Wikipedia – not just an encyclopedia, it's a phenomenon... aWikinomenon!
Best of everything to you and yours! and... Spread the Good!
Thank you for your contributions toWikipedia – its articles, redirects, templates –all your improvements, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable life – both on and offJimbo's amazing reference work!
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. Please forgive my occasional slowness, and again, thank you for being here!Paine Ellsworth
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 atRfA that often show the ultimate community respect and trust of an editor.
I shall likely remain a non-admin and continue to enjoy discussions with other WP 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,MRV or 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 forWikipedia and some other websites on the Internet is...
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. ⸎
Followinga request for comment, there isa new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses oftemporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors canrequest access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated acontentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined asAll pages related to the region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
Wikimania 2025 is happening inNairobi,Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years ofWikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You canregister here now.
Thanks for fixing the RMhere in regards to the malformed nomination of a redirect. I hope you don't mind that I shamelessly stole your note's wording at two other RMshere andhere. I also noticed that you did asimilar note back in 2023, so thanks for keeping an eye on this for so long!Fork99 (talk)11:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open on whether use ofemojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion underG15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Hi editorBogazicili and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! There was indeed a growing consensus for "Anti-Palestinian racism" in the closed move request; however, 1) there was also strong pushback, and 2) that title had been only informally proposed. So I thought it best to test the amount of growth with the second RM. I figured that if "Anti-Palestinian racism" is the highest and best title for that article, then it would gain an even stronger agreement and acceptance when proposed on its own in a formal request. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the correct venue for reviewing the closes of requested moves isWP:MRV. While there was a growing consensus for "...racism", I did not see consensus for or against the current title of "Anti-Palestinianism", which was another good reason to grant editor Lumbering in thought's request at WP:CR to reopen the second request. I will clarify my closing statement as follows:
Not moved per consensus in the survey below. Closure requested atWP:CR(permalink). There is no agreement seen below as to whether or not to keep the current title, so the request to reopen the move proposal in the next talk-page section is granted in order to see if consensus can be garnered for the proposed title, "Anti-Palestinian racism".
InTemplate:Oceania topic, can you remove East Timor (also called Timor Leste)? Unlike neighboring Indonesia, which has territory in Oceania (Western New Guinea), East Timor is entirely located in Asia (in Southeast Asia to be precise).
Hi editorOratas, and thank you for coming to my talk page! After readingOceania and other articles, it appears that while Timor-Leste is a part of Southeast Asia, there are parts of Southeast Asia that are also in the huge area of Oceania. To remove Timor-Leste from the Oceania topic navbar would seem to be at least a bit controversial. I see that it has not been discussed atTemplate talk:Oceania topic, and that would be the better venue to garnerconsensus in regard to whether or not Timor-Leste should be a link in that navbar. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.
Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following themid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomedGoldRomean to the coordinator team.Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, andMiniapolis andMox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist ourombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be foundhere.
June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for theJune 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere.
July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for theJuly 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere.
August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for theAugust 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded arehere.
September 2025 Drive:Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.
Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name fromour mailing list.
Thank you very much, editorMika1h, for coming to my talk page! And thank you, too, editor162 etc. for the ping atWT:RM! Yes, that is the typical outcome when theROUNDROBIN page move method is used to preserve the page histories. If the page history for the musician is now at the kickboxer title, then it will take an admin to fix it, so I'll see if editorMartin can fix it? I've already taken care of the talk page. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aftera motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections atWP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g.[[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
@Paine Ellsworth Clearly more people support the move than who oppose it. You just closed it - saying " the oppose rationales are much stronger and policy-based" - you need to explain why. This closure is not appropriate. Please explain your reasoning - or revert the closure. If not, I will challenge it.Cinaroot (talk)23:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested topic - and such vague closure is not appropriate. Also it can run for 30 days. You can only close it - if outcome is clear and unlikely to change.
Thank you very much, editorCinaroot, for coming to my talk page! Given a choice between explaining and reverting, I would choose explaining. I did not go into detail in my closing statement, because almost every time I do so, I am accused of casting a "supervote". And the stark reality is that the stronger oppose arguments pretty much explain themselves. I read the survey three times, and each time I came to the same conclusion. A gentle reminder that when you close a discussion, it is not a numbers game, it is the weight of the rationales that determines consensus. The self-explanatory arguments in the survey, when one reads them through the lenses of uninvolved impartiality and policy, lead to the conclusion that there is no true agreement in that move request.
