naming the article Hindu Terrorism isnt expanding the scope, it is misleading the reader as to the contents of the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Point taken, and while the fairly popular idea that Hindutva terrorism is a subtopic of Hindu terrorism is discussed, I find myself at a loss to know the precise viability of the specifics surrounding that idea. If you're correct, then a whole new light might be shed by a fresh RM, Hindu terrorism → Hindutva terrorism, to see if editors can build an actual consensus for one of those titles. I think that's where this is headed, and I look forward to the result! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer a resolution in the MRV itself, it is getting pretty exhausting tbh. I would take part in the fourth fifth discussion if necessary, but it would be a lot of extra effort I would rather avoid. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure you are not alone in those thoughts, Captain Jack Sparrow, not alone at all. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Choice of words

In the MRV, your choice of words has not been that of a good faith editor. It is likely not a violation of WP:NPA, but it is not indicative of a healthy attitude for a discussion. Focus on policy, not trying to berate editors. I hope you take this seriously. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You should talk. However we seem to be able to tolerate each other's shortcomings, and my guess it's because we both know that volunteer editing of an encyclopedia can be very rewarding in many ways, but it's not always the easiest thing to do. I would suggest editors stop trying to stick to their guns so hard and start trying to build consensus for a better title for that article – that's all the editors involved, including you and me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
You dont seem to have understood what a good faith discussion is, with your comment right after this being "you appear to be blind as a bat". Can you not discuss something without trying to berate others? The fact that someone has tolerated your comments does not excuse them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't berate others. Others berate themselves, and I just point out their self-derision with the hope that, in the future, they will stop embarrassing themselves. As human beings many of us are sadly self-derisive without being aware of it. Your words give away the fact that you are blind to the truths of this situation. While I'm certain this is true, I'm also certain that just saying you are blind would not imprint on your mind nearly as deeply as being called "blind as a bat". The fact that you find that statement berating speaks volumes. You are much smarter than you consider yourself to be, Sparrow. So please consider how much easier bats get around than we do. They use sonar much better than we do, so they don't need "sight". Enjoy the wisdom! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox album/color/sandbox/doc

Template:Infobox album/color/sandbox/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q𝟤𝟪 21:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sigh

Honestly, it's stuff like this that makes me want to take all 6k templates and bung them into a single module... let people fight over the flags if they want, but put it into a smaller area. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and believe it or not, I've been through every template a few times sprucing them up. I've always been very impressed by the way the {{Country showdata}} meta was implemented, if not by its "non-country" applications. Russia is special with its many subdivisions: Republics, Oblasts, Cities and so much more. Then of course, there's the US and UK. Sigh indeed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Rcat template documentation pages has been nominated for renaming

Category:Rcat template documentation pages has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Challenge on my G6 request of Gypsy Girl

Hi Paine Ellsworth,

I see you challenged my speedy deletion request that moves Gypsy Girl (disambiguation) to Gypsy Girl and categorized Gypsy Girl to Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms instead. I notice that 4meter4 has recently adapted the disambiguation page to remove Gypsy Girl (Television series) from the primary topic. Now that there's an on-going discussion on Talk:Gypsy Girl (Television series) to determine if it's the primary topic, I will make further move after the consensus was formed.

Do you have any reason except that? According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, the disambiguation page should be moved to its base name if there's no primary topic. Otherwise, it could be adapted to a primary redirect to the primary topic. In either case, the base name shouldn't be linked to itself with the (disambiguation) qualifier. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the move request with opposition and thought that the SD was jumping the gun just a bit. Agree that the redirect should not target the GG (dab) page for very long because the redirect can temporarily be considered malplaced. To be able to disposition the redirect correctly, we'll have to wait until the move request is closed to find out what needs to be done with it. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor NmWTfs85lXusaybq, and Best of Everything to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Rank of Endopterygota

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Rank of Endopterygota
Discussion

