User talk: Paine Ellsworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (head).jpg
W I K I P E D I A   R O C K S !
Make it YOURS?
Going somewhere?  Go with all your red animated beating heart!
Anything else just wastes your time, doesn't it?

Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth

Jimbo peeking out

old man standing on top of stepladder in library with very tall shelves

Women lead, men archive
(just kidding; I believe in no division of labor/duty).

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10
11 = VE archive
Past Poms Archive
Please do your best not to pigeonhole people!
Active Wikipedians – click to enlarge

My little corner[edit]

Flashing bulbB Work in progress...


Wikipedia is a magic quilt that soars over a world of imagination without end! See also: [1]

1721 Tales 100.jpg
Main articles: Main page and History of Wikipedia
See also Wikipedia in the media

Oh! what a tangled web we weave
Whene'er we serve as Wikipedians!

Fact is, when you have opened and closed at least a dozen browser tabs or windows while you edit this encyclopedia, then you must be doing something right!


Follow the bouncing

You don't get no respect?[edit]

uhm, guess I got carried away... just a little bit...

Paine's Favorite Poetry[edit]

O camerado close! O you and me at last, and us two only.
O a word to clear one's path ahead endlessly!
O something ecstatic and undemonstrable! O music wild!
O now I triumph—and you shall also;
O hand in hand—O wholesome pleasure—O one more desirer and lover!
O to haste firm holding—to haste, haste on with me.

  – Walt WhitmanStarting from Paumanok, verse 19.

Paine's Own...
User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Poms
  – Paine Ellsworth

Countering systemic bias (CSB)[edit]

Flashing bulbBanimated heartbeat

WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
This project creates new articles and improves neglected ones.

Review and Improve: Origin of AIDS – continue investigation!

Vandal info[edit]

Herostratus defcon maritime 3.jpg

Gale warning. (Moderate to high level of vandalism.)

117/5.2 HG22:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC) change

Talk page search code[edit]

Flashing bulbB Copy and paste the following code to your talk page edit window...

prefix=User talk:(your exact Username here)
searchbuttonlabel=Search (your Username or a nickname here) Talk page and Archives

and on your talk page that code will render...

As an example, my code looks like...

prefix=User talk:Paine Ellsworth
searchbuttonlabel=Search the Ellsworth Talk page and Archives

and up above in my Welcome box that code renders...

 Joys! Paine

The Wikipedia SignpostThe Wikipedia Signpost (ancient name)[edit]

Archives of The Signpost

VisualEditor newsletters[edit]

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead – your next stop...


New messages go below this line – down to the bottom of this page, please.[edit]

Template: Distinguish[edit]

