User talk: Paine Ellsworth


'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'

I am not an administrator. Wouldn't mind being one, although don't really want to be. Wouldn't mind being an admin because I deeply respect many admins and have been helped by them numerous, countless times over the years. I also respect the community vettings at RfA that show the ultimate trust of an editor. Don't really want to be an admin because I guess I'm just too old to go through that sometimes grueling community vetting.

So I shall remain a non-admin caught between two worlds... the world of the admins, which means I'm expected not to close controversial discussions (which I sometimes do, sometimes don't), and the world of less experienced editors who don't want me to close the "easy" discussions (which I also sometimes do, sometimes don't), and save those for them. If it's in the backlog, then it's fair game!

Anyway, if you have come to ask about one of my RfC, RM, MRV or other discussion closures, you are more than welcome! I am prone to change a decision when I'm asked to do so. Please be explicit about your intentions and do not beat around the bush. Thank you for your deeply respected concerns!

'they help us keep our minds sharp!'





Just registered?


    Learn quickly how to journey through the Wikipedia project!



Discussions and notifications...collapsedclick [show] to open them, then click the section title in the Table of Contents above
The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Gerda, and thanks also for being so patient with me! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 09:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I once said "the one thing I learned here is patience" but am not aware of having needed it regarding you ;) - Operas: I wanted infoboxes, not side navboxes, and look at this only seven years later ;) - I will not vote for arb candidates who think that was a success of arbcom, - just common sense prevailed (but when you speak up for that sense you show battleground behaviour and need to be restricted, according to some arbs back then) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
By comparison, we see the one editor in the RM who suggested withdrawal. That editor used the same type of adjective in their previous rationale, called it a "selective list". And that editor was the first to firmly oppose "select operas" and the only one to suggest it "wastes the community's time". I seldom open RMs, and when I do open one I truly believe in its rightness. I was wrong this time, however, and your patience was and is appreciated! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1926 Akron football team

Hi, I realize you were using a script for the page moves at Talk:1920 University of Akron football team, so it was likely tricky to change only one of the proposed moves, but can you confirm that there was consensus in that discussion to move 1926 Akron football team to 1926 University of Akron football team instead of 1926 Akron Zippers football team, as I suggested? Based on the sources I found from newspapers in that year, it appears the WP:COMMONNAME for the 1926 squad was "Zippers" instead of the default "University of Akron" team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

To Eagles 24/7: now that I reread the survey and the rationales of Cbl62 and yourself, I see good reason for the 1926 University team to go by the common name of "Zippers". So that article has been renamed. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Fbdave – courtesy ping to the RM's nom. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

Edit request

Hi. Sorry to bother you. Apparently nobody is interested in making my edit request, although no specific objection was raised against it. Would you mind adding that sentence to article. I think it's relevant, neutral and pertinent to article. As usual, thanks a lot.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Could you take a look at my last edit request? Thank you very much.--Watchlonly (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Other edit requests (not mine)

Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching#Arrests of lynching suspects

Talk:Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People#Controversy-Avi Dichter misquoted

As usual, thank you very much--Watchlonly (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you so much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 20:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit requests

Hi. In light of the recent changes regarding Arab countries that joined the Abraham accords and established diplomatic relations with Israel, I've made three edit requests in different articles to reflect the new situation:

Talk:Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Talk:History of Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Thank you very much. Have a great week.--Watchlonly (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

To Watchlonly: just letting you know that I have read the above and am looking them over. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
To Watchlonly: Been very busy offline, so sorry, and I see that your edits were covered, so congratulations! and Best Wishes for the holidays! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR

To 245CMR: thank you very much! and we wish the Best of Everything to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Paine Ellsworth!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

Jerm (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you very much, Jerm, and Best of Everything to You and Yours this holiday season! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Two edit requests

Could you take a look at this and this? Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To Watchlonly: see these have been done by other editors. Are you happy with the outcomes? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you.--Watchlonly (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

Khtsaberd/Çaylaqqala move discussion closure

Hey! I hope you looked carefully at all the arguments on the move discussion on Talk:Çaylaqqala, I've linked a previous relevant discussion in the text where an admin was consulted regarding the issue, and there has also been an issue with canvassing with regard to the move request and other connected ones: []. The recent move discussion for the connected (part of the same previous NK holdout pocket) town of Hin Tagher is also relevant for this case.

While an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh may be necessary in the end as has been suggested, most of the opposing arguments in the discussion are not based on referring to Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME in order to make their case but are partisan in nature, and so to argue that consensus as Wikipedia guidelines define it (Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.) has been achieved as you've written, is a bit problematic in my view - while it perhaps could be said that there is a lack of clear consensus or that a standard move request is problematic considering the contentious nature of the issue and that an RfC for a naming convention is needed. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