There's a problem with the rank of Endopterygota, which you changed at Template:Taxonomy/Endopterygota. The article says it's a superorder, but it has two children, Hymenopterida and Panorpida, which are also said to be superorders. So I reverted the change to Template:Taxonomy/Endopterygota. However, the sources at Endopterygota seem to be more recent, so I wonder if Hymenopterida and Panorpida are no longer accepted? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, Peter! Well, Wikispecies still sees them, and both the Hymenopterida and Panorpida pages refer to them as superorders while referring to Endopterygota as a clade, so perhaps we should rank Endopterygota as a clade here on Wikipedia as well? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Clade. A nonspecific term meaning that you know that it's lower than a phylum but higher than a genus, but are otherwise unsure how it fits in. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, hardly better than "unranked", and yet it is still pretty widely used. Even at Template:Taxonomy/Endopterygota there are several clades listed in the Ancestral taxa listing. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"Clade" is more specific than "unranked", in that it explicitly claims that the group is monophyletic.
The reality seems to be that there is no consensus classification for insects above orders (or even above families). I suspect that it's probably better to treat Endopterygota as a superorder and the problematic children Hymenopterida and Panorpida as clades because Endopterygota is a vastly more widely used term than the other two. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Peter, I respect that you know a lot more than I do about these subjects and will go with anything you say. If there seems to be no consensus among reliable taxonomy sources, then it's a tough call. Do you think it would help to have more eyes on this? such as other editors who watch the WT:WikiProject Tree of Life page? Maybe we should move this discussion there? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
More eyes is definitely a good idea. Maybe WT:WikiProject Insects as well? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved, and a notification was given to WikiProject Insects. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to add Outlook India's Emerging University 2022 ranking

Hello, please add Outlook India's Emerging State Private University 2022 ranking to Template:Infobox India university ranking. Here is the source[6]. I really hope that you will accept my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone Apex (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

To editor Someone Apex: thank you for coming to my talk page! Hope to find time later this morning to look into this. Have reopened your previous request. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
To editor Paine Ellsworth: Thanks a lot!!
my pleasure! Paine  19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in good standing are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 51 editors signed up for the month-long May Backlog Elimination Drive, and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted here.

Blitz: Sign up here for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybongo.

*All times and dates in this newsletter are in UTC, and may significantly vary from your local time.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

New message from Aaron Liu

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Template talk:IMDb name.
Message added 16:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping me on my editnotice page for my Wiki Awards page. I thank you a lot for your nice effort and to your accomodating actions.

JeBonSer (talk | sign) 19:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  19:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Reverting changes to the tooltip template

Sorry about this, but could you revert the changes Template:Tooltip. I'm testing it to make sure it works as before, but there is a glitch in rendering still outside of the sandbox. I'm not sure of everything that will trigger it, but right now if it's in a link it can generate errors. Rjjiii (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes it works fine in a link, but in other situations something is causing either the {{sronly}} text to be displayed, or the link to be suppressed. Rjjiii (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
To editor Rjjiii: okay, that has been reverted. We have to watch the # of edits vs. time since that template is transcluded to more than a quarter of a million pages. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that; it works fine in testcases and in the sandbox pages that I ran, but there seems to be an old bug in {{sronly}} that I did not catch. Thanks for the quick response, Rjjiii (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Happy to help! Paine  18:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your RM closure | Muslim Conquest of Egypt Vs Arab Conquets of Egypt

Four users favoured the original title Muslim conquest of Egypt, vs three users favoured the new title Arab conquest of Egypt. How did you close it that way? Fragrant Peony (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