I noticed that you changed the wording. However, it is stated in the close of the TfD that the template be left as-is. Would you please change the wording back first and start discussion later on?Forbidden User (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Forbidden User – Before I give you an answer, perhaps there are some things we can both consider together? I noted that you and I were of one mind during the Tfd; we both felt the template should be kept and we both saw the undesirable outcome of merging {{Distinguish}} with {{Distinguish2}}. Anyone who actually reads the documentation can see that the two templates have different functions, so we both realized that the continuing need for the Distinguish template is very real.
Next, please also take under consideration that I have had the improvement of these templates, Distinguish, Distinguish2, {{Redirect-distinguish}} and {{Redirect-distinguish2}}, on my to-do list for quite a while. This is not because I personally feel that there is something wrong with the word "confused"; it is only because the names of the templates were not consistent with their content. When I first encountered template Distinguish, my beginning thought was 'Why doesn't the template use its name in its content?' Yes, I was rather lax in making a change, and my only excuse is that other areas of Wikipedia pulled me away from these templates. The Tfd pulled me back, and I felt that it was "high time" for a positive improvement in them.
Lastly, the Distinguish template is a highly visible and much used template, so when any modification is made there are "dominoes falling" for quite some time. That is to say that such changes can prove to be quite a drain on Wikipedia's server as it works to make the changes to each and every page that transcludes the template. Multiply that effect times at least 2 when the other 3 templates are also modified.
May I ask, is there another wording that you would like to have considered? Do you strongly object to the wording that is now used in the template? Under any other circumstances I would be glad to return the templates to status quo pending the outcome of an RfC; however, my last consideration above gives me pause. If the present wording is not too objectionable to you, then perhaps it might be better to open an RfC to see if other editors want a different wording or if they are okay with the present wording.
So I would certainly attend an RfC if you begin one, and if a consensus arises to change the wording back to status quo, then I will be both compelled and happy to oblige. Thank you for coming to my talk page to discuss this and also for caring about this situation and about Wikipedia. – Paine  09:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, I myself do not hate the current wording that much. I put that request because it is stated in the TfD outcome that the template be kept as-is. The only thing I can't accept is change-before-discussion. Of course we should be bold, but not when a consensus against it has just been reached. Opening a TfD regarding the wording to gain the required consensus for the change is prerequisite to me, and that is why I wish to have it reverted first to respect consensus.
I can totally understand why you made the change (as I saw people talking about the BRD cycle, which you certainly follow), and I appreciate your courtesy and civility when facing my request. However, your change was made before the TfD close, whose outcome is against your change. If we follow the BRD cycle, then in discussion part the change is rejected, sadly. Perhaps WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY or WP:IAR applies here, but that should not be judged by only a few editors. I'm not putting on the request based on procedural error, there is none - you made the edit before discussion. I hope you may consider these as well. I will respect it if you reject the request - it's up to you.Forbidden User (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops, it looks like someone has had it done. You should raise a TfD - though probably some time later. Don't be discouraged!Forbidden User (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouragement, Forbidden User! Rather than clutter up articles with yet another Tfd notice, I would prefer to perhaps get fresh opinions from less-involved editors by use of the RfC process. So I've opened a request here. Joys! – Paine  17:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
PS. I should also note that, after you opened the edit request and as the one who had made the wording mod, I felt that by that time I was too involved to just come right out with a Not done. That is why I only left a comment to give another, "non-involved" template editor the decision to make the edit or not. PS added by – Paine 
It should also be noted just fyi that, when I made the change I was not being bold, I was just being an editor who had this change on my to-do list for a long time. I disagree that there was consensus against the wording change; I am very careful about such things. As Codename Lisa pointed out, the Tfd was about deleting Template:Distinguish, not about changing its content, so such side discussions should not be counted as "consensus" or "non-consensus". There was no "official" consensus for or against the wording modification.
Also, I did not make the change before the Tfd closed. The admin had closed the Tfd with the result stated as decision pending. So at the time I made the change, the Tfd was officially closed. The closing admin then changed the closing result to keep template, and at the end of the new closing statement made the further additional comment for the template to remain "as-is". This was a rather non-standard closure on the admin's part, but no big deal. It's just that the second closing statement came after I had modified the template's wording, so the "as-is" part had not yet been made. For confirmation of what I have said, please see this page. – Paine  20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I saw - you made a change, and afterwards the closing said it is to be kept as-is, so I posted the request to enforce it. Well, for the RfC, you need to work hard on inviting editors while avoiding WP:Canvassing. So, good luck!Forbidden User (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to add, are TfDs only for deletion?Forbidden User (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You're probably already aware, Forbidden User, that getting other editors involved is fairly easy in this case. The RfC template controls a bot that automatically and randomly invites editors who are signed up to be notified, plus there were a lot of participants in the Tfd and many will probably be closely watching {{Distinguish}} and its talk page.
It's my understanding that Tfd means "Templates for discussion". At one time not so long ago, the "d" stood for deletion and the templates were pretty much nominated only for that. Presently however, editors use the Tfd for deletion, merges, whatever major template mods they feel may be needed and that might be controversial. A lot of people watch the Tfd, so it's a good place to get more opinions, if desired. Hope this helps! – Paine  10:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Of course it helps! Thanks.Forbidden User (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine  10:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Template query[edit]

I'm not too familiar with template protection so I thought I'd ask someone who is: If a template is protected as a highly visible template, should a redirect to that template with thousands of transclusions also be protected? It would only require a vandal to copy the main template text into the redirect and alter it for them to vandalize thousands of pages at once, right? —Xezbeth (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, yes, I agree. The alias/redirect should also be protected. I would think there are many instances of this that would support our agreement. – Paine  19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The template redirect in question was Template:Bigger. I think I've done it correctly; there was a TfD that asserted the template was unused, yet when I checked the transclusions it was being used on over 30k articles. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that is excellent, Xezbeth! Joys! – Paine  20:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hello Paine. I noticed This question and thought I could give some assistance. An example would be the protected template, {{Talk header}} and its high visibility redirects like {{Talkpage}} and {{Talk page}}. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way. I was successful in getting the protection reduced to allow TE edits. Can I count on my favorite TE, you, to add the appropriate {{Rcat}}s? They look so bare without them. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I'm preparing to up anchor and set adrift on a sea of dreams. When next we make port, that will be on my early list. Joys! – Paine  02:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we are Yes check.svg Done, and thank you, John, for your work on this! – Paine  20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I also went ahead and added {{pp-template}} (adds the template-edited lock to the top of the page and populates the redirect to Category:Wikipedia protected templates) to the known appropriate redirects. Joys! – Paine  21:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

As a main editor of Legend (disambiguation), I am calling your attention to Talk:Legend_(disambiguation)#Merger_proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TonyTheTiger, for including me in the proposal discussion! Joys! – Paine  04:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome, but why didn't you comment on the discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Had to leave before I had finished studying it. Should get back to it soon. Patience, friendly tiger! – Paine  16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"because you thanked me"[edit]

Hi, I noticed you gave someone a "Because you thanked me" post/template. Where did you get that? I'd never seen it before. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Musdan77 – that is a template I made. To use the template it must be substituted, like this: {{subst:ytm}}. "Ytm" is a shortcut for the template found at {{Because you thanked me}}. All one must do is place that template at the very bottom of the user's talk page of the person who thanked you. When you place {{subst:ytm}} at the bottom of a user's talk page, the template will do the rest. It will produce the header, your signature and the timestamp for you. Joys! – Paine  16:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Musdan77 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Pleasure! – Paine 


