Jump to content

User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

The Bad Image list again

Hello

As I know you're probably the most active campaigner to get the MediaWiki:Bad image list renamed, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 11#Template:Badimage, where Template:Badimage (a redirect to Template:Restricted use) is being discussed currently. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

P.s. If you reply here, please drop a {{talkback}} template on my user talk. Cheers. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Thryduulf! I have left a keep at the RfD. There are a lot of internal links to that template that need that redirect to stay as is. Evidently, the RfD template was causing problems with those links, so an editor with this edit changed the redirect back to a "live" template until the RfD is resolved. It would be good to resolve this soon. – Paine (Climax!)  20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
PS: See also {{Bad image}}

Talk header italics

Template:R from song

Help please. You added "unprintworthy redirects" to this template, when in fact they are all (or at least should be all!) printworthy redirects. These are redirects because the songs are viewed as non-notable and redirected to an album. I would happily make the change myself, but have a nagging doubt I would do it wrong. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richhoncho, at first I thought the same as you. I placed all the songs in the printworthy category. That edit was soon reverted by someone who thought that the songs were mostly unprintworthy. I thought it should be one or the other, so I put them all in the unprintworthy category. Now I'm not sure what to do. The value of printworthy vs. unprintworthy addresses whether or not a redirect should be included in a printed version of Wikipedia. Since the songs are mentioned in the album articles, I had to agree with that other editor that "printworthy" and "notable" go hand in hand. When a song is notable enough to be printworthy, like "Somewhere" (song), then it shouldn't be a redirect in the first place. It should have its own article written about it. Do what you think is best. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 02:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Richhoncho. Want to bring you up to date on this "R from song" issue. As you know, the printworthy vs. unprintworthy redirect has to do with whether or not the redirect belongs in a printed version of Wikipedia. As noted above, the {{R from song}} Rcat automatically populates the Unprintworthy redirects category. I have adjusted it so that, if you feel a song redirect does belong in a printed version of Wikipedia, in other words you feel that it's "printworthy", you can add a piped (|) parameter like this:
{{R from song|printworthy}}
When you add it like that to a redirect, it will subdue the Unprintworthy category and place the redirect into the Printworthy redirects category. Is that better? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 01:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

re: shortcut

Deleted shortcut

First two paragraphs transferred from User talk:Wizardman

Out of curiosity, was wondering why you deleted the {{RFAN}} shortcut to the {{R from alternative name}} redirect category template? (I noticed that you didn't take it off the /doc page of the Rcat) It is hoped that you did check the "What links here" to make sure there were no usages of it on redirects. – Paine (Climax!)  03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you've deleted the shortcut from the Rcat's doc page. Please forgive me, Wizardman, but I still wonder why anybody would delete a perfectly good shortcut. Redirects don't cost much in terms of server space, and shortcuts sometimes come in very handy. Was the deletion the result of a review discussion? – Paine (Climax!)  02:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The shortcut wasn't in use, as evident by no views and no transclusions any time recently. If no one uses it then there's no reason to have it. Most people use the "redirects are cheap" excuse which I hate; if it had been in use I would've left it alone. Wizardman 02:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, that's all you had to say. My main concern is that some people delete stuff without really checking their usages. And no offense, but the fact that redirects are cheap is just that - a "fact". Even after 63 years on this planet, I still haven't developed the ability to read minds to see who "hate"s or who is offended by certain factual statements I make. Thank you for your response, and I shall try to remember not to bug you about such things in the future. – Paine (Climax!)  02:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Saros

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Talk:Solar_Saros_136#"Saros" as proper noun.
Message added 15:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Understanding

I am a Mason Contractor and one day I was sitting discussing the configuration or principles of an Arch with a young Architectural Intern who was working for me at the time, and after I presented my views of the Arch I closed with do you Understand.

Well, little did I know the lesson was not over it had just begun, he preceded to tell me a story he had learned about the root of the word Understand. The ancient Romans used to require the first Architects/engineers to Stand Under the arch when the supports were removed, to prove their trust or support in work they had just directed; hence to unite the two words Under and Stand began one word Understand.

Or as I see it, a merger of two things or bringing to sides together maybe in (politics) making two beliefs United forming one belief to me is to Understand = Trust

The irony in all this is that evidently I am not good at building trust we don't speak any longer and as the elder of the two, I shoulder the burden of not bridging the gap between the two of us or you may say it's my first Arch I failed to build properly the Arch of understanding people.

