User talk:Pppery

Welcome!

Hello, Pppery, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

– Fayenatic London 20:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWA

Hi Pppery,

I saw your response on the Wikipedia_talk:TWA/Portal#Get_help page and was hoping you might be able to help. I've been using WP:TWA for many years to encourage students to learn more about Wikipedia. Recently, I've noticed that some of the badges aren't being awarded. At first, I assumed it was due to user error, but the issue seems consistent across multiple students. It now appears likely that there is a technical glitch in the program.

At the moment, badge #8 seems to be impossible to obtain. Would you be willing to take a look at the source code and see if there's anything that might be causing this?

Thanks in advance!

--Taweetham (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this now. It turns out that I added logic for avoiding getting the same badge multiple times if you played the adventure multiple times, which was erroneously treating all badges as equivalent to the verifiability badge as equivalent to all other badges due to a typo. And this somehow escaped my testing when I did that, probably because I've never really cared much for the badges aspect of the adventure when I picked up maintenance from the original developers. Also note that, confusingly, you don't actually get the badge added to your userpage until you get to the second "Challenge yourself" (which source is reliable) even though the tour claims you are awarded it several steps before that. The reason for that oddity is that the infrastructure only supports making one edit per tour step and GaiaGirl86's talk messages are given higher priority. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery! Thanks so much for your change. This is very helpful and encouraging. We had a translation of WP:TWA in Thