User talk:Pppery/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

Oops

I copied the text from Tenaha, Texas article to the new article on the forfeiture controversy. I forgot to look to at the references list. I thought it would copy over when I did the copy and paste. Sorry about that. At the same time, I was trying to make the article for the town of Tenaha cleaner.Cwater1 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Auto Alley deletion

Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I just submitted the deletion request for Auto Alley. I believe the article does warrant a deletion, was it just not worthy of speedy deletion? NomzEditingWikis (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict speedy deletion criteria, which the article does not meet. Feel free to use a different deletion process, although the reason you used doesn't make much sense to me; the article is about an area in North America, not a dictionary entry. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't really know how to phrase it, I was just using the proposed reason in the article. However I do believe it warrants deletion on the basis of relevance. The term was coined in a single reference, and I couldn't find a single re-use of the term. NomzEditingWikis (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Flash memory controller

Hi there! It appears you recently accidentally added a DOI error on the Flash memory controller article. Could you please fix the error? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed It makes no sense to me that https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1960475.1960481 is a valid URL, but 10.5555/1960475.1960481, despite clearly being presented as a DOI in that URL, isn't a valid DOI, but whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are you reverting despite necessary submissions?

Hi Pppery, May I know your reason to revert the changes despite the necessary citations have been provided, what I see, that Pranveer Singh Institute of Technology has been shown as 'merged' to the University (AKTU), which is not the final truth, as Pranveer Singh Institute of Technology in only affiliated to it, not 'merged', the so called merger is not cited either. Anhop (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Compared to the previously-BLARed version, you added:

1. [1] is a server error for me, but even if it worked it would be a primary source and not evidence of notability.
2. [2] - I can't access this, but it looks like another directory of primary source
3. [3] is a WP:circular reference - you can't rely on citations to Wikipedia.
4. [4] - The Times of India is not really a reliable or notability-establishing source in this context, especially given that The publication is also known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage.
5. [5] is a primary source
6. [6] is a primary source
7. [7] is not a reliable source
8. [8] is in a language I can't read, but it doesn't look like (according to Google Translate) it provides WP:SIGCOV
9. [9] has the same problem. It looks like the other Hindi-language sources have similar problems, or feel like routine coverage.

Finally, you're edit warring to add a promotional, poorly-structured, and WP:NOTCATALOG-violating article contrary to an explicit consensus to merge it to a different article. Merging a Wikipedia article to another Wikipedia article does not imply the concepts they are describing have also been merged, and does not itself require a source saying that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

1. What do you exactly mean by primary source? NBA is coveted accreditation in India.

Just in case you could not find the name follow the steps below, after clicking on the link:

Search by-

State: Uttar Pradesh

Program: Computer Science and Engineering

Institute Name: Pranveer Singh Institute of Technology

2. Appearance in the directory of the claimed University certainly adds to the authenticity of the Institute.

3. Agreed, yet authentic.

4. You are casting aspersions on a renowned and reputed brand.

5, 6. Yes

7. You are casting aspersions on a renowned and reputed brand.

8. That's technical glitch at your end.

9. Same as above Anhop (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

1. See Wikipedia:Primary source. 4, 7: pointing to explicit consensuses that found that a source is not reliable is in no way casting aspersions.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, since it's clear we are working from incompatible principle sets and have no hope of convincing each other of out positions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked your profile seeing the admin election.

I disagree with your comments and will be voting against you.

1. Times of India is a major newspaper. It is not a de facto unreliable source even according to Wikipedia page you cite. Further, the claim the editor made in the article was of the form "Times of India said something". It is 100% verifiable that the Times did say so.

2. Primary sources are in no way inferior to secondary sources. WP: PRIMARYNOTBAD. Particularly to validate claims of the nature made in the article, i.e, this university has certain accredition. In those cases it is a superior source. There is no need for a secondary source, which would always have less credibility by definition and serves no purpose. The purpose of citation is to provide evidence for a claim, or the reference.