I hope this helps anyone that handles Rocks and Blocks I always said I loved my Rocks and Blocks they don't talk back, I’d just put them in the wall and they would stay.

Well, with people it is very different I can't put them in the wall and make them stay, all I can do is put them in front of One they have to choose if they want to build it.

In closing, sadly as I stated we don't speak anymore we had a breach in Understanding all I can say is he may have taught me far more than I have taught him hopefully in time he will come to Understand the forces an Arch must withstand, but I have to be grateful to him because he taught me to truly Understand the Meaning of an Arch.

As far as I’m concerned he will always stay with me on my trucks, he designed my Logo and I'm proud to have at least built one Arch with him I have after 16 years of business a Logo that I believe in to put on my Trucks it’s up to me now to make it a symbol of the art of understanding.

This is what I Understand. Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.87.201 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

W I K I P E D I A R O C K S !

I like your catch phrase so does A Masonry Company.


Thanks, Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.87.201 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! – Paine (Climax!)  07:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel

Hi, you edited Gospel of the Hebrews in years past. You may have input on the duplicate issue discussion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, In ictu oculi. I assume you refer to the merge discussion, so I'll take a look at it. – Paine (Climax!)  03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on the merge debate seems to me to be actually two, one a general comment and one a recommebdation to merge (which is what I also say). Do you think you could add a bolded merge header, just so that that doesn't get overlooked? PiCo (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I emboldened the word merge within the comment, which is moreso how I meant it, ie, as a comment and not a recommendation. I don't know enough about the subject to know for sure whether the fork page should be merged, partially merged or just deleted altogether. – Paine (Climax!)  07:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
PS. Later in the discussion, when I have learned more, I will still have the option to leave a full-fledged Merge recommendation, or whatever I may decide to recommend.
I don't know the subject either, and I doubt very many do - In Ictu may well be an exception. My recommendation was on the basis that the two gospels are in fact one. PiCo (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It does sound that way, especially when the Ledes are compared. In Ictu considers the Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel to be an OR fork of Gospel of the Hebrews. If that is correct, then the former title should be deleted altogether. From previous discussions, it's not clear to me that all of the "fork" page should be either merged or deleted. – Paine (Climax!)  07:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi - "I shall rename the article, though, so that it conforms to policy." sorry can you just clarify which article and which policy before renaming? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay, got it Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip ‎ (Paine Ellsworth moved page Talk:Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel/wip to Talk:Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic)/wip: update from rename of article per policy WP:NATURAL) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Geez, forgive me please, In ictu oculi. Sometimes when I converse on a talk page it's like a real-life discussion where one leaves out details from a previous post. I shall try to be more clear in the future and will correct my obvious mistake for other readers. – Paine (Climax!)  02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries, when I re-read it it was clear anyway, my fault. Thanks for your input, again, on clearing these articles up. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a total pleasure! I was even prompted to create the Aramaic (disambiguation) page. When you have a chance, perhaps you could go there and correct any errors I committed? Thank you again for including me in these discussions! – Paine (Climax!)  04:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your one a year?

Hi RedRose. Did you perhaps overlook Template:Pd? (It was included along with Template:PD.) Here's the request link for you. You know? Sometimes you remind me of me. :) – PAINE ELLSWORTH C L I M A X ! 19:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't spot the second one sorry, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
What are we going to do with you? Haven't you already walked the plank and survived? – PAINE ELLSWORTH C L I M A X ! 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems unusual

I've been perking along with mostly gnomish edits – categorizing redirects and creating them when needed. For examples, see A. afarensis, P. boisei and here's one I recently created, H. e. palaeojavanicus. I came across one, though, that does not let me create it: ­H. e. lantianensis. When I try to create that redirect, I am sent to this error page. So for some reason beyond my ken, it appears that I need an administrator's help to create that page. It should look like this on the create/edit page: 

#REDIRECT [[Lantian Man]]
(Please leave one line blank)
{{Redr|rsa|unprintworthy}}

The "{{Redr}}" is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, and "rsa" is a shortcut for the {{R from scientific abbreviation}} Rcat (redirect category template). Thank you in advance for any help you can give me. Perhaps you'll let me know why I get that error page and am unable to create the redirect myself? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 23:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And now I find that I was able to create H. e. lantianensis. What the heck is going on? What is the difference between...