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Paine Ellsworth. You have new messages at RHaworth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Converting incomplete disambiguated titles to redirects of primary targets[edit]

WP:PDAB can help you acknowledge that there is no explicit policy and/or guideline on dealing with incomplete disambiguations. Rather "Madonna (album)" redirects to Madonna (Madonna album), and "Thriller (album)" redirects to "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)". --George Ho (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, George Ho – I suppose one has to deal with these on an almost daily basis for several years to get a "feel" for some forms of redirect categorization. To me, it was obvious that Coupling (TV series) was insufficient disambiguation. Since there is a dab page in place, and since that page has a "Television" section, it seems to fit the definition found in the template documentation very closely. What puzzled me, and perhaps you would be so kind as to explain it to me, was why you tagged the redirect with {{R to article without mention}}? The title is "Coupling", and the page you targeted is titled "Coupling", so how is it that the Coupling redirect was not mentioned? It was mentioned in the title, it was mentioned in the lead, and it was mentioned in the body of the article. Can you please explain your rationale for your population of Category:Redirects to an article without mention with the Coupling (TV series) redirect? – Paine  16:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find any other templates, and I didn't fully understand the template. I couldn't call it "incomplete disambiguation", which implies that it should be a redirect to a disambiguation page. "(TV series)" should redirect to the UK series, as other short-lived versions don't match up to primacy of "(TV series)". --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
To George Ho: Please try to understand that "(TV series)" is not as much disambiguation as "(UK TV series)". Don't you agree that "(UK TV series)" and "(U.S. TV series)" are both less ambiguous than "(TV series)" in this case? Therefore the redirect should populate Category:Redirects from incomplete disambiguations. Take a look at that category, Mr. Ho, and you will find thousands of redirects like Coupling (TV series) that target less ambiguous article titles. Okay, I see you have changed my edit to {{R from other disambiguation}}. While not incorrect, that is less correct than the tag I used. An example of that category would be Pitbull (entertainer), which targets Pitbull (rapper). Neither "entertainer" nor "rapper" is more ambiguous than the other, so in that case {{R from other disambiguation}} is the right tag to use. Please change it back, and please revert your hatnote edits. Don't just take my word for it, read the doc pages of the templates and their associated category pages. Ask the opinion of another editor you trust and let me know how that turns out. If you still disagree, then we can go from there. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Ho. I know we are both after the same thing – improvement of redirect categorization on Wikipedia. To do that we must try to do our best to use the most correct templates to tag redirects.
There is a tool you can use for when you are not sure about a redirect's categorization. The {{This is a redirect}} template can be used alone, or it can be used with an empty first parameter, like this:
  • {{This is a redirect||from subtopic|printworthy}}
When the This is a redirect template is used by itself, or when it is used with two pipes together like the above, the redirect will populate Category:Miscellaneous redirects. Several editors including myself monitor that category and will help out with the categorization when we see an entry that was placed there. This helped me learn how best to categorize redirects, and it might help others to learn, as well. – Paine  01:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I made it the same way as Thriller (album). --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! and kudos for your catch of the Category:Redirects from moves that I had missed! Even someone like me who has worked with these for five years can still make mistakes, eh? Also, you might want to note that with this edit a previously created short disambiguation page was merged to form the present redirect, so we should add the R from merge rcat template to the redirect, as well.
Now, one more teeny, tiny thing... since Coupling (TV series) is an ambiguous term that could apply to three different articles, "Coupling (UK TV series)", "Coupling (U.S. TV series)" and "Coupling (Greek TV series)", don't you think it would be best if the redirect targeted the disambiguation page and section, Coupling (disambiguation)#Television? It could really apply to all three of those articles, couldn't it? – Paine  02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Haven't you watched Coupling (BBC)? It was hilarious; not so for other derivatives. Because neither American nor Greek was funny nor surpassed the popularity of the original British series, "(TV series)" should redirect to the "(UK TV series)". Coupling UK is everywhere online: Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and other sites. U.S. and Greek have not been available since original broadcast. "Coupling (TV series)" has never been that ambiguous. Past edits were based on traditional disambiguate-everything stuff that's been going on for years. For other examples, "Erotica (album)" redirects to Erotica (Madonna album), and "Angel (TV series)" redirects to Angel (1999 TV series). --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I've never seen the series (so perhaps am objective?), and I am only now beginning to appreciate British humour by going through all of the old Dr. Who episodes. Mr. Ho, let's not belabor the point. The redirect can stay targeted as it is now (still needs the "from merge" category), and let me thank you very much for your opinions, and again for the "from move" catch and save. Joys! – Paine  03:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
PS. Almost forgot – since you used the redirect page title in the hatnote at Coupling (UK TV series), one more rcat is needed to tag the redirect: {{R mentioned in hatnote}}. PS added by – Paine 

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Impact[edit]

Check the article's improvements. No need for WP:TNT anymore. Much better now. Yes? Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)