This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Interface administrator changes
Category:The House of the Dead character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your work helping out at WP:ANRFC! — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC) |
Hello Ellsworth!
I just wanted to inform you that I created the Doppelgänger account
P.I. Ellsworth
for you so that malicious impersonators can't.
Cheers, QuickQuokka [ talk • contribs 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).
|
|
[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to
note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
When you put a second RM on hold while the first is ongoing, do you normally reopen it? I would think it could be treated as procedurally closed. Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 19 July 2023_2 has gotten quite confusing since (though not necessarily because) you reopened it on August 21. I tried making it clearer while relisting it yesterday, but seem to have only made it worse. Then I tried washing my hands of it by removing most of my changes -- and just ended up having them restored by a roving admin (which I suppose is fine with me). SilverLocust 💬 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Paine; thanks again for all the help. If you don't mind, I'll pick your brain off the article talk page. I don't know my way around RM as well as you do, as I've spent most of my "wiki career" around the FA pages. The idea that we can't resolve the issues in one (RFC-style) discussion, where editors can "pick an option" seems very bureaucratic; I understand why that's the case, considering the parts of the process that are automated, but is there not a more sensible way to do this without having to conduct multiple RM discussions? There's one set of editors determined that "coup" is the way to go (and based on my preliminary look at sources, there's not a case there, so I fear that will mean a second RM), and another set willing to look at the sources and come up with an alternate name, so must that really mean two different RMs, when there have already been seven? Or is it possible, within one RM, regardless of how it is initially framed, to suggest alternatives? It would be so much more expedient to put the whole lot up for one RFC. Are you sure that if we positioned the whole thing as an RFC, well-structured, that it would be defacto closed? Is it worth inquiring at WP:AN? This is so frustrating ... thanks for any help you can offer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
{{
subst:requested move}}
template is very flexible, and is designed to handle all of the common rename situations. It may be used when several renames are to be discussed together, see
WP:RMPM. It may also be used where one or more pages are to be moved, but there is more than one possibility for the new name - in these cases you would leave the |new1=
, |new2=
(etc.) parameters blank. Other than category moves (handled by
WP:CFR), I can't think of any situations where the
WP:RM process can't handle a move request through {{
subst:requested move}}
. In short:
WP:RFC is never appropriate for a page move. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 07:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
It may also be used where one or more pages are to be moved, but there is more than one possibility for the new name - in these cases you would leave theTemplate:Requested move offers several examples for different scenarios. If you simply want an open discussion for a single page where you start out with no suggestions but intend that people propose one, use e.g.|new1=
,|new2=
(etc.) parameters blank.
{{
subst:Requested move|reason=The current name is inappropriate because ...}}
or similar. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 17:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
In case you don't get the ping (I don't trust those thingies :) Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Request for independent feedback on Requested move draft. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen ( Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Good day to you. The first template in this diff seems to be substituted. Can you remember which template it is, and could it be unsubsted? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth. Is there a reason/policy that doesn't allow two proposed moves at the same time? This should be accessible, no? It was something I discussed on @ Amakuru talk page [2] since they moved back to the current article title, so I decided to propose the Move based on arguments I've already presented on earlier talk discussion.
Also looks like bot issue should be fixed since someone archived the discussion [3] as it's already the current title. - Kevo327 ( talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your efforts at diplomacy on Packet boat. Gjs238 ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
Template:Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 17:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Template:Akron Zips football navbox/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 22:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).