and

??? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 00:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that one of them contains non-displaying characters, such as a ltr mark. Some scripts in conjunction with certain browsers have an annoying habit of putting such characters at the beginning or end of inserted text, which causes problems. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Got it. In the first (redlink) one there's a soft hyphen between the second opening square bracket and the H. This is what's causing the trouble. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Uhkay, that makes sense. I was reading, I think it was, DGG's talk page the other day, and there was something about hidden characters there. Yet it didn't even occur to me that that was what was happening here. So thank you, RedRose64 for helping me solve yet another mystery. This is the first time I've come across this. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 00:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I figured out where I went astray. I've been working out of my sandbox, and I was able to duplicate my error there. The first link, a redlink, was copied and pasted directly from the front (not the edit page) of the {{Human Evolution}} navbar. I've been using that navbar to check for proper italics, needed Rcats and redirects and any other needed improvements. I had been using the edit page to copy and paste, but for some reason in the case of ­H. e. lantianensis I did it directly from the template page. That's how I picked up the soft hyphen. I won't do that again! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 00:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australopithecus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A. africanus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Completed – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 13:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A revert I did

I reverted the edit at Help:Contents as seen here - because they are at the bottom of the page already. However with that said and done - do you think its being missed by people and we should see if moving it is a good idea? We would need to fix the search box to not overlap though.Moxy (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I did wonder about that, because I don't ususally have to place the {{shortcut}} template between noinclude codes. I've checked the page at various text sizes and I don't see any search box overlap in IE-9. Do you use a different browser? Does the shortcut box interfere/overlap with the searchbox in your browser? To answer your question about being missed, in my case I always look for shortcuts because one of my pet jobs is to make sure that they, as redirects, are correctly categorized. I completely missed those at the bottom of the page, and if I missed them, then most others probably miss them, too. We need to find a way to display them at the top of the page, so whatever is happening with the search box needs to be resolved. I'll take a closer look at it very soon. Thank you, Moxy, for the heads up! and please let me have more detail about what you said: ...fix the search box to not overlap... – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 13:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, I created a sandbox page at Help:Contents/sandbox and put the shortcut box on the top left side of the page. Try that out and let me know if there is any interference/overlap. If this works, then we'll see if a /doc page can be added to let editors know to use the sandbox for any proposed changes to the page. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 14:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That looks ok to me - but FYI the page has a bit on an ownership problem. I post on the tlak page before I change things normally because I get reverted with no explanationMoxy (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, we can try it and see what happens. "Ownership" is such a harsh word. When I find editors like that I usually see them as "stewards" (in the general sense) who practice a "strong" stewardship of a page. In any case, for a page like Help:Contents that uses tables and CSS, it's usually better to have some type of sandbox page to try out new edits before going "live". I'll propose my changes on the talk page. Thank you very much, Moxy, for your help! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Adding a sandbox or link to a sandbox is a great idea - I think. I saw your post and was wondering what page looks the most helpful to you (not inviting but helpful) Help:Contents or Help:Contents/Browse or Help:Contents/Directory.Moxy (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the involved editors will hopefully come to realize that placing a link to a sandbox for the page is better than a comment directly on the page's edit screen about how fancy the editing is. The fancy editing needs to go. They can say the same things, link to the same links, without all that fancy table and CSS stuff. I like the look of both of the last two choices. For beginners, the /Browse page should be their first stop. Then the /Directory can be linked to and called something like a "for further study" page. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree one hundred percent in both the compleity of the page and the order of preferred viewing. That said the format on the main page was recently changed from Help:Contents/Browse to the current Help:Contents version, thus dont think a change back to the simpler version would happen easily. I am sure you noticed I added a sandbox link at Help:Contents/Directory - this addition may be a good idea for the 2 others pages.Moxy (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Arvai help template

I won't drag the talk page further off-topic, but: Pinkbeast and Kmhook were editing at the same time, and although the template was most likely added by Kmhook, it could also have been the case that Kmhook "reached out for help" from Pinkbeast on IRC, and Pinkbeast tried to help out by adding the "helpme" template to the talk page. There didn't seem any point in confusing the conversation by making my own personal decision about who actually added it, and addressing only that editor. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Within that discussion in answer to Carbonaro, Pinkbeast wrote: I didn't ask for help; if you read the page history you'd know who put that there. So by process of elimination it was Kmhook who had asked for editorial help with the page. Kmhook had not asked for help with the COI issue, but only for help from objective editors to edit the page. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 13:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Restricted-use media list

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Platonides' talk page.
Message added 12:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

You have a reply...

... at Help talk:Contents.   The Transhumanist 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And another. The Transhumanist 01:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I like your user page

...especially how you designed the top of your talk page.