3. Btw, using a primary source btw in no way means it is original research. The criteria is 1) is it reliable source and 2) does wikipedia article text conclude or imply something not stated in the source. The primary source is acceptable both fronts regarding an accredition status of a university. It is reliable and it states the accredition.

3. Your similar dismissal of The Economic Times is flawed. The claim was The Economic Times said something. Again, the best source for such a claim is to check if it did say so. Your assertion the Economic Times is unreliable is not backed by any evidence you have provided. It is one of the largest english language magazines in the world. To make a claim it is unreliable is a bold unverified claim.

4. I disagree with your over reliance of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. The page itself states "context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list." No use of context was used in your reasoning. That Times may have used paid sources at some time, does not make in unreliable all the time. Further, many of the media sources that the list claims to be reliable (weirdly very western) are unreliable often- and they too reflect market, political, and editorial biases.

5. Finally I am not impressed with your refusal to properly engage with the editor.

6. Perhaps wikipedia community prioritises quantity over quality of edits. And perhaps your style of engagement is common. I don't approve. Jagmanst (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I obviously can't stop you from opposing my RfA, and trust the the crats will give your opinion whatever degree of weight they feel it deserves. Consider this, though: since the above discussion Anhop reverted twice and 2 other completely uninvolved people have reinstated my edit, so the community seems to agree with me. As a general comment, the point you're missing here is that the article needs to establish notability. You've (correctly) argued that in some cases that the content is verifiable, but not really addressed notability. Nothing useful will come out of continuing to re-argue this, as I suspect we've both already made up our minds. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason the editor has reverted your edits is because they weren't persuaded. Nor was I. They would have likely felt your response as antagonistic not collaborative. The only question is whether the statements the editor added are relevant. That can be judged on their merits, which requires context, not a quick look up on the names of the sources. Jagmanst (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For any other curious lurkers coming from the RfA, courtesy link to the diff being edit warred over in the discussion.

I think the accuracy of @Pppery's reply speaks for itself. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

For lurkers who want to look at the diff page, and are not familiar with Indian universities, to judge whether the edits put in are relevant. Keep this in mind:

• AICTE and NBA are most important technical education accredition in India. (That including this information is somehow not 'relevant' is for me mindboggling.)
• Information provided by Times regarding college ranking done by other organisations is relevant and can be verified. Fact the largest English newspaper in the world has had prior scandels does not undermine the content of the cited one. Jagmanst (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think it is also relevant the entire article about a bonafide college which has proper accredetions and media coverage in major newspapers was deleted by this editor is also relevant given their lack of experience creating content. Jagmanst (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Two things:

First, I wonder if the original posting editor might have been confused about the use of the term "merge". They seem to be talking about the school. While I think the "merge" in question is probably this discussion: Talk:Dr._A.P.J._Abdul_Kalam_Technical_University#Merger_proposal. (Sigh at anytime I see DGG's name pop up in a discussion now...)

Second, I think that at this point, further evidence, and discussion thereof, there might be are better placed there: Talk:Dr._A.P.J._Abdul_Kalam_Technical_University, so that the rest of the community might be able to join in the discussion. - jc37 04:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

When they say merge, they mean delete the article and have just this short one about 'University', without recognition Universities in India are very different what is seen western countries (they are essentially exam/oversight boards that regulate 100s of affiliated colleges in a huge geographaic area).Jagmanst (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible edit war