|
|
Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
The redirect for "7 October 2023" was put up for discussion but seems to meet criteria for closure and keeping the redirect per WP:SILENCE. This was a major event and redirects for "October 7, 2023" already exist so there is no reason for "7 October 2023" not to be a redirect as well. How do I close out this template? Undescribed ( talk) 03:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
The redirect Template:R from native name has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 4 § Template:R from native name until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
" Delete to make way for page move" – The issue was never intended to be solved this way. Haven't you seen the problem at Deleted to make way for page move, which is up for deletion? I'm working on a bot upgrade which will more clearly specify how these cases should be handled. – wbm1058 ( talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles. Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you need to check your spam folder, this time :) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Your signature in this edit shows a date that's several days off from when it was posted. Thought I should tell you so you could sort out whatever the problem is. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 08:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Best wishes and I hope you weather the storm. Lots of us believe in your basic soundness. Unfortunately not a single one of us is without fault. Accept that all your scabs will be pulled/picked at this week. Remember that accepting responsibility for your actions is a pre-requisite for trust so don't feel as if you must look in the right all the time. BusterD ( talk) 23:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry it's turned out like this, and I do hope you won't let it demoralise you in any way. What you are doing on Wikipedia is just fine, and never believe otherwise. That said, I don't see much point in letting this continue further (except masochism?) so feel free to withdraw at ant time — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For stepping up at RfA. Sorry this is not going in the right direction. FWIW I am deeply disappointed and think this is a community "own goal." Your record of contributions here are off the hook. Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
I wanted to take the invitation to come to your talk page. I feel I couldn't elaborate on the RfA and even if I did it would seem like a pile-on and I didn't want that. You are an amazing editor and I appreciate anyone that has experienced life as you have. I can respect you voicing your philosophies and I took no issue with that. I just couldn't get past the move discussion that has been referenced partly because I have not seen an acknowledgement of what mistakes you think you made, only that you made them. As an American Indian and a descendant of those who faced genocide I couldn't fathom how an experienced editor would compare their position in a discussion with what my ancestors experienced or in trying to justify their own position would tell other editors, some Native, that Native American's committed genocide too. As if that justified anything even if it were true. I tried to reason it as comments made in the heat of the moment but there was no follow up. That pained me, not offended, pained. I'm not offended even now. But my heart did hurt. It hurt even more because with all your experience and everything I know you must have went through in life you could be such a light bringer. You have done so much good in the encyclopedia and you can have such a positive impact on this community. I, like you, try to bring a little light into the world, though I'm not as experienced as you, and I so appreciate this Wikipedia project and all the LifeSong's I meet during my journey here. I don't want to take up more of your time or make this more than what it is. I just felt like you deserved more of an answer than I felt I could share on the RfA. -- ARose Wolf 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Paine! I'm sorry it didn't work out. I hope you know you and your work are very much valued here; the fact the RfA didn't succeed doesn't mean anything but that the community thought admin tools weren't a good fit. It really means literally nothing more than that. Valereee ( talk) 13:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Arghh!!! Can't eat, can't sleep (just kidding:>). Really do want to stress that there was no underlying nor hidden agenda on my part. For many years editors have asked me to rerun and I turned them down. Even turned Martin down at first when he asked me back in June. But I gave it a lot of thought, because Martin was one of the first admins to help me with edits when I first registered, and I've revered him ever since. So I finally thought I'd give it another go. All I had in mind was that I wanted to be like him and help people so much more as an admin than as a non-admin. That truly was my only agenda. The community's loud, resounding "no" with various eye-opening arguments will not go unheeded. I will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come. Thank all those who found the time to participate, especially the questioners and supporters. We still have a lot for which to be thankful, and lots of time coming up to be with our loved ones this holiday season. Many thanks! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
Sometimes, an RfA attracts the pile-on opposers, many of whom have never interacted with the candidate (oppose-because-I-can; oppose-because-all-admins-are-evil; oppose-just-because-somebody-else-opposed). It's not the end of the world, just continue to do what you do best. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
No templates, but thank you for offering to be an admin, and kudos for your gumption in sticking it out so long and your good grace in your withdrawal statement and in your statement above. Yngvadottir ( talk) 23:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth: You have always been a reasonable, helpful editor in the template space, even when I have made mistakes (in editing or reading) and you have had to tidy up for me or set me straight. As someone who would also not be viewed as fit for the mop by the community (my primary self-perceived flaws are that I am too hasty sometimes, impatient with bureaucracy, and completely unable to cope calmly with idiots), I look forward to interacting with you on template talk pages for many years to come. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
you say you "will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come". I wouldn't spend too much time on it myself, and I definitely wouldn't let it change who I am in any way.Calibration and self-reflection can be very useful sometimes. As long as one's ego can handle it. And I think Paine has demonstrated without a doubt that they are made of tough stuff :) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays 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 the Holidays and New Year's 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hello Paine Ellsworth: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Qwerfjkl talk 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
— Qwerfjkl talk 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Paine Ellsworth! I hope you had a great Christmas and I wish you a safe, healthy, and fun News Years holiday as well. I was trekking through RFA and saw your recent application, which closed early do to your withdrawal. I know disheartening it can be after walking away from such an open and stressful event, especially when it closed with so much opposition. I highly encourage you to not to let it get to you personally; RFA is not an easy horse to tame. Trust me, I know...... lol
Obviously, your recent RFA discussion contains plenty of opposition that I'm sure feels quite disheartening to look at... but, I'm sure you know that it also contains a plethora of useful, fair, honest, and direct feedback for you to read and reflect upon (and I of course urge you to take plenty of time to do that). Back when I was in college, someone told me a great saying that I still use often to this day. When you're in a place where a mix of good and not-so-good things exist together, the best thing to do is take the meat... and leave the bones... Give yourself the opportunity and the time to go through the opposition so that you can use them to help make you a better contributor moving forward, but don't let yourself "get stuck in the mud" where all you see is discouragement. Take the meat, and leave the bones....