And the giraffe peaking up from the bottom corner really cracked me up.   Nice touch.   The Transhumanist 02:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – The Transhumanist – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 02:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Message Error

Hello Paine Ellsworth ! Thanks for your message and glad that you fixed Scarbough's welcome message. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 16:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Smiley You're welcome! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 16:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia2

I've commented on some of the issues with italicizing Wikipedia. I am now speaking as an admin. Don't battle over this in the article or you risk being blocked for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I haven't been in an edit war for a long time. I usually stick to gnomish duties and go around Wikipedia italicizing titles in accordance with the MoS among other things. The MoS is specific where online encyclopedias are concerned. If you or the warring editor think that the MoS is wrong or should be changed, then by all means go to the talk page and see what the community has to say. As for now, it is the other editor to whom you should be sending your unveiled block threats. My edits are backed by community consensus and the Manual of Style. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
My threat wasn't veiled. I left an identical message on the other editor's talk page. The only reason I didn't also criticize your absurd comment about vandalism (not to mention your shouting in your edit summary) was because I wanted to be even-handed in my treatment of the two of you. However, your vandalism comment hasn't gone unnoticed (see below).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
My threat wasn't veiled.
That's why I called it an "unveiled threat". So are you saying that those who edit war against the MoS are not at least pushing the envelope? I did say "border" on vandalism, after all. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 14:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right; I misread the "unveiled". It wasn't borderline vandalism. It's just a content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is that. It is a content dispute that is covered by a guideline and possibly a policy (NPOV). I go into this both on the Wikipedia talk page and on the newly targeted discussion at the MoS. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 14:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've read your argument on that, and it's pretty thin, but, regardless, it obviously doesn't apply to this other editor, so your comment was still unwarranted. Frankly, you feel just a bit too strongly about this issue, and perhaps that should be a clue that you should step back, not that you can't express your opinion, but leave the article alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
What I feel strongly about is making Wikipedia a better reference work. Community consensus forms and shapes this encyclopedia. And I just try to go along with that. When others don't, it not only surprises me, it rather agitates me. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you need to be aware of what issue actually does clean my clock. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You mentioned that I shouted in my edit summary. If I'd had my druthers I would have used italics or bold, but they don't work in edit summaries. The software leaves little else but uppercase letters for emphasis. Apologies for the shouted emphasis. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 15:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I don't really care if Wikipedia is italicized or not, but I am so sick to fucking death of people accusing those who disagree with them of "vandalism". I have no idea if you're a jerk or not, but that's certainly the image of you I have in my head now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

At the top of my talk page, I gave all who come here permission to cuss, so that's okay, especially if it helps you let off steam. What I said was that the other editor's reverts bordered on vandalism, I did not call it vandalism. They do border on the "v" word because they go dead against the MoS. Other than that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Kudes for having the balls to let me know I'm in your head, though. Are we having fun yet? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 14:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TBrandley 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got that also from administrator Bbb23 two sections above. Thank you for your warning, and best of everything to you and yours! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, you're a good editor and you deserve a cookie. Thank you for raising the issue of italics at Talk:Wikipedia—even though I ultimately disagreed with you, it was a valid question that led to a discussion that illuminated some things for me—and kudos for knowing when to walk away. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, you are far too kind, Rivertorch. Thank you. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point at...

Hi :) Thank you for contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace and educating me. In your most recent edit, you wrote, "I want to say that I'm neutral about your changes; however, the second one isn't true." I don't understand that sentence. I wonder if you could please clarify it, preferably on that page? (If you decide to instead respond here, then please drop me a Talkback template.) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Do not edit articles about yourself, your business, or your competitors.
Please see Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 23:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have replied –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 21:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
T!hank you for helping me with the clear template on my page Thus Spake Lee Tru. 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Lee Tru! Glad I could help. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wonder why

Talkback – 1

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at EWikist's talk page.
Message added 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EWikistTalk 22:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Redr

I noticed that you have been using said template to replace multiple redirect templates where present.

I couldn't manage to find the guideline that recommends this. Where is the guideline, or if it does not exist yet, where should it be written? (I have no objection to the action itself.)