To editor Fragrant Peony: hi, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! Two things... first, discussion closings on Wikipedia are not simple vote counts, and second, it's very important to remember that it is much more effective to provide the strongest possible arguments both in support of and in opposition to a given proposal. My closing statement is all we need really to understand that while several of the policy-based arguments for the page move were quite strong, the ones that were against renaming the article were much stronger. Best to you, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You didn't follow the Wikipedia rules here per Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles. This article is part of the Muslim conquest series, this would lead to future problems regarding all the other articles of:
Muslim conquest of the Levant
Muslim conquest of the Maghreb
Muslim conquest of Armenia
Muslim conquest of Persia
Captain Jack Sparrow actually favoured the original title too, Muslim Conquest, since the general proposal was completely rejected within all the other pages, not to mention it's also against the consistency in article titles, but the user left it for the voting process. So with all due respect I am not sure what rules you are following here? favoring your personal opinion over both encyclopedic rules in articles titling and the users votes. The RM should be relisted. Fragrant Peony (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Consistency is but one of five WP:CRITERIA, and overarching considerations as part of naming policy are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVNAME, which notes: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title". We had a discussion on this on your talk page, where you agreed on the direction in which the balance of academic sources lie. You observed that if that were the case then it is the other pages that should be renamed. I believe you are right, but that is a discussion for another day. WP:NPOV and respect for the sources is one of the three core policies, alongside WP:V and WP:NOR, and following the sources remains the way to go. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't agree that a single page should have a different title, I said they all should fall under the most accurate academic heading. My point regarding the most common academic term was also rejected by Walrasiad, who had a far better argument which is illustrating the historic incident itself. Under which name were those conquests made? What slogan?... All of them were done in the name of Islam and Islamic conquests. Fragrant Peony (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Editors... as much as I thank you exceedingly for this repetitive feedback, the decision is... heh, I almost said "final", but we all know that is a fantasy here on ol' WP, don't we. Best of everything to both of you, and thanks so much for your inputs! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by what policy you are applying and to what exactly? That Egypt needs to be an exception because....NPOV? But the others aren't NPOV? How did you reasoning work? This RM was about consistency. What argument made you you think it should be inconsistent? Did you find it common for sources to list some as "Muslim conquest" and shift to "Arab conquest" when it came to Egypt? It is clear the opposition don't like the title for any of these pages, but that can hardly be the basis for maintaining an exception (other than as a wedge to force others to change eventually - i.e. destabilizing titles). Walrasiad (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
PS - It is a bit disingenuous that you could have imagined this is "final". Indeed, the very person opposition above is talking about wanting to destabilize other titles "another day". Far from solving anything, you have simply renewed instability and renewed the quarrel this RM was meant to stabilize. This will be revisited again and again, on this and other pages. Walrasiad (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Consistency is not an end unto itself. It is but a fragment of naming policy. The notion that this should for some reason override all other concerns including WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and all other forms of actual fair and proportionate reflection of the reliable sources both in existence and used on the page is barmy. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
To editor Walrasiad: my closing statement was certainly not meant to be puzzling. Wait, "barmy" editor Iskandar323? That's one you don't hear everyday. Anyway, Walrasiad, if my attempt at clarity in my closing statement was wanting, I am so sorry about that, truly sorry. The policy arguments in that proposal abounded, so I had to read the entire discussion more than once to gather together the strong and stronger rationales, and then to objectively read the consensus and define the outcome. Sincerely hope this helps to make closure more explicit and far less puzzling! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
To be frank, no. I am not sure which "policy-based argument" you're referring to. WP:CONSISTENT is a policy, and was the main reason for the proposal. Evidently that is a policy-based argument you found insufficient. So which "policy-based argument" did you find sufficient? And applied to what? Walrasiad (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
How about any of the other policy-based arguments? And the fact that WP:CONSISTENT doesn't even consistently support a move, since, as I have now pointed out to you pretty redundantly over and over again, Arab-Byzantine Wars is a thing. It may not be consistent with your preferences, but ho hum. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
As I said in closing, the policy-based args in opposition were stronger than those used to support. Those policies have been cited numerous times, and they couldn't be made clearer, so I am sorry if you still haven't grasped my meaning. Seems crystal clear to me, so I cannot fathom how to make it less opaque and more transparent for you. My bad, I figger. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
You keep using the phrase "policy-based arguments" in a very vague way. So I'd appreciate if you would be more explicit and say which policy you're referring to. WP:CONSISTENT wasn't it, obviously. So what policy do you mean? I'd like to know which policy you thought overrode WP:CONSISTENT. Walrasiad (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