Hi. I'm wondering if I could ask for your your assistance in trying to prevent another editor from imposing an unwanted solution on me and the article I'm working on. The article I refer to is Corran Purdon. If you examine the revision history Special:PageHistory/Corran Purdon you'll notice that an editor called Kathleen's bike has reverted my work three times over what he/she alleges is a breach of WP:Derry. I have no wish to become drawn into any dispute over something which has been argued extensively before my time here and have attempted to make the sentence in question acceptable within the policy but still I am reverted. Yesterday I changed the wording to make it more acceptable but it was still reverted but with what I consider to be a spurious reasoning. I've changed the wording today by removing what the reverting editor finds offensive but I have serious concerns that this person will again use spurious logic to revert the sentence to something which is politically suitable to them. Having examined their contribs history I can see they are constantly engaged in reverting substance on articles which pertain to the Northern Ireland Troubles and I'm very concerned I don't have the sang froid to counter the logic being used here - nor do I wish to engage in any troublesome arguments. Can you help? Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I took a very quick look and seem to agree with Kathleen's bike's position on the matter, but am not otherwise interested in involving myself in this dispute. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm taking on board what you say. Did you note however that when I complied with WP:Derry in the fullest sense I was again reverted and told I couldn't use the county name as I had (supposedly) previously insisted it was the city I was referring to (this btw is incorrect)? Is my solution of the here and now satisfactory? In other words by deleting the bone of contention there is nothing to revert? Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It's satisfactory to me. No comment on what others think. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You've given me some comfort. Thank you. Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Template Editor

Hi, I am kinda new to editing wikipedia, so I didn't know that we cant use sandboxes in mainspace. So can you suggest me a template editor who can add the emerging universities ranking to Infobox India university ranking template. And again thanks a lot for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone Apex (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:Edit requests and {{edit template-protected}}. I am a template editor, but consider myself too involved to use my template editor rights here. I see you tried to make a request at Template talk:Infobox India university ranking#Addition of Outlook India's Emerging University ranking, which was the right process, but then were told to resync the sandbox and reapply but never did it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the closest we have on-wiki to a text editor for templates is: Template:Template_sandbox.

I hope this helps. - jc37 22:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is about the Wikipedia:Template editor user right, not a text editor for templates. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Lua problem

Hi Pppery

Hope you are well.

Please can you help with an idiot Lua problem?I have been trying to make Module:CanadaByProvinceCatNav use Module:Resolve category redirect, but it barfs: see my test at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ontario_provincial_electoral_districts&oldid=1159362177

My sandbox module is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:CanadaByProvinceCatNav/sandbox&direction=next&oldid=1159349466

I am the creator of both modules, so all the blame is on me. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed in Special:Diff/1159350532 and Special:Diff/1159460394 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Bless you, @Pppery. That's great.

Many thanks, and apologies for the late reply. I forgot to check back until now. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Buuhoodle belongs

I saw your edit. You have edited several times that Buuhoodle belongs to Somaliland and not Somalia, but I see no basis for this edit. (There is also no agreement that the Wikipedia community considers Buuhoodle to belong to Somaliland.) The source for this statement [2], i.e. "Hoehne, Markus V. Between Somaliland." contains several references to Buuhoodle, but no indication that Buuhoodle is Somaliland. Rather, the book considers Buuhoodle in a disputed area, as shown on the map on p. 27 of the book. In other words, it is inappropriate to equate there with Hargeisa and Berbera. If you are going to write about Buuhoodle's affiliation with Somaliland in the future, please state the source. Freetrashbox (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the first time because the edit introduced a Lua error. I reverted subsequent times because it's clearly disruptive and contrary to the way Wikipedia works for IPs to repeatedly change "Somaliland" to "Somalia" with no explanation and over the objections of several other editors. Also take note that the edit I reverted said "is the second largest city in the Togdheer region of Somalia", which is nonsense, as the article Togdheer "is an administrative region (gobol) in central Somaliland". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Lua error. As you can see by checking the history of this article, there has been a Somaliland/Somalia editing war going on since about 2017.([10] Prior to that, a short-time editorial wars had occurred.) The user who rewrites either does not indicate the source. You will also notice that some of the registered users who joined the edit war have been participating in Wikipedia from the beginning for the purpose of rewriting Somaliland/Somalia to Somalia/Somaliland. In short, "no explanation and over the objections of several other editors" can be said of both sides of the editorial battle. Please notice that I am not claiming that Buuhoodle is Somalia or not Somaliland. The thing is that Wikipedia descriptions need sources, especially for descriptions where different claims exist. (It is not merely Hoehne's assertion that parts of Togdheer are disputed areas; the BBC is of the same opinion.) Freetrashbox (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverters to Somaliland, in chronological order:

1. Me, edited since 2016, 50000 other edits
2. Jacob300, edited since 2019, 2000 other edits
3. Materialscientist, edited since 2009 with over a million other edits
4. Hawkers994 - you may have a point here
5. 154.115.221.164 IP with no other edits
6. Siirski, edited since 2017, 2000 other edits

Reverters to Somalia, in chronological order

1. 2A04:4A43:539F:DE31:1569:37B1:3A9B:D06C, IP with no other edits
2. 196.191.190.71, IP with no other edits
3. 2A00:23C8:A8CE:3001:5D9A:DC6B:2E3D:27F5, IP with no other edits
4. Hamse bare, no other edits other than changing another place in Somaliland to Somalia
5. 196.189.243.44, IP with 4 other edits
6. 196.189.243.192, IP with no other edits
7. 196.191.190.84, IP with no other edits
8. 196.189.243.32, IP with no other edits
9. 196.191.190.90, IP with no other edits
10. 2607:FEA8:255C:F300:9D90:5323:4655:CE94, no other edits other than changing another place in Somaliland to Somalia
11. 196.189.243.33, IP with no other edits
12. 83.75.53.113, IP with no other edits
13. 196.188.35.3, IP with no other edits
14. 196.188.35.231, IP with 1 other edit
15. Materialscientist
16. 196.188.35.27, IP with no other edits
17. 196.188.35.108, IP with no other edits
18. 196.191.72.160, IP with no other edits
19. 196.191.72.59, IP with no other edits
20. 196.191.72.145, IP with no other edits
21. 196.191.72.50, IP with no other edits
22. 2a02:3037:203:95fb:af:c96e:1c8a:fbdc, IP with no other edits
23. 196.191.72.181, IP with no other edits
24. ... I gave up at this point because the trend should be obvious enough.

The last stable version prior to the recent dispute says "Somaliland".

I'd say that shows your bothsidesism is clearly unwarranted. If there's an explicit consensus to change it to Somalia I will respect that consensus, but until then the stable version should remain and we shouldn't reward IP guerilla tactics.

Also note that I only reverted the edits with no useful edit summary and not the ones that made a semi-coherent argument, and intend to continue doing the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think your opinion will only provoke an editing war. This is because more hasty and frequent reverts are more likely to produce "stable versions." You are free to make any edits you wish, but please remember that we must have the source for our descriptions. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Hasty and frequent reverts by definition do not produce stable versions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that the description should be sourced. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have heard that you have been nominated to be the administrator of the English Wikipedia. I have been an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia, so I know Wikipedia administrators to some extent. I am very happy to see that someone as dedicated as you are aspiring to be an administrator of the English Wikipedia. Perhaps both the English Wikipedia and yourself will be positively affected by your active role as a Wikipedia administrator. As I have knew from your editorial attitude, you are a very well-educated person. However, editing based on one's own education should be avoided by administrators and even general editors. In your future editing, I hope you will make it a habit to always check the source of information, even on matters with which you are familiar. I was going to write in your RFA nomination, but I don't want to affect the outcome of the vote in any way, so instead I am writing it here.--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Pppery. Thank you for your work on Abdulkadir Uraloğlu. User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Why did you unreview this article? I think this passes WP:NPOL but am wondering if i missed something.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824: I unreviewed the article per Wikipedia:Global rights policy#Global rollbackers/Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Autopatrol and global rollback, since the article was autopatrolled solely by virtue of the creator's global rollbacker status. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

All right, cool. Marking it as reviewed then. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Gerard (disambigution)

A tag has been placed on David Gerard (disambigution) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

For any other confused readers: "disambiguation" is misspelled. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 8 June 2023