Are there any plans for a bot to do this task? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi SoledadKabocha! Good question – I use the instructions on the documentation page, which is on the template page. At present the usage is optional, since the redirect templates can be installed individually as well. The Redr is just a way to install more than one redirect template more efficiently. I'm not sure if this template is yet mentioned in the Rcat guideline – probably not – since work is still being done on the Redr main template, the {{This is a redirect}} template. There are still a few bugs to fix as noted in the documentation, and there are related software issues, as well... T16323 & T44642. I have never used a bot, so I'm probably not the right person to ask about that. Since the shortcuts I've been using it on vary widely in their usage and where they need to be categorized, I doubt that a bot will be used. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously I didn't mean to use a bot to categorize redirects that weren't categorized before; I only meant the replacement of multiple templates with {{redr}}. Anyway, I guess I'll hold off on requesting such a task for a while. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I have little knowledge about bots, only that their usage for tedious multi-edit tasks are indeed helpful. If you feel you want to make a request, that will at least let you know for sure one way or the other, wouldn't it? Also, I remembered that while I've never requested a bot nor have I worked with one directly, I have started some wp:Rfc's and other things that used bots in the background to perform various unseen tasks. Bots are good as long as they are well-programmed. I didn't mean to give the impression that bots are not to be liked or trusted. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest a lack of boldness on my part; it's just that when you said, "Since the shortcuts I've been using it on vary widely in their usage and where they need to be categorized ...," I "realized" I had not been clear enough originally. Upon rereading my original post, I think I probably was clear enough and read/thought about some part of your reply too hastily.
Anyway, I'll think about it. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help and answering my help request. — JJJ (say hello) 02:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Smiley You're welcome! Glad I could help! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback – 2

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Template talk:R from incorrect name.
Message added by J~Pæst  22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BracketBot June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 theatrical film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Journey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoted you

Paine, just so you are aware, I took your name in vain at Talk:Gospel of Matthew#Sage advice. Imo, this is advice we would all be wise to follow in our continuing efforts to improve the content of this giant social experiment. Buona fortuna! Ignocrates (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ignocrates! You are too very kind. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy (general)

You may be interested in a proposal to move Taxonomy (general) to Taxonomy. Discussion is at Talk:Taxonomy (general)#Requested move. Cnilep (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a message!

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Jayadevp13's talk page.
Message added 03:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jayadevp13 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback – 3

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at Smileguy91's talk page.
Message added 03:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You practically don't even have to read this. It's a very short reply. :) smileguy91talk 03:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing lists of template redirects

Hello, Paine… I've noticed your recent edits to redirect templates (such as this one, for example, and many others) in which you have replaced each organized list of Rcats redirecting to each template with a single sentence linking to the special page with an unorganized, automated list. I hope you are aware that this new format of displaying redirects is not standard among templates. For consistency, every single template with a "redirects" section would need to be changed—not just the Rcat templates—in order to properly apply such a format as the standard. It seems that the majority of templates use column-sorted lists of their redirects, rather than links to special pages; one such example is the old {{Citation needed}} template. In any case, the former format is far easier for a reader to utilize, and the latter is both unsorted and very easy to miss. Could you please explain why you think your changes are necessary? (I've already read through this discussion, in case this conversation should be continued there instead.) Thank you. — |J~Pæst|  02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, JPæst. Yes, Redrose64 is an administrator who has helped me a lot, both with edits that only admins can make and with solving mysteries of Wikipedia as I come across them. One problem with listing the redirects on documentation pages is that it is a very difficult job to keep up with the changes, both the additions of new redirects and the deletions of old ones. It is important to keep the documentation up-to-date, and anything we can do to automate the process will give us more time to work in other even more important areas, for example the location of redirects that need to be categorized and the use of Rcats to sort them correctly, not to mention the maintenance of the policies and guidelines that apply to redirects, which still need to be updated.
I appreciate your concerns about the automated process, which does have some drawbacks. Whenever there is progress, there may be tradeoffs that must be made for overall improvement of Wikipedia. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Despite the apparently huge burden it is to keep up with changes in Rcats, overall, it takes more effort to replace every such list of template redirects in existence with this new format, and to deal with the larger burden of trying to sort through the randomly scattered mess of redirects that each template links to. I can't imagine how this could contribute to the "overall improvement" of Wikipedia; it simply makes using templates more difficult—especially for those who are new to editing. Do not forget that creating redirects to templates is a large and very important job for our fellow editors. Knowing which redirects currently exist and which need to be created is the first step of this. After your changes, this became overwhelmingly more difficult.
In the near future, I will likely discuss this matter at ANI. Depending on the outcome, your edits may need to be changed or reverted completely. I will notify you of the discussion when it arises; thank you. — |J~Pæst|  01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Many things are more difficult for new contributors, and I can identify with that since, just like all of us, I was once a new editor, too. It's a learning experience just like everything else and well worth the effort! One thing I learned early on was to really listen to those editors who'd been around the block a few times. So please listen. Both of our interests are basically the same, to improve Wikipedia. When there is disagreement between or among editors, the first step is to try to work it out like we are doing now. When that cannot be accomplished, there is a procedure, which you are apparently familiarizing yourself with, that a contributor can follow to find a solution. I will, of course, acquiesce to any solution you find either through ANI or any other route.
I've been working with these Rcats for a long time and have made many improvements to them over the years. I note that you haven't yet entered the discussion you mentioned above with the contributor who actually had the idea to use the auto-generated redirect lists on the /doc pages. Why is that? Maybe if you discussed it with Redrose64, she could give you new insight into the many needs of redirect categorization. Peace be with you, and Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Girfuy_Ya_Bawbag