And the reason I closed it rather than just relist it is because I saw other suggested titles that were also proposed and thought that editors might want to pursue a move request for one or the other of those potential titles. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it’s not a numbers game again. But you still haven’t explained your reasoning. Why opposing arguments are stronger? You are saying there is no true agreement. I don't understand. There is lot of people who agreed to it. You need a strong reasoning to close this as no consensus,
Saw the closure on CR, and its fairly strange to me. I understand you are a much more experienced editor than me, but it would be helpful if you did a summary describing why the opposes are more policy-minded. The opposes are outnumbered by at least 3 to 1. its hard not to see this as a supervote, and especially hard without explaining the reasoning.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the stark reality is that the stronger oppose arguments pretty much explain themselves. I think reading through the oppose args (specifically how the other genocide accusations are more contested than this latest Gaz one), I can start to see where you are coming from, and could see a no consensus being valid for the move argument. but as there were many folks who voted support, it would be helpful to spell it out.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, editorBluethricecreamman! Since a move review has been opened, I probably should stay quiet to see what reviewers think, but since your review seems to hinge on further explanation, I will do my best: I thought that oppose args were much stronger because several cited NPOV, PRECISE and even a previous name change that made the title more CONCISE, as well. This was I believe an unusual case where both supports and opposes were strong; however, I thought the opposes were quite a bit stronger, strong enough to offset the supports and result in no agreement overall among participants. And frankly, I would have been glad to revert and relist had editorCinaroot asked specifically for that. I suppose that is no longer an option, though. We'll see what reviewers at MR think of this contentious situation. I do think that editors who like "...question" and "...allegations" should be allowed to open a new RM to test one or both of those titles. That can only happen soon if my closure is endorsed at move review. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry - but your reasoning still doesn’t inspire confidence in your close. You may post in the move review that you are okay to revert and relist it.Cinaroot (talk)06:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I would have been glad to revert and relist had editor Cinaroot asked specifically for that." The opening comment was"Please explain your reasoning - or revert the closure"? I'm struggling to understand how we ended up with a move review here if you were willing to revert?CNC (talk)10:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Please explain your reasoning - or revert the closure." Editor Cinaroot gave me a choice. As I said above, "Given a choice between explaining and reverting, I would choose explaining." So there was no explicit "Revert the closure" on Cinaroot's part above. I was given a choice, and I made a choice. Please do not struggle. There is no need for you to struggle; editor Cinaroot made a choice to take it to Move Review, and what's done is done. If I was wrong, then the reviewers will have my closure overturned. We're all volunteer editors here, so there are no hard feelings, truly.P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the issue was your lack of willingness to elaborate initially (as you did later, above), thus this move review being opened?"I did not go into detail in my closing statement, because almost every time I do so, I am accused of casting a "supervote". It shouldn't matter that editors accuse you of a supervote, that's part of the 'fun and games' of closing controversial RMs, especially when changing the weight of such !votes considerably, and that's OK when done accurately. If you're not comfortable with that, then it's best not to close them absent of such rationales. I don't understand why your first reply wasn't explaining properly as initially requested, this would of avoided a move review here. As would being more patient prior to opening one, granted. Anyway, are you still willing to revert so the review can be procedurally closed?CNC (talk)11:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for your words above! When a closer is wrongly accused of casting a supervote at Move Review, it usually muddies the waters and distracts reviewers from the task at hand, which is to analyze the closure, not the closer. I'm not sure what the procedure is as far as making a procedural close for such as this at Move Review. I've done it many times at move requests, but it is an infrequent issue at review. I think it's best to see what reviewers say about the closure.P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to revert the close, the move review would be null and void. There is nothing stopping the closer reverting during such a process, it's effectively a way to back out of it. No closer should have to go through the often gruelling process unless it's because they stand by their close, so the option remains a voluntary choice for now, so you do you as they say. Personally I otherwise don't see accusations of a supervote muddying the waters at all, unless it's a supervote; often it is thrown around as an empty accusation and as confirmation that there isn't a lot wrong with the close. Sometimes it's also just about use of language to try and avoid these accusations also, for example"I thought that oppose args were much stronger because " would be better written as"The oppose args were much stronger because", as it's already assumed that it is only your interpretation as the closer, and that's fine, so to reiterate opinion can be misleading, even if shouldn't be. I'm personally not in need of such authoritative use of langugage to understand a close, but for many others it can be helpful or provide better confidence and trust in the close. Anyway, no hard feelings either, to me this is just a bit of a mess.CNC (talk)12:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic report:One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is 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 policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks! It seems pretty common that RfC’s start and then it pretty quickly emerges that the options given were not good options. In Roberts Rules groups there are easy methods to amend the proposal to increase the chance of passage. In RfC’s here, it seems like the community is stuck for 30 days to wait out the RfC. Are there any tools here for moving things along more quickly?Dw31415 (talk)01:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dw31415, I wasn't aware that you posted here. @Paine Ellsworth seems to have confirmed what I've been thinking since you first posted on the RfC regarding withdrawing the closure request. It would be unfair to the participants who spent time summarising their viewpoints to not have a formal close. It would also leaveWP:DESTNOT in limbo. I will confirm here that I do not plan to withdraw my closure request or the RfC itself, despite the minority of editors who have expressed frustration with it. Thank you.11WB (talk)03:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting Paine’s thoughts here. (I was confused what page I was on). I look forward to seeing how the closer handles it.Dw31415 (talk)03:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
non-admin reveal