Dear Pppery, I was wondering if you could review my recent Template talk:NASTRO comment#Edit request 8 June 2023. I noticed that you have previously handled similar requests, and I am therefore taking the liberty to ask for your assistance once again. If you require any additional information regarding the rationale behind this change, please let me know. Thank you in advance for your time. Best regards, Laxeril (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Be patient. Another template editor will get to it eventually, as I haven't felt motivated to review template-protected edit requests for several weeks now. If it's still unanswered by Friday I may take a look. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

can you tell me what "it has begun" means? 2603:8001:9C02:59CC:3B10:7747:E7CE:D3E7 (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a silly reference to some events back in 2019 and doesn't mean anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Review request

Seeing as you reviewed my The People's Republic of Walmart article, would you mind if you also reviewed my article on the Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln? Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Database or Bot report

Hello, Pppery,

You once pointed out a reporting mistake I made by showing me a report that listed pages that were deleted via CSD but whose circumstances didn't fit the CSD criteria listed. Unfortunately, I've been having computer problems and lost all of my browser tabs listing important Wikipedia pages so I'm hoping that you can provide me a link to that report. I did check it occasionally to see if I made mistakes. Thanks in advance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Climate change and sexual and reproductive health and rights in Africa

There is quite a complex story here. Djuulume created Climate Change and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHRs) in Africa (A), which I moved to the more appropriate Climate change and sexual and reproductive health and rights (B), leaving a redirect. Djuulume then pasted the original content of (B) back into the redirect (A). You then moved it to Climate change and sexual and reproductive health and rights in Africa (C). So now there are two different articles (B) and (C) on the same topic, with (A) as a redirect pointing to (C). Please sort this out or tell me how to sort this out, lol. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've redirected B to C. If I had to guess both incarnations of the article would fail new page patrol, so I see no need for further action right now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson. This invitation comes as you have been one of the most recent to edit {{Infobox sportsperson}}. CLalgo (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Drainage TFD

You might be interested in Category:Drainage basin succession templates. Izno (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

One of many things I wish were different but don't have the time and motivation to actually take the initiative on. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

KSLU (FM)

Hi Pppery, this was my fist NAC of a page move (after 14 years :P), I hope everything is Okay. Thanx for the disambig edit. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Some page movers do the disambiguation themselves when closing a requested move that establishes something is not a primary topic, but otherwise looks fine. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Pppery,

Thank you for all of your work closing CFD discussions today. These closures involved a lot of emptying and merging categories which I assume you did manually and individually and not listing them for the bot to take care of. As you know, discussions at CFD can sometimes linger for weeks or months and even taking care of the simpler cases really helps move things along. Thanks for devoting a good part of your day to helping the project "catch up" in the CFD area. It's appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Renaming articles

I'm astonished that such experienced editors as yourself and @Buckshot06: don't know why articles should be renamed (aka moved) properly rather than just pasting the contents of one into another. The most simple reason why not to cut'n'paste from one title to another is that it looks like one editor suddenly created an entire article when in fact it was created by a different editor or perhaps a whole series of editors over a long period. Wikipedia is big on WP:ATTRIBUTION. WP:CUTPASTE has some explanation, although the article is mostly concerned with how to correct the attribution history after incorrect or complex pages moves, merges, etc. H:MOVE has a good explanation of how to move a page, how *not* to, and why. Lithopsian (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the rules against cut-and-paste moves - at the time I was involved there were two duplicate articles and the one without the disambiguator was both better formatted and better sourced so I preferred it. It's not at all clear to me that the version I redirected to even was a cut-and-paste move at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This was not a cut-and-paste move. Both articles existed; both edit histories remain; I carefully attributed the copying over of text in the edit summary in line with the rules; you are creating extra work for everyone with your over-zealous attitude. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Question

• [11]

I was wondering if you are using some sort of automated tool to help close CfDs. The reason I ask is your closes all seem to lose the linespace between the bottom of the template and the header of the discussion below it.

I understand it's kinda a minor thing, but it makes scrolling through and seeing discussion separaters more difficult : ) - jc37 11:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm doing it entirely manually. I generally eschew most automated tools. I will try to remember to keep the whitespace for future closes, though * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thank you : ) - jc37 16:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

COI Request Garrett Camp

Hi Pppery. I work for Garrett Camp. I believe the current page about him is promotional. It relies almost exclusively on press releases, guest blogs, short blurbs, and brief mentions in passing. In compliance with WP:COI, I disclosed my connection to Mr. Camp and shared a draft rewrite on the Talk page that is a more proper biography that summarizes major media articles.