It sounds like you decided to run for RFA again after reading words of encouragement from someone you trust and look up to. One thing to remember is this: Compared to a typical account on Wikipedia, having the admin toolset only grants you with... maybe, and I mean maybe 5% more permissions and abilities that you didn't have before. All of the things that you said you wanted to do in regards to helping users and improving the project doesn't require the admin toolset at all in order to accomplish. The admin toolset is a small drop in the bucket compared to the permissions and abilities you already have. ;-) Just because one is an administrator on this project absolutely does not mean that they inherently have a high amount of community respect or trust. There are many editors here who I genuinely believe would make great administrators, and (on the other side) there are a convincing small handful of administrators that often leave me sitting there wondering how in the living hell they were able to obtain the toolset, let alone keep them for as long as they have.
Community respect doesn't come from being able to hold hats and user rights, nor does it come from being able to perform tasks that most other users can't because of their permissions (or lack thereof). In fact, it could be seen by others as flaunting your user rights and the things that you can do that they can't... That definitely doesn't help with gaining community respect if you're viewed as someone who does that. ;-) If you want to truly earn and maintain a high level of community respect, it's accomplished over time as a result of your actions. Exmaples? How do you respond when a new user asks you for help? If users come at you with an angry attitude and demeanor, how do you respond and act as a result? If you make a mistake, how much time and care do you give to try and make it right? You don't have to be a perfect editor to gain that respect either... It's how you make things right and how you fix mistakes that show good character.
Story time: I was once working with a relatively proficient but relatively new editor some time ago. One day, after receiving a lot of criticism and nit-picky feedback about their edits, this user let their patience drain to the absolute bottom... And they went and absolutely lost it with those editors giving them feedback. This user just went off at them like a complete hot-head. Respect, at first, would be easy for someone to lose in this situation, but what happened next is where my respect for the user went from pretty much 0 to as high of a number that I could give. 15-20 minutes later, the user went to each editor that they were uncivil to and apologized to them on their user talk pages. They responded to the feedback directly, and turned the entire dynamic from being a situation where the user was behaving inappropriately to having positive conversations with these editors about how to take advantage of opportunities to apply the feedback into their future edits. My jaw dropped, and I was 100% proud of them for ultimately doing the right thing.
I hope this message brought you some encouragement, and helped you to remember that you already have the ability to do great things, and earn the respect of your peers on this project. And heck, maybe after you've accomplished this and after a few years go by, you might find yourself being asked to try running again... ;-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for braving the gauntlet. I've always found your comments and actions thoughtful and helpful and motivated solely towards improving the encyclopedia, irrespective whether I agreed with you or not (and mostly, I did). I always thought I'd never survive an Rfa, and am in awe of those who put themselves out there; so kudos for that—it must be withering. In any case, you, we, have tons to contribute to the encyclopedia, so back in the saddle: let's get back to work! (And, feel free to disagree with me anytime you like, or even every time; won't change my opinion one bit.) Keep on keepin' on! Mathglot ( talk) 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Template:Miss Universe 2004 delegates/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 09:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
FYI your edit broke: Serbia. NM 05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Amakuru (
talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Amakuru ( talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1194108616 does literally nothing other than replacing one redirect with another. Why do it? Primefac ( talk) 09:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Paine, can you please point me to the discussion which resulted in your recent change to this template. FWIW, I have being having a discussion Village Pump and, before that, at Aaron Lui's talk page.
