User talk:Paine Ellsworth

Perpetually Yours!
Taking just a bit of aW i k i b r e a Kfor a week or two –
I'll check in once in awhile –
provided I don't drop out the west end of an eastbound tiger!

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

Thank you for your contributions toWikipedia– its articles, redirects, templates –allyour improvements, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable life – both on and offJimbo'samazing reference work!

W i kI Pe d i AR O C K S!

'BE a member of the Wikipedia family!'

Gentle reminder... this is my talk page, where you and I may get to know each other better. Thank you for coming here, and thanks beyond words for your interest in and your contributions to this encyclopedia project!Offline and other online interests sometimes keep me very busy, and that's when I'm slow to respond to echo noties, my talk page and emails. Do me a favor, please forgive me, and again, thank you for being here!Paine Ellsworth

'Wikipediais a community effort ofstaggeringproportions!'

The Closer:

non-admin reveal

Disclosure: I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. I very much respect admins and have been helped by them many, many times over the years. I also respect the community vettings atRfAthat often show the ultimate community respect and trust of an editor.

I shall likely remain a non-admin doing the best I can to enjoy discussions with other editors. I sometimes participate, sometimes help with disagreements and sometimes close discussions when needed. I am no stranger to closing contentious discussions about controversial subjects. I sometimes close the easy talks, too, because if it's in the backlog, then it's fair game!

Remember that WP is not a democracy, so discussions are not just a vote. The key factors in all good discussion closures are thearguments written by concerned editors, policy-based rationales,which count most toward an acceptable decision and closure.

Anyway, if you have come to ask about one of myRfC,RM,MRVor other discussion closures, you are very welcome here!I am usually inclined to reopen a discussion if the outcome was "no consensus" andwhen I amspecificallyandintentionallyasked to do so!(Not so much if I found a consensus– that doesn't mean I cannot be persuaded with a good, sound argument.) Please be very clear about your intentions and do not beat around the bush. That just means please don't expect me to read your mind; I have enough trouble reading my own mind sometimes. Thank you beyond words for your deeply respected concerns!–Paine

Editing WP helps me to continue learning, so one vital, very important role forWikipediaand some other websites on the Internet is...

'to help us keep our minds sharp!'

'Think outside it !'

* my archives *

1·2·3·4·5·6·7·8·9·10·11·12·13·14·15·16·17·18·19·20·21·22·23·24·25·26·27·28

The Signpost
/years
Visual Editor

1·2

'PHILOSOPHIE!'

Recently registered?

Learn quicklyhow editors journey thruthis awe-inspiring reference work!(and theprojectthat builds it!)

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

The following are closed discussions.Please do not modify them.Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.⸎

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee electionsis now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible usersare allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committeeis the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans,editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policydescribes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidatesand submit your choices on thevoting page.If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}}to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery(talk)00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt(2talk)11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much,Gerda!P.I. Ellsworth ,ed.^{put'er there}01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post move review summary

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

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

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

Post move review summary thoughts aboutWikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Fairfield Metro station:Fairfield Metro station(RM) – overturned: I am compelled to wonder about how to go forward. What happened here is that a local consensus at RM was not sufficient to override theWP:NAMECHANGESarticle title policy, and yet another local consensus at MRV did override that policy and had the article moved to the new "official" namebeforeit has become theWP:COMMONNAMEas prescribed by the NAMECHANGES section of the policy. Was I not using "common sense", as at least one editor at MRV suggested? Well, that's done and in the past, so my question now must be: how should we go forward?; Should we ignore the plural "sources" that the NAMECHANGES policy requires? That policy requires "sources" that use the new name "routinely". When I closed that move request, there had been no – zero – independent sources given that used the new name routinely. There were several primary sources that noted the name change, and there were some secondary sourcesbeforethe name change that announced there would be an expected name change, but there were no independent, secondary sources foundafterthe name change that used the new nameroutinely.After I closed the RM, an editor was able to produce one independent source,patch.com,published the same day, 1 July 2024, that I closed the RM, that used the new name routinely. One independent, secondary source. To date, that is the only independent source that uses the new name routinely. Our policy says "sources". I've run into editors who think there should be 10 or 12 good, independent, secondary sources that use the new name routinely before that new name becomes the common name. In the past, I've been happy with 3 or 4 of those sources. Now I just don't know. The policy isn't specific as to the number of those sources needed, it just says "sources" – plural, more than one. Yet in this case, a page was moved to a new, official name based upon only one independent source that used the new name routinely.; I should also note my respect forWP:IAR,but I've always thought that to ignore a policy or guideline, and the community agreements that built them, requiresvery good reason.Nobody, not in the RM nor in the MRV, nobody gave a good reason to ignore the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Yet they did ignore it. So...; I don't know how we should go forward with move requests that have proposed a title change to a new, official name when there are no independent sources, or only one source, that uses the new name routinely, when there should be at the very least two "sources" as prescribed by the NAMECHANGES article title policy. Can anyone see this dilemma clearly and give me guidance as to how we should go forward?; After rereading[this other policy]about primary and secondary sources, maybe I was being too restrictive about using specifically secondary sources that used the new name routinely? I'm still at a loss to understand how to go forward. We are still supposed to give "due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions",^[1]aren't we?; One last thought... there is no way I would take this to the next level that would follow a MRV decision with which I disagree. Not my style. Worst comes to worst, I will just refrain from closing this type of RM and hope that whoever does close them will do a better job than I have done.P.I. Ellsworth ,ed.^{put'er there}00:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^WP:RMCIDC

"Wikipedia:Redirect assimilation"listed atRedirects for discussion

The redirectWikipedia:Redirect assimilationhas been listed atredirects for discussionto determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines.Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § Wikipedia:Redirect assimilationuntil a consensus is reached.Trovatore(talk)03:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:ASSIMILATION"listed atRedirects for discussion

The redirectWP:ASSIMILATIONhas been listed atredirects for discussionto determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines.Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § WP:ASSIMILATIONuntil a consensus is reached.Trovatore(talk)03:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion ofTemplate:Editnotices/Page/Life Speaks to Me

Template:Editnotices/Page/Life Speaks to Mehas beennominated for deletion.You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page.–Jonesey95(talk)08:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] WP:RMCIDC

[1]