I'm reaching out hoping you might be willing to review the draft I proposed as an impartial editor and implement it if you believe it would improve Wikipedia or provide me any feedback. Thank you. John Pinette (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in reviewing this, but I added a template to the request that should hopefully attract the attention of someone else who is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Category:Woman soldier and warrior characters in video games

Hi, just letting you know that despite closing the discussion, the page has not been moved yet. I am assuming you informed admins the category should be moved, in which case it was seemingly missed and you should double-check. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I properly listed it at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Working#NAC requests May 2023. It seems to have been omitted by Fayenatic london when they processed the request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there. Perhaps I failed to delete the redirect at the target name, in which case the bot would have skipped it. Anyway, going ahead now. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

CTF3

I was bold and moved the page. I don't really think it needs a full discussion. The redirect was from 2005 when this article didn't exist. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No objection. I tend to err on the side of discussion, especially for primary topic changes, although I have done plenty of bold moves as well * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Pppery/noinclude list

Hi, why does User:Pppery/noinclude list appear at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere&target=Template:WikiProject+Kent%2Fqualimpintersect&hidelinks=1 - is there any easy way to remove it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

See User talk:Pppery/Archive 13#User:Pppery/noinclude list. The situation here is the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

CEJI - A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe

Hello, Pppery,

I noticed that you PROD'd this article but didn't post a notification on the talk page of the article creator. This step is part of the deletion process. Sometimes, as in this incident, a bot posted a notice but I've found that the bots are inconsistent and they often miss posting notifications and are not 100% reliable on stepping in when editors fail to post notifications.

Notices are very easy if you use Twinkle when you tag pages for all kinds of deletion (CSD, PRODs, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.) and set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator". Then when you use Twinkle to tag a page for deletion, Twinkle will post these notices on your behalf. It really makes things easy so I encourage you to try it out if you are not a regular Twinkle user. Twinkle is useful for so many editing tasks you might find yourself wondering how you edited without it! Thank you for all that you do on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

And this is also true to NLR - until No Leprosy Remains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing has changed since User talk:Pppery/Archive 17#User talk page notifications. Repeatedly posting on my talk page about this will not accomplish anything.

And in both cases the bot did notify them, and they didn't respond to the notification in any way even though the PRODs are now near expiration - hence history has shown that me positing a notification would have been counter-productive clutter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You closed a move request without consensus

Hi,

You closed a move request discussion on Talk:mughalsarai without arriving any consensus. I will be reqesting for its review at WP:MR Anubhavklal (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You are so polite : )

I look at the comments above and my immediate thought was: "A discussion which does not 'arrive to any consensus' sounds like the axiomatic definition of a "No Consensus" close..."

Oh and I dunno if this provides context or not (and here and here), but thought you might like the head's up.

Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 15:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be happy to defend my close at MRV if Anubhavklal wants to continue the same POV pushing they've been warned for several times, but no MRV has actually been started. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Funny how that works... - jc37 17:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Db-catempty-notice

Hello, Pppery,

Why did you change this template notice so that it states that speedy deletion tags can be removed by the category creator? I've been placing CSD C1 tags now for 8 years and while some editors do this, it's never been accepted practice. I've posted lots of warning notices to editors who removed CSD tags from pages that they have created, including categories. In fact, I was just doing this when I noticed that the template had been changed. Where was this change discussed? If there wasn't consensus for this change, please return the template to its original state. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 83#C1 removal by author. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

1970s assassinated South American politicians

Hi. I saw the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 25#Category:1970s assassinated South American politicians resulted in merge. The nominator for the merge User:Oculi wrote in the discussion, "should be fully populated before any splitting occurs; there is no pressing need to subcategorise a category with only 35 members."