Thanks for your help. Richhoncho ( talk) 14:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this - I hadn't realised that I'd broken the bot! All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 02:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
For what it's worth, I would've voted strong support. I've long observed your quality work in the redirect-space and want you to know you are an appreciated member of this community. -- œ ™ 00:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Paine Ellsworth: Can you please move Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League user templates to Category:Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League user templates. This league changed its name this year. I also was the one who created this category. Catfurball ( talk) 20:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Hi Paine,
I recently requested an addition to the designations template, another admin said it was done, but it is not on the list and I still cannot use it in infoboxes. It is the most recent request on the talk page. Can you review it? Thanks. Daftation 🗩 🖉 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect T:R from has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § T:R from until a consensus is reached. Queen of Hearts 04:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Paine Ellsworth, I appreciate you closing the discussion on moving the 737 groundings title. There was clearly not consensus to move it. There also doesn't appear to be consensus for a split, although there is more support. Are there any next steps you might suggest to get some additional ideas? I can't reconcile how we're supposed to keep the 2019 groundings as the primary topic without changing the title. Keeping the page title as related to all groundings diverges from Wikipedia's well established format of covering airline defects under the accident aircraft's page. I'm just at a loss of how to move forward and would appreciate any input you can offer. Thanks!! Dw31415 ( talk) 14:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey Paine, would you be open to expanding upon your close of the RM on Talk:Gender-critical feminism? Not only was this a particularly contentious and lengthy move request, there was also several issues surrounding off-wiki canvassing to it. In these circumstances, I believe it would be helpful if you could more descriptive than a single sentence that there was no consensus. Per WP:RMCIDC and WP:DETCON it would be extremely helpful if you could elaborate on how you evaluated the relative strengths of the arguments for and against the move, assigned weight to them, all viewed through the lens of the relevant polices and guidelines. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Paine, can you elaborate on why you consider this 15 support-8 oppose move request to be "no consensus"? The sole P&G-based argument cited by those opposing was that MOS:TIES overrides COMMONALITY, however, supporters pointed out that a) there is no indication that TIES "overrides" any other section of guidance, especially given that other sections specifically inform on how to use TIES; b) TIES says to use the formal national variety of English, and by literally every measure assessed the predominant national variety overwhelmingly prefers "European" to "pakeha"; c) COMMONALITY has the general guidance to use vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable
, and explicitly addresses determining whether or not a national variety of English should be used with the instructions Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles
and When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred
.
Given (b) and the fact that opposers didn't even offer any evidence that "pākehā" was the common term for Europeans, it is completely false to claim The consensus of this discussion is that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English
. It is also plainly false to state WP:COMMONNAME explicitly allows and recommends, in cases where the local English name differs from the globally used one, that the local English common name should prevail
when the exact opposite is true, as stated multiple times in the guidance and quoted in (c).
Additionally, it is completely inappropriate for the closer to lecture editors with arguments that were never raised in the discussion and especially for those arguments to imply editors on one side are contributing to some specific, allegedly racist trend that appears to be entirely your personal opinion. This is unacceptable:
JoelleJay (
talk) 19:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, I would like to express my concern with a certain style of argument that was also raised at the RM at Talk:Ganges, and has come up at NZ-related (and some AU-related) RMs before; namely, I am concerned that we run the risk of creating tiers of national variants of English when it comes to the application of the "use English" policy. Such a practice would be a violation of WP:NPOV and would hamper our efforts at countering systemic bias.
it seems to me to be a lost cause to argue that this article should be named something other than "Pākehā settlers"; I think it would be more appropriate for you to leave closing this discussion to someone else? BilledMammal ( talk) 23:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
strong feelingsabout this topic, and looking at the broader definition of WP:INVOLVED I think you meet it.
strong feelingsabout the article title, I have no feelings at all about it, which results in the objectivity required to close the RM. And I have not yet expressed any opinion at all about whether or not I'd be willing to reverse my closure, because I have not yet been asked to do so. To grant clarification, I did explain in my closing statement to wit: with fair rebuttals and almost equally strong rationales that are opposed to this page move. And I think that any editor who reads that long and interesting survey and discussion objectively would be hard pressed to find any consensus at all among those strong supportive and almost equally strong unsupportive arguments. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Heya PE. I don't have an opinion on the RM or the close, except that I'm generally grateful to you for your closure work. I wanted to address the "I also relisted the request, and nobody objected at that time. If one can relist, then one can close."
I've participated in many relisted discussions, and relisted a few. I don't think I've every really talked about it with anyone, but my personal experience is that I'd never think to scrutinize the involvedness of a relister. It's a much less attention-grabbing action than closing. Unless your experience differs from mine, I would not recommend leaning, now or in the future, on the suggestion that an unchallenged relist is evidence of uninvolvedness. Would you disagree?