To AntonSamuel: yes, it appears that you are correct that a naming convention, i.e. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Azerbaijan), for related articles should be sought by use of a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion. What I saw in this particular RM was mostly implied disagreement and opposition to your COMMONNAME rationale. Special attention will need to be paid to potential canvassing in the RfC. Until a more solid naming convention is in place, RMs such as this one will remain contentious, sometimes successful and sometimes not. If there is any particular action that you want me to take, just let me know, and please be clear and specific. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Would you perhaps consider consulting an administrator about this particular move closure? The closure and its description: "Not moved per consensus seen below" - that there would be a consensus against the proposal, is a bit problematic in my view considering how Wikipedia guidelines and policy defines consensus - the majority of the input wasn't argumentation referring to Wikipedia guidelines regarding article names such as WP:AT/WP:COMMONNAME, and the issue with canvassing for this and other connected move requests for Nagorno-Karabakh localities should be taken into regard as well in my view. As a result of the move closure, the current situation for the two villages in the former hold out pocket in the Hadrut area is also a bit inconsistent, with "Hin Tagher" having been renamed to its common name while Khtsaberd (Çaylaqqala) hasn't been. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
To AntonSamuel: would be happy to seek the guidance of admin Andrewa, who is perhaps better informed in regard to these articles in question. Andrewa, perhaps you could shed light on the highest and best way forward? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting! In summary I support the close.
I think there is no doubt that not moved was the correct close. There was certainly no consensus to move, and no prospect of achieving one, and so no point relisting. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here. The only issue seems to be, is there consensus not to move?
It is extremely messy. Most of the argument concerns the military position, and should be discarded. There is no appeal to wp:IAR, and so that argument cannot be taken into account in assessing this consensus. There is evidence of disruption, specifically canvassing.
It is a great pity that the non-arguments were not addressed as such when raised before the RM, at Talk:Çaylaqqala#Control of course, or at Talk:Hin Tagher which is linked above. But that is water under the bridge. It shows what we are up against. The previous RM at Talk:Karakend, also linked above, was closed by myself as no consensus, with a great deal of thought, comment, and subsequent discussion. But in hindsight that did not do anything to address this. The position has subsequently deteriorated. There is no evidence of any increased awareness of Wikipedia policy on the matter, or even that some participants have bothered to read the article naming policy. If they have done so they have chosen to simply ignore it.
It is messy whatever we do, and a courageous close, and whether or not there are grounds for challenging the assessment of consensus, I think there is absolutely no reason to do so. Any reversal is in any case clearly against the interests of Wikipedia in my opinion. I recommend to all interested parties my essay the Wikipedia creed if in any doubt how I am coming to this conclusion, and hope that helps. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Thanks for the feedback! Pinging some more administrators: @Rosguill: @Ymblanter: @El C: My main problem with the outcome of this debate is that I believe that I've presented pretty clear evidence or at least strong indication regarding the common name of the village - however, the opposing arguments largely weren't arguing with regard to Wikipedia guidelines, and canvassing has also been an issue that has affected the debate. So, if this is the situation we're in, that a move request can be stalled and overturned by procedural issues and optics so easily - I would argue that these debates are then pretty vulnerable to WP:FILIBUSTER/Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, not adhering to the purpose of Wikipedia and its guidelines. What do you guys think is the best way to move forward? I am committed to try to see to it that these articles are named according to their common names as much as possible - is the option of an RfC for a naming convention for Nagorno-Karabakh the only viable and legitimate option? I don't think I'll personally try to initiate further move requests if the outcome of this debate will be replicated en masse again. AntonSamuel (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, I don't really have much of import to add. The close seems to have been the right call, though as far as closing summaries go, it isn't really one or is basically just half of one — merely noting the outcome per se. isn't what we expect in closing summaries. There has to be more. Anyway, there also appears to have been some canvassing, which is unfortunate, but it looks unlikely that things would have turned the other way absent that (I estimate). As for arguing the finer points of whether this request should have been closed as consensus against or, failing that, merely as no consensus — my sense is that this probably isn't a worthwhile exercise. El_C 01:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
AntonSamuel I suggest you read Wikipedia:Admin shopping, noting that it is a policy and that most (hopefully all) admins will be familiar with it. Andrewa (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Andrewa: I'm sorry if I gave a bad impression by tagging multiple administrators, my intention wasn't to attempt to overrule or go above anybody's head - I'll keep WP:ADMINSHOP in mind in the future. At this point, I'm most of all just looking for feedback on how to proceed from here, so I thought it might be helpful to get input from the admins that I've interacted with before regarding this and related issues. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
To AntonSamuel: just to let you know that it's all good. Actually, I'm honored that you would come to my talk page about this. I sincerely thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia and hope that you and yours have a Happy and Prosperous New Year in 2021! Happy New Year to all! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I'm happy to hear that and I wish you a Happy New Year too! AntonSamuel (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
AntonSamuel I'd like to echo Paine's all good. I recognise that you are trying exceptionally hard to do the right thing. See WP:creed#bold and we need more like you. Andrewa (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Thanks a lot! I'm glad to hear that you appreciate my efforts. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Paine Ellsworth!

Happy New Year!

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



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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

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

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

Possible disruption, WP:Get the point

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

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

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

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

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

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

Research notes:

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

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

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

Next: Notifications

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

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

"Human beings are mostly H2O"

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

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

Çaylaqqala => Khtsaberd

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


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

Initiated type

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson template doc page

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

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

Vice Presidents

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

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

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith
Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


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

A bug in Template:Infobox software...

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of John Fetterman (disambiguation)

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

Pointless disambiguation page.

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

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

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

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

Talk:Drum stick#Requested move 16 March 2021

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

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

Whoops!

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

It's my pleasure! Paine  

Deprecated?

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

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

Horowitz family

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

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

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

AlexandriaHappyme22RexxS

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration


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

Re: Infobox musical artist

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

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

Audacy

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

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

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Redirects from molecular formulas

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

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

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

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

Second opinion on a move close

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you revert the move?

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

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

Nomination for merger of Template:R to historic name

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

EnchanterCarlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration


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

I failed to tag you

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

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

"Template:R case" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

So, about rcats

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

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

Relisted Early European modern humans

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

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

Botched move proposal

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

AshleyyoursmileLess Unless
HusondMattWadeMJCdetroitCariocaVague RantKingboykThunderboltzGwen GaleAniMateSlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration


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

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

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

The key results were:

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

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

Looking ahead

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

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

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

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

TC template

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration


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

Thank you for participating in my RFA


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

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

Participation in a signpost interview


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

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

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

The Signpost: 25 July 2021


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


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

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


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