The parent Category:1970s assassinated politicians now has more than 100 pages. Starting with it forward, I am planning to subcategorize by continent and populate 1970s assassinated South American politicians, if it's ok. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's really up to the participants, not me - all I did is record the consensus. And it appears Fayenatic london failed to properly process my NAC request on the talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, "contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Except you aren't challenging the closure. That would be the correct process to follow if you disagreed that the discussion came to a consensus to merge. But the discussion was unanimous and couldn't have been closed any other way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I am officially challenging the closure. The nominator of the merge did state that the category "should be fully populated before any splitting occurs; there is no pressing need to subcategorise a category with only 35 members." The category now has over 100 members. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, but I've reopened the discussion since that's easier then getting into another extended and likely fruitless argument, especially since the admins haven't even implemented it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey you

Hey you!

<who me?>

Yeah you!

Why aren't you an admin? And what can I do to help you get there?

(In the old days they'd grab a likely candidate, kicking and fussing, over to the water barrel for a serious scrubbing. I think it's clearly your turn. How can I help? : ) - jc37 23:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

To answer the question of why I've never run for adminship, I've been worried about attracting opposition due to lack of content creation, as the only mainspace article I've done significant work on is Magic: The Gathering rules. But I guess, given that you're the third person (after Wbm1058 in September 2021 and HouseBlaster in September 2022) to suggest I run for adminship, I would be willing to accept a nomination. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll give you a couple GAs if you want -- we can just tell everyone that you were at my house and borrowed my computer to write them. jp×g 03:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I would rather the community judge me on who I truly am, but thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I didn't know that you two were related  : ) - jc37 03:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. So it sounds like you're aware of the "fun" of RfA. Just to add the normal links for prospective candidates:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship

Oh and needless to say, I think you meet this: User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria, or we wouldn't be having this discussion : )

I guess at this point, unless you prefer a self-nom, reach out to anyone that you think might wish to be a nominator. I would be happy to as well. - jc37 02:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Wbm1058 has agreed (via email) to write a nomination once he comes back from break. I think the best plan would be for you and him to write co-nominations, since that seems to be the current RfA trend. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever works best. Once you create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery (but obviously don't transclude it yet : ) - Then they and I can add our co-noms. - jc37 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: there it is! Pppery, I can tweak it if there's anything left out or needing changed; let me know. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pppery. I added the nom, and looked over the page so far. Just a couple of small suggestions. You might want to change "fancruft" to a more neutral term. and for #3, you may want to follow it up (or rephrase) with a sentence indicating whether that's something you are likely (or unlikely) to do in the future, whether you learned something from it, you get the idea. Anyway, I hope that helps, and good luck! : ) - jc37 20:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, to be safely parked on a politically-correct base, you could just change "fancruft" to "content" or "text". What I learned from that sock-accusation incident is how easily some segments of the community can jump to unfounded conclusions. That "technical" guy with the unlucky number was a tech wannabe whose skills were not even close to yours. You might just wait to see if someone raises your conflicts with LISTGAP or RexxS in the RfA and then you can address any specific issues raised more directly, rather than trying to anticipate concerns and address them in advance. I think you've made an adequate advance disclosure.

The ball is in your court. After Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: you need to replace The candidate may make an optional statement here. The candidate is required by policy to answer if they have ever edited Wikipedia for pay, and may do so in their acceptance. If this request is a self nomination, feel free to remove this line after subst'ing. with your own words.

Then the last step to make your RfA go live is to transclude your RfA page. My first candidate did it himself, but either of us can perform the last step. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I know. I'm just waiting until Monday to start the process because of real-life events later today. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you fix the indents in your answers to the standard questions, so that the second and subsequent paragraphs are not hard left. For instance, the bit for which the source is presently

regular requests for admin action of various sorts, has remained the same. 