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Interface administrator changes
Category:The House of the Dead character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. QuicoleJR ( talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for your work helping out at WP:ANRFC! — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC) |
Hello Ellsworth!
I just wanted to inform you that I created the Doppelgänger account
P.I. Ellsworth
for you so that malicious impersonators can't.
Cheers, QuickQuokka [ talk • contribs 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).
|
|
[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to
note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
When you put a second RM on hold while the first is ongoing, do you normally reopen it? I would think it could be treated as procedurally closed. Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 19 July 2023_2 has gotten quite confusing since (though not necessarily because) you reopened it on August 21. I tried making it clearer while relisting it yesterday, but seem to have only made it worse. Then I tried washing my hands of it by removing most of my changes -- and just ended up having them restored by a roving admin (which I suppose is fine with me). SilverLocust 💬 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Paine; thanks again for all the help. If you don't mind, I'll pick your brain off the article talk page. I don't know my way around RM as well as you do, as I've spent most of my "wiki career" around the FA pages. The idea that we can't resolve the issues in one (RFC-style) discussion, where editors can "pick an option" seems very bureaucratic; I understand why that's the case, considering the parts of the process that are automated, but is there not a more sensible way to do this without having to conduct multiple RM discussions? There's one set of editors determined that "coup" is the way to go (and based on my preliminary look at sources, there's not a case there, so I fear that will mean a second RM), and another set willing to look at the sources and come up with an alternate name, so must that really mean two different RMs, when there have already been seven? Or is it possible, within one RM, regardless of how it is initially framed, to suggest alternatives? It would be so much more expedient to put the whole lot up for one RFC. Are you sure that if we positioned the whole thing as an RFC, well-structured, that it would be defacto closed? Is it worth inquiring at WP:AN? This is so frustrating ... thanks for any help you can offer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
{{
subst:requested move}}
template is very flexible, and is designed to handle all of the common rename situations. It may be used when several renames are to be discussed together, see
WP:RMPM. It may also be used where one or more pages are to be moved, but there is more than one possibility for the new name - in these cases you would leave the |new1=
, |new2=
(etc.) parameters blank. Other than category moves (handled by
WP:CFR), I can't think of any situations where the
WP:RM process can't handle a move request through {{
subst:requested move}}
. In short:
WP:RFC is never appropriate for a page move. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 07:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
It may also be used where one or more pages are to be moved, but there is more than one possibility for the new name - in these cases you would leave theTemplate:Requested move offers several examples for different scenarios. If you simply want an open discussion for a single page where you start out with no suggestions but intend that people propose one, use e.g.|new1=
,|new2=
(etc.) parameters blank.
{{
subst:Requested move|reason=The current name is inappropriate because ...}}
or similar. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 17:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
In case you don't get the ping (I don't trust those thingies :) Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Request for independent feedback on Requested move draft. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen ( Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Good day to you. The first template in this diff seems to be substituted. Can you remember which template it is, and could it be unsubsted? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth. Is there a reason/policy that doesn't allow two proposed moves at the same time? This should be accessible, no? It was something I discussed on @ Amakuru talk page [2] since they moved back to the current article title, so I decided to propose the Move based on arguments I've already presented on earlier talk discussion.
Also looks like bot issue should be fixed since someone archived the discussion [3] as it's already the current title. - Kevo327 ( talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your efforts at diplomacy on Packet boat. Gjs238 ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
Template:Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 17:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Template:Akron Zips football navbox/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 22:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).