Thanks for changing the template; I have just been informed that the "help me-inappropriate" template would in fact be a more appropriate template for this situation. --JustBerry (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Smiley You're welcome! Pleased to be of help. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I will change my request to this template. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girfuy Ya Bawbag (talk • contribs)

Laughing is good, my friend; however, it is disruptive to edit as you have done. And it is painfully obvious that you already know that. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:JustBerry

Thanks for the reminder; I am interested in how you found the error so quickly. I had it in mind, just did not get around to fixing it. --JustBerry (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. When the pipe is used instead of a space and one clicks on the link, one is taken to this special page. There are several pages like that to help us when we make mistakes like that. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
May I get involved if you are in a program, or WikiProject for that matter, which helps people with minor formatting issues? --JustBerry (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
While I am not involved in such a program or project, one of the best would be the Teahouse, which you already host. I do sometimes check the Category:Wikipedians looking for help, but after that, I pretty much stick to my own list of projects/to do items. The only other project that is one of my pet projects is the WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The Teahouse can probably steer you better than I can. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
All right, great! --JustBerry (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Careful about details but extends knowledge to community. JustBerry (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 Thank you very much! – JustBerry – You are way too very kind! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh please... you deserved it! --JustBerry (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback – 4

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at JPæst's talk page.
Message added by J~Pæst at  19:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ne'er oft enough!

   To R______

Red rose sixty four, 
Your sword may it soar;
Can't thank you enough
For your help now and yore. 

We have done this before,
We have done it once more;
But one 'mongst the petals –
Red rose sixty four!

Replaceable fair use File:Datuk M Magendran.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Datuk M Magendran.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Newest prince

Headline in today's newspaper (23 July 2013)...

B R I T I S H   H E I R   N O W   A   P A R E N T

Cute... disgustingly cute. – W i k i w i n k ;>) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!

Username block

Hi Paine. I noticed that, and I also felt that the contributions were made in good faith. The old name obviously needs to be blocked, but I soft-blocked rather than the usual spamusername indefinite. I think this is normal procedure when the user name is the only issue, rather than the contributions. If it's causing problems, let me know and I'll unblock temporarily. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good. I just wanted to make sure everybody's on the "same page". Thank you very much, Jimfbleak! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Hi Paine Ellsworth, thanks for your welcome, your explanation, and ultimately your vote to delete those redirects. I appreciate your positive attitude. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Prhartcom! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reticulum (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 6 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

An in-process creation and  Fixed – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Margaretwmiller (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Pleasure! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect edit requests

Hi there. :) I just finished doing your edit request at Talk:T:MP, and I couldn't help but wonder why you don't use <pre>...</pre> tags for the request text. For example, rather than doing all that complicated indenting/code/nowiki stuff, you could just use, e.g. 

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Main Page]]

{{Redr|to talk page|from shortcut|protected}}

That seems a lot simpler to me - but maybe that's just me. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. S! You're right, of course. The 'pre' tags would have been easier in the beginning. I guess there are two reasons I do it the way I do. #1, I've worked with the 'code' and 'nowiki' tags for many years, and they just sort of 'flow' out of my fingers, now, and #2, Much of it is a copy 'n paste op, now. I just go to my sandbox, copy the entire template from there and paste it to a talk page. A few minor adjustments and it's done. So now, one way's just about as smooth 'n easy as the other. Thank you for your bountiful help with this and with all things administrative! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 12:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and please review again?