So it is my phrase "policy-based arguments" that you find perplexing? The answer can only be "all opposing policy-based args". You were there, you know what they are. Please explain why you find that so puzzling? You participated in that survey, you must have read the opposing args. I hesitate to list all the opposing args again, because the result would be that the RM would be rehashed over again here on my talk page. And this is not the venue for that. Your question has been answered. If it is not to your satisfaction, then I am truly sorry. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised by your decision and puzzled by the sparse rather uninformative reasoning you gave, so came here to ask for clarification. But you just repeated the same original phrase again and again. Repetition isn't clarification. Maybe I'm dense, but maybe try explaining using different phrasing? I find that when I reword things to students in a different way they understand it better.
I really want to believe this is not a supervote, so some more substance around your reasoning would be welcome. The part I would like particular clarification on is what policy you are referring to. The RM was opened for an argument for WP:CONSISTENT. So if you didn't find that policy sufficient, there is another policy which you believe overrode it. Can you at least identify what it was? Just so we know? So much sand was thrown into the air, it'd be nice to get some insight.
And since this RM is likely to get reopened again, it'll probably be helpful for the future closer to know what you found particularly compelling. Walrasiad (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, gonna give you both barrels. Was putting it off in hopes that you would find my previous points helpful, but evidently you haven't. At risk of sounding patronizing, I find your persistence compelling, heck, admirable even. So, both barrels it is. In any discussion on WP the first very important challenge is to find a policy, or a guideline, to cite – a policy that supports your POV. As you probably know, that is just half of what is needed. An editor also must form an argument that is centered on their policy cite, a compelling argument that explains why that policy should be adhered to. The stronger the argument, the more likely that editor's words will sway the outcome. For example, when an editor says, "Support per WP:CONSISTENT. <sig>", that just isn't enough. We must argue for that policy's application to the issue at hand. So while it is important to cite policy whenever possible, it's five or ten times more critical to argue for that policy's relevance to a particular RfC, RM, and so on.
In this RM, I found support args to be strong; however, they were also strongly rebutted. I also found oppose args to be strong, and their rebuttals were generally, well, weak relatively. Can't just pick out one policy and say, "That's the one that did it for me;" it was the entire combined work of the opposing editors that did it for me.
You mentioned something about a supervote? Let me assure you that when I go to close a discussion, after reading it thoroughly, that is when I first decide whether or not my closure would be a supervote. In a case like this RM, after reading it more than twice, it was just like ol' Rhett said to Scarlett, "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn." When that happens I know I can close the discussion objectively. When I find myself giving a damn, then I don't close the discussion and instead, I leave a !vote. So don't really give a flyin' t'mater whether it's "Arab" something or "Muslim" something. So while the support args were fairly strong and attractive, the rebuttals and oppose args were magnificently magnetic – so much so that I was positively splattered by their gravity. Only the best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize for my persistence, but as I mentioned before, this RM will come up again, and it has implications for other pages. So it would be nice to get some clarity now and some guidance for the future. Put bluntly: I want to find out if you believe there is sufficient grounds for Egypt to be an exception to the "Muslim conquest" series, or do you believe it should be a multi-move and all titles changed to "Arab"? Because I would be hoping you'd be looking for grounds for the former, not the latter. I would be mightily disappointed if you were magnetically attracted to shiny things that were not in discussion, and opposers (like myself) refrained from replying to. Walrasiad (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
My pleasure! No apology needed. You want to know if I find sufficient grounds for an exception, or should there be multiple page moves. 'Fi were to render any opinion on either of these matters, that would be grounds for accusing me of having !supervoted in this RM's closure. Answer: no opinion. Once more, it's Gone with the Wind and Butler, Rhett rules, "Frankly Walrasiad I don't give a damn." Editors will work it out.
And never be shy (yes, I know, I'm old and sometimes I forget) about rendering an opinion and disagreeing with something. Nothing improves Wikipedia better and faster than editors in disagreement who are willing to discuss. That's what consensus is made of, my friend! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not about being shy. It's about finding my time more valuable than replying to piles of irrelevant manure, without a point or thought in them. When the RM was reopened last week, I was hopeful that opposing points would at last be made more precise and clear. It went in the opposite direction. I realized there was no point in replying, and trusted the closer would see it for what it was. Walrasiad (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
As Ellsworth notes, there's nothing better than discussion; here, you're admitting to doing the opposite. Apparently, you're brooding about how you're the only one that can "see it for what it is", as if there is some sort of counterfactual coup against your arguments because everyone else here is a moron. The first step of emerging out of this WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset is to acknowledge that opinions that contrast to your own are actually valid, and reorient your efforts towards having meaningful discussions rather than simply ignoring the points and perspectives of those that you disagree with. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Your premise here assumes that WP:CONSISTENT is on your side, i.e. that is has been argued correctly and persuasively and that there are no countervailing points to be made with respect to it, all of which is a massive assumption. I have explained in this very thread right here how WP:CONSISTENT too can be argued in different directions here, and yet you still go on as if this half-arsed case from the perspective of a single WP:CRITERIA should somehow outshine all other policy considerations. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate you fixing my mistakes on the talk page for the Module talk:College color! I don’t know why I can’t ever remember to change the request to “yes”. Also, thanks for your help on the requests there too, as I’m not on here much anymore! Much appreciated!! Corky 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

my pleasure! Paine  22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_24&oldid=1189634070"