|
|
Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
The redirect for "7 October 2023" was put up for discussion but seems to meet criteria for closure and keeping the redirect per WP:SILENCE. This was a major event and redirects for "October 7, 2023" already exist so there is no reason for "7 October 2023" not to be a redirect as well. How do I close out this template? Undescribed ( talk) 03:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Paine Ellsworth:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
The redirect Template:R from native name has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 4 § Template:R from native name until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy ( talk) 16:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
" Delete to make way for page move" – The issue was never intended to be solved this way. Haven't you seen the problem at Deleted to make way for page move, which is up for deletion? I'm working on a bot upgrade which will more clearly specify how these cases should be handled. – wbm1058 ( talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles. Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you need to check your spam folder, this time :) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Your signature in this edit shows a date that's several days off from when it was posted. Thought I should tell you so you could sort out whatever the problem is. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 08:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Best wishes and I hope you weather the storm. Lots of us believe in your basic soundness. Unfortunately not a single one of us is without fault. Accept that all your scabs will be pulled/picked at this week. Remember that accepting responsibility for your actions is a pre-requisite for trust so don't feel as if you must look in the right all the time. BusterD ( talk) 23:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry it's turned out like this, and I do hope you won't let it demoralise you in any way. What you are doing on Wikipedia is just fine, and never believe otherwise. That said, I don't see much point in letting this continue further (except masochism?) so feel free to withdraw at ant time — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For stepping up at RfA. Sorry this is not going in the right direction. FWIW I am deeply disappointed and think this is a community "own goal." Your record of contributions here are off the hook. Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
I wanted to take the invitation to come to your talk page. I feel I couldn't elaborate on the RfA and even if I did it would seem like a pile-on and I didn't want that. You are an amazing editor and I appreciate anyone that has experienced life as you have. I can respect you voicing your philosophies and I took no issue with that. I just couldn't get past the move discussion that has been referenced partly because I have not seen an acknowledgement of what mistakes you think you made, only that you made them. As an American Indian and a descendant of those who faced genocide I couldn't fathom how an experienced editor would compare their position in a discussion with what my ancestors experienced or in trying to justify their own position would tell other editors, some Native, that Native American's committed genocide too. As if that justified anything even if it were true. I tried to reason it as comments made in the heat of the moment but there was no follow up. That pained me, not offended, pained. I'm not offended even now. But my heart did hurt. It hurt even more because with all your experience and everything I know you must have went through in life you could be such a light bringer. You have done so much good in the encyclopedia and you can have such a positive impact on this community. I, like you, try to bring a little light into the world, though I'm not as experienced as you, and I so appreciate this Wikipedia project and all the LifeSong's I meet during my journey here. I don't want to take up more of your time or make this more than what it is. I just felt like you deserved more of an answer than I felt I could share on the RfA. -- ARose Wolf 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Paine! I'm sorry it didn't work out. I hope you know you and your work are very much valued here; the fact the RfA didn't succeed doesn't mean anything but that the community thought admin tools weren't a good fit. It really means literally nothing more than that. Valereee ( talk) 13:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Arghh!!! Can't eat, can't sleep (just kidding:>). Really do want to stress that there was no underlying nor hidden agenda on my part. For many years editors have asked me to rerun and I turned them down. Even turned Martin down at first when he asked me back in June. But I gave it a lot of thought, because Martin was one of the first admins to help me with edits when I first registered, and I've revered him ever since. So I finally thought I'd give it another go. All I had in mind was that I wanted to be like him and help people so much more as an admin than as a non-admin. That truly was my only agenda. The community's loud, resounding "no" with various eye-opening arguments will not go unheeded. I will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come. Thank all those who found the time to participate, especially the questioners and supporters. We still have a lot for which to be thankful, and lots of time coming up to be with our loved ones this holiday season. Many thanks! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
A beer on me! | ||
Sometimes, an RfA attracts the pile-on opposers, many of whom have never interacted with the candidate (oppose-because-I-can; oppose-because-all-admins-are-evil; oppose-just-because-somebody-else-opposed). It's not the end of the world, just continue to do what you do best. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
No templates, but thank you for offering to be an admin, and kudos for your gumption in sticking it out so long and your good grace in your withdrawal statement and in your statement above. Yngvadottir ( talk) 23:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth: You have always been a reasonable, helpful editor in the template space, even when I have made mistakes (in editing or reading) and you have had to tidy up for me or set me straight. As someone who would also not be viewed as fit for the mop by the community (my primary self-perceived flaws are that I am too hasty sometimes, impatient with bureaucracy, and completely unable to cope calmly with idiots), I look forward to interacting with you on template talk pages for many years to come. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
you say you "will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come". I wouldn't spend too much time on it myself, and I definitely wouldn't let it change who I am in any way.Calibration and self-reflection can be very useful sometimes. As long as one's ego can handle it. And I think Paine has demonstrated without a doubt that they are made of tough stuff :) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays 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 the Holidays and New Year's 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hello Paine Ellsworth: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Qwerfjkl talk 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
— Qwerfjkl talk 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Paine Ellsworth! I hope you had a great Christmas and I wish you a safe, healthy, and fun News Years holiday as well. I was trekking through RFA and saw your recent application, which closed early do to your withdrawal. I know disheartening it can be after walking away from such an open and stressful event, especially when it closed with so much opposition. I highly encourage you to not to let it get to you personally; RFA is not an easy horse to tame. Trust me, I know...... lol
Obviously, your recent RFA discussion contains plenty of opposition that I'm sure feels quite disheartening to look at... but, I'm sure you know that it also contains a plethora of useful, fair, honest, and direct feedback for you to read and reflect upon (and I of course urge you to take plenty of time to do that). Back when I was in college, someone told me a great saying that I still use often to this day. When you're in a place where a mix of good and not-so-good things exist together, the best thing to do is take the meat... and leave the bones... Give yourself the opportunity and the time to go through the opposition so that you can use them to help make you a better contributor moving forward, but don't let yourself "get stuck in the mud" where all you see is discouragement. Take the meat, and leave the bones....
It sounds like you decided to run for RFA again after reading words of encouragement from someone you trust and look up to. One thing to remember is this: Compared to a typical account on Wikipedia, having the admin toolset only grants you with... maybe, and I mean maybe 5% more permissions and abilities that you didn't have before. All of the things that you said you wanted to do in regards to helping users and improving the project doesn't require the admin toolset at all in order to accomplish. The admin toolset is a small drop in the bucket compared to the permissions and abilities you already have. ;-) Just because one is an administrator on this project absolutely does not mean that they inherently have a high amount of community respect or trust. There are many editors here who I genuinely believe would make great administrators, and (on the other side) there are a convincing small handful of administrators that often leave me sitting there wondering how in the living hell they were able to obtain the toolset, let alone keep them for as long as they have.
Community respect doesn't come from being able to hold hats and user rights, nor does it come from being able to perform tasks that most other users can't because of their permissions (or lack thereof). In fact, it could be seen by others as flaunting your user rights and the things that you can do that they can't... That definitely doesn't help with gaining community respect if you're viewed as someone who does that. ;-) If you want to truly earn and maintain a high level of community respect, it's accomplished over time as a result of your actions. Exmaples? How do you respond when a new user asks you for help? If users come at you with an angry attitude and demeanor, how do you respond and act as a result? If you make a mistake, how much time and care do you give to try and make it right? You don't have to be a perfect editor to gain that respect either... It's how you make things right and how you fix mistakes that show good character.
Story time: I was once working with a relatively proficient but relatively new editor some time ago. One day, after receiving a lot of criticism and nit-picky feedback about their edits, this user let their patience drain to the absolute bottom... And they went and absolutely lost it with those editors giving them feedback. This user just went off at them like a complete hot-head. Respect, at first, would be easy for someone to lose in this situation, but what happened next is where my respect for the user went from pretty much 0 to as high of a number that I could give. 15-20 minutes later, the user went to each editor that they were uncivil to and apologized to them on their user talk pages. They responded to the feedback directly, and turned the entire dynamic from being a situation where the user was behaving inappropriately to having positive conversations with these editors about how to take advantage of opportunities to apply the feedback into their future edits. My jaw dropped, and I was 100% proud of them for ultimately doing the right thing.
I hope this message brought you some encouragement, and helped you to remember that you already have the ability to do great things, and earn the respect of your peers on this project. And heck, maybe after you've accomplished this and after a few years go by, you might find yourself being asked to try running again... ;-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for braving the gauntlet. I've always found your comments and actions thoughtful and helpful and motivated solely towards improving the encyclopedia, irrespective whether I agreed with you or not (and mostly, I did). I always thought I'd never survive an Rfa, and am in awe of those who put themselves out there; so kudos for that—it must be withering. In any case, you, we, have tons to contribute to the encyclopedia, so back in the saddle: let's get back to work! (And, feel free to disagree with me anytime you like, or even every time; won't change my opinion one bit.) Keep on keepin' on! Mathglot ( talk) 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Template:Miss Universe 2004 delegates/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 09:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
FYI your edit broke: Serbia. NM 05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Amakuru (
talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Amakuru ( talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1194108616 does literally nothing other than replacing one redirect with another. Why do it? Primefac ( talk) 09:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Paine, can you please point me to the discussion which resulted in your recent change to this template. FWIW, I have being having a discussion Village Pump and, before that, at Aaron Lui's talk page.
Thanks for your help. Richhoncho ( talk) 14:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this - I hadn't realised that I'd broken the bot! All the best, — a smart kitten[ meow 02:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
For what it's worth, I would've voted strong support. I've long observed your quality work in the redirect-space and want you to know you are an appreciated member of this community. -- œ ™ 00:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Paine Ellsworth: Can you please move Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League user templates to Category:Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League user templates. This league changed its name this year. I also was the one who created this category. Catfurball ( talk) 20:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Hi Paine,
I recently requested an addition to the designations template, another admin said it was done, but it is not on the list and I still cannot use it in infoboxes. It is the most recent request on the talk page. Can you review it? Thanks. Daftation 🗩 🖉 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect T:R from has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § T:R from until a consensus is reached. Queen of Hearts 04:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Paine Ellsworth, I appreciate you closing the discussion on moving the 737 groundings title. There was clearly not consensus to move it. There also doesn't appear to be consensus for a split, although there is more support. Are there any next steps you might suggest to get some additional ideas? I can't reconcile how we're supposed to keep the 2019 groundings as the primary topic without changing the title. Keeping the page title as related to all groundings diverges from Wikipedia's well established format of covering airline defects under the accident aircraft's page. I'm just at a loss of how to move forward and would appreciate any input you can offer. Thanks!! Dw31415 ( talk) 14:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey Paine, would you be open to expanding upon your close of the RM on Talk:Gender-critical feminism? Not only was this a particularly contentious and lengthy move request, there was also several issues surrounding off-wiki canvassing to it. In these circumstances, I believe it would be helpful if you could more descriptive than a single sentence that there was no consensus. Per WP:RMCIDC and WP:DETCON it would be extremely helpful if you could elaborate on how you evaluated the relative strengths of the arguments for and against the move, assigned weight to them, all viewed through the lens of the relevant polices and guidelines. Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Paine, can you elaborate on why you consider this 15 support-8 oppose move request to be "no consensus"? The sole P&G-based argument cited by those opposing was that MOS:TIES overrides COMMONALITY, however, supporters pointed out that a) there is no indication that TIES "overrides" any other section of guidance, especially given that other sections specifically inform on how to use TIES; b) TIES says to use the formal national variety of English, and by literally every measure assessed the predominant national variety overwhelmingly prefers "European" to "pakeha"; c) COMMONALITY has the general guidance to use vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable
, and explicitly addresses determining whether or not a national variety of English should be used with the instructions Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles
and When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred
.
Given (b) and the fact that opposers didn't even offer any evidence that "pākehā" was the common term for Europeans, it is completely false to claim The consensus of this discussion is that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English
. It is also plainly false to state WP:COMMONNAME explicitly allows and recommends, in cases where the local English name differs from the globally used one, that the local English common name should prevail
when the exact opposite is true, as stated multiple times in the guidance and quoted in (c).
Additionally, it is completely inappropriate for the closer to lecture editors with arguments that were never raised in the discussion and especially for those arguments to imply editors on one side are contributing to some specific, allegedly racist trend that appears to be entirely your personal opinion. This is unacceptable:
JoelleJay (
talk) 19:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, I would like to express my concern with a certain style of argument that was also raised at the RM at Talk:Ganges, and has come up at NZ-related (and some AU-related) RMs before; namely, I am concerned that we run the risk of creating tiers of national variants of English when it comes to the application of the "use English" policy. Such a practice would be a violation of WP:NPOV and would hamper our efforts at countering systemic bias.
it seems to me to be a lost cause to argue that this article should be named something other than "Pākehā settlers"; I think it would be more appropriate for you to leave closing this discussion to someone else? BilledMammal ( talk) 23:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
strong feelingsabout this topic, and looking at the broader definition of WP:INVOLVED I think you meet it.
strong feelingsabout the article title, I have no feelings at all about it, which results in the objectivity required to close the RM. And I have not yet expressed any opinion at all about whether or not I'd be willing to reverse my closure, because I have not yet been asked to do so. To grant clarification, I did explain in my closing statement to wit: with fair rebuttals and almost equally strong rationales that are opposed to this page move. And I think that any editor who reads that long and interesting survey and discussion objectively would be hard pressed to find any consensus at all among those strong supportive and almost equally strong unsupportive arguments. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Heya PE. I don't have an opinion on the RM or the close, except that I'm generally grateful to you for your closure work. I wanted to address the "I also relisted the request, and nobody objected at that time. If one can relist, then one can close."
I've participated in many relisted discussions, and relisted a few. I don't think I've every really talked about it with anyone, but my personal experience is that I'd never think to scrutinize the involvedness of a relister. It's a much less attention-grabbing action than closing. Unless your experience differs from mine, I would not recommend leaning, now or in the future, on the suggestion that an unchallenged relist is evidence of uninvolvedness. Would you disagree?
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)