Dear Paine Ellsworth, thank you for invaluable advice on my school project article about Mark Chan. I replied you on my Talk page but soon realized the green box that instructed me to reply to responding users directly on their talk page. Sorry about that! Following your feedback, I have edited my article and left only the bare facts. I hope it is neutral now. Could you have a look again and tell me how else I can improve on it, please? Thank you again for your time and assistance. Jwyj (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Response at User talk:Jwyj#Help me, please! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Dear Paine Ellsworth, thank you for your help with my article! Much appreciation, Jwyj (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Pleasure! Happy to help you. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Magic words

Hi Paine, I realise the limitations of the greeting template. I put it there so that people visiting to vent their spleen because I'd deleted their article might register that the page would note that who they were even if they didn't sign their messages (they don't think of the "history") tab. On the whole, I think I get less of the really offensive stuff than before, so I'll stick with it until I find something better. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wish there were something better, but I searched and searched and came up with nada. Let me know if you do find something that will do exactly what we want. It would definitely be cool. Best to you and yours! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for the help with the wiki mark up.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure! Glad to help you. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing by proxy

You just encouraged a blocked user to edit by proxy. I don't think that's a good idea. Huon (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon, for your valid concern. Farmbrough had placed a Help me template on his talk page, and I responded via the Help me category. I didn't know at that time that Farmbrough was blocked nor of the intrigues involved. As you may know, I try pretty much to stay "under the radar" and make gnome edits. I figured that he may have been involved with the new user and wanted someone else to thank them so he would not appear patronizing. I didn't realize Farmbrough was blocked until I returned from thanking the new user so as to clear the Help me template. When I pulled up the edit page, that is when I saw the pink slip box. So I responded and closed out the Help me box, because I'd already made the faux pas and, since the proxy edit turned out to be just a show of gratitude to a new editor who had "gone the extra mile", then some good does come of it. I'll try to be more careful in the future, as I really don't care to be involved with the intrigues of the project. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A little more help

Paine Ellsworth, I hope this is kosher (posting on your page), if not, sorry it's my second day on here. I added to my question on my page USER_talk:Jerdmann10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerdmann10 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 1

Hi. Would you be comfortable using the new {{RL}}? Thanks for your support!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that's pretty nifty. When it comes to Notes or References sections, I actually prefer the template, {{Reflist}}, because it has a size benefit over the html tag <references />. The template returns a reference list in smaller font, so it takes up less page space. Of course, you could probably nest the template in place of the html tag in {{RL}}, couldn't you? When it comes to the way it can be used in previews, I don't think it matters if a header is produced that won't actually be saved, anyway, so yes, in that respect, {{RL}} is just as good as the others. Too bad {{rl}} is already used for something else, because it's always a little faster and easier to use the lowercase. Did you ever find out where and why Thumperward merged {{RE}} and then redirected it to {{Reflist}}? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Catting redirs

Hi, I know how much you like categorising redirects - just making sure that you're aware of this TfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, many thanks for this! I use {{R from move}} almost every day. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