To answer the old version of this question:

could become

regular requests for admin action of various sorts, has remained the same. {{pb

}}To answer the old version of this question:

and it will then line up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I know that to, but figured it would be easier to deal with after substituting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You probably are aware of this already, but just in case, there's an options in preferences that you can set: "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". In case you might find that helpful. - jc37 17:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Depending on how the RfA goes I may consider turning it on. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool. wasn't sure if you knew.

While it is of course not required; in the past, over the years, I've seen more than a few RfA commenters say that they feel that that is "recommended" for admins. - jc37 18:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Cranston

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T85393

Hello, Pppery,

This page was protected from creation because a sockpuppet keeps recreating it. If you see a page that is misspelled or slightly wrong, please check the right spelling to make sure that the page isn't protected and the sockpuppet is getting around it by misspelling the page title and having an experienced editor move it for them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted. The move UI does not ever tell me that I'm moving to a create-protected title, and I assumed it was just an IP that couldn't create an AfD because IPs can only create pages in the talk and draft namespaces. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Curious

Genuinely curious as to your feelings on {{template journal inline}}, and whether this could reasonably be folded into the existing structure used by the {{tlg}} suite of templates. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a good idea in theory but redundant to <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> - compare {{Diff|Main Page|139993|139992|Sic exorsi sumus|diffonly=yes}} to {{Diff|Main Page|139993|139992|Sic exorsi sumus|diffonly=yes}}. Despite having expressed contrary opinions at Wikipedia talk:Lua, I've actually come to like Module:Params which makes many other pre-existing Lua modules redundant, whereas on the contrary I've never been convinced that Module:Template link general has every been anything more than Lua creep for something that could have been done just as easily without Lua. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Wanted to let you know you didn't sign your evidence. I am not allowed to insert an unsigned template there. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

First time participating in arbitration - I assumed they didn't need to be signed as the section was already labeled with my name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Outdent on Q1

I'd like to make a friendly suggestion that you not outdent your answer to the old question 1. Because of the Smallcats case I have just been re-reading the interactions between RexxS and BHG and thus am reminded about Rexx's commitment to accessibility and the way bad identity can interfere with those who use screen readers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I thought I had fixed those earlier. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Irish astrophysicists

Hi Pppery

Please will you review your close of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 24#Category:Irish_astrophysicists.

This was a highly problematic notification of a category created by me:

1. There is no policy or guideline to support the nominator's assertion that An editor who creates a category has a duty to populate it if possible before moving on to other matters. It is contradicted by SMALLCAT's focus on "potential for growth".
2. The nom's claim that A category consisting of one article is useless is not supported by WP:SMALLCAT.
3. The nom explicitly acknowledges that the category could be adequately populated, but instead of doing so, he takes the time of multiple editors to delete.
4. The nom explicitly states his desire to punish: would rather spend my time trying to encourage editors to complete their self-allotted tasks properly

Note that https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25489375 finds 5 articles which could populate Category:Irish astrophysicists. I had no chance to populate it it, because I was not notified of the nomination, and became aware of it only a fww day ago.

Per WP:CONLEVEL, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. However, it seems to me that in this case, the consensus of the editors involved was allowed to override community consensus in the stable guideline WP:SMALLCAT, and that the discussion should have been closed as "keep", probably by an admin (since applying WP:NOTVOTE would be controversial and hence outside the scope of WP:NAC.

Please note that I am an admirer of your work and a grateful recipient of much technical help from you over many years. I see absolutely no reason to suspect that this is anything other than an oversight on your part.

Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've relisted the discussion. It's especially ironic that the category seems to have had two members when I carried out the close, the nomination implying it had only 1, and I didn't notice that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Pppery. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Attribution when copying within Wikipedia

Hi Pppery, Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some specific edit in mind when referring to this? I'm aware of the general principles for copying within Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It's in re Peter's question from your request for adminship. It's an example of a case where an edit summary is required. (I was going to make the same comment.) Dan Bloch (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm sure that, if I were actually copying something I would remember to use an edit summary, but the case didn't come to mind. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

17th West Bengal Assembly: Revision history

Your edits to 17th West Bengal Assembly have resulted in Fostered content lint errors. Please fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)