move/renaming of Chanson de geste

Hi - I'm a little confused about the (undiscussed) move of "Chanson de geste" to "chansons de geste". In general, the English language wiki uses the singular (WP:SINGULAR) for literary genre terms and also uses initial capitals in article names (c.f. Novel, Short story, Ballad, Romance novel, Thriller (genre), etc.). Shouldn't the article Chanson de geste follow this format? - NYArtsnWords (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, NYArtsnWords. Please forgive me for making what I was certain would be a non-controversial page rename. I consider the chansons de geste to be the artistic works of an old historical "collection" of epic French songs/poems, a fascinating concept because they represent the transition in antiquity of passing down songs by singing to doing so by use of the written word. I'm sorry, I'm rambling. Anyway, my rationale concerning the plural rather than the singular goes along the lines of Aesop's Fables, the anthology The Best American Short Stories, the several Collected Stories, the Web of Stories and so forth. I'm less certain about the lowercase first letter, because on one side of the coin is the lowercase usage within running text, and on the other side of the coin is your strong argument for uppercase first letters. I think you're right about that and will go fix it right now.  Resolved
Are you willing to consider that this is not really a genre, but instead a collection of songs/poems? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth - In French literary studies, the "chanson de geste" is always considered a genre, like the medieval French "roman" (romance), lai, fabliau, etc. The hundred or so existing "chansons de geste" that have come down to us occur in various manuscripts, or (for some) fragments; some were collected together (at a later date), others occur singularly. Describing a work as a "chanson de geste" is equivalent to describing "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" as a Spaghetti Western. It's for this reason that I think the move should be reversed. Best, - NYArtsnWords (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, forgive me then, because I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Just because some call it a genre does not make it a true genre. Even if we fully accept it as a genre it certainly isn't a modern one, which might let it fall into the same class as the Homeric poems, another ancient collection (genre?) that is allowed to be plural. We probably won't resolve this here on my talk page, which is likely not the best place to try. Perhaps a page-move discussion on the article's talk page is the best solution? I am well aware that my stance may not be acceptable to other contributors, and I might be entirely wrong about this; however, if this is very important to you, then perhaps the right thing to do is to see what others think? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 04:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth - I'm afraid I don't understand your notion of "collection". Each "chanson de geste" was composed independently, at different times, by different people, in different places. Unlike with "Homeric poems" or "Aesop's Fables", no literary critic as ever ascribed the 100+ works that were composed over centuries to a single author, nor were they ever published together as a single collection or untied into a single compilation, such as the Karlamagnús saga. Some "chansons de geste" may have been later brought together in some manuscripts, or sometimes grouped (in the manuscripts or in the public's mind) into "cycles" concerning a particular hero or family, but many exist in only one manuscript or are unlinked to larger cycles, and the whole of the surviving chansons de geste in no way constitute, collectively, a song cycle. They are considered a genre by their subject matter (war, noble/vassal relations, battles with Saracens, etc) and by their very different poetic form (the use of laisses rather than rhymed couplets, and frequent use of 10 syllable lines) which distinguish them from the medieval French romances. For this reason, we find quotes in the critical literature such as: "The Chanson de Roland... is one of the finest examples of the genre." (David Coward, A History of French literature: From 'Chanson de geste' to Cinema, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002, 2004, p.8. ISBN 1-4051-1736-2, emphasis mine). It should be noted that the page existed with its original singular title since 2003; furthermore, it seems that most of the interlanguage wiki pages also use the singular in their article titles. Please understand, I don't mean to be prickly or uncivil; but I firmly believe the move was unjustified (based on naming conventions), should have been discussed first, and should be reversed. If you feel more discussion about "genre" is warranted, then it should occur following Wikipedia:Requested moves. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Then, if what you say is true, and I'm certain that it is true, it appears that readers have been misled by this article for many years! The subject of the article and the title of the article must match. If this article is about the "genre", and the genre is named in singular form "Chanson de geste", then the lead should begin by telling readers that the article is about Chanson de geste, a genre of songs from French antiquity. Instead it begins in the lead by giving the reader the idea that the article is about "songs of..." (plural). Is this genre mentioned anywhere in this article by name? By name? The two or three times the word "genre" is mentioned do not count. The genre must be mentioned by name a few times, don't you agree? The singular form is used several times in the article, but always when a single poem is named and never to denote the name of the "genre". If we want this article to be about a genre of poems, then it needs to stop misleading readers.
I'm not fully convinced, though. There seems to me to be enough diversity in the songs to possibly warrant some of them being sorted into a different genre, maybe more than one different genre? It may very well be a distortion of the meaning of the term "genre" to sort all of these songs into just one. In any case, I am fully willing to participate in any discussion that you begin on the article's talk page in regard to a page-move reversal. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that changing the intro paragraph on the article from the plural to the singular in the way you describe would have been a good and easy fix for the problems you raise. As for the notion of "genre", I would tend to follow what I see as the consensus of the published critical work on medieval French literature in this matter (would you also change Saga to Sagas? Fabliau to Fabliaux? etc.), but if you find published reliable sources that call that notion of the "chanson de geste" as a genre into question, then they should obviously be included in the article. The most important thing always is to make articles better through references and a neutral point of view. I've put in a Request for move (see the Chanson de geste talk page). NYArtsnWords (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Got it, and thank you! Renaming the page was also effortless, and at the very least will, I believe, result in a much-improved article based upon whatever consensus results from your move request. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
PS. All I have seen in several web searches is a reference to these songs as part of a "genre". The genre itself is never actually named, and every description and definition I have seen that refers to a singular "chanson de geste" merely describes it as a French epic poem or song. Nowhere have I found the singular form, "chanson de geste" referred to as the name of the genre. (PS added by – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!)

I am very sorry to have put you through this, NYArtsnWords, and I greatly appreciate the way you handled this rename error on my part. I have placed {{db-move}} on the redirect at Chanson de geste and will hopefully have the page moved back to what it should be as quickly as possible. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Paine Ellsworth. As I imagine you know all too well, part of the strangeness of editing the wiki is the slow work at consensus building, and, for myself, I always find that the rational, civil, discussions help me think through my own positions and ideas. Also, in the end it will bring some new edits to the CdG page, making for a better article. Best, NYArtsnWords (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_9&oldid=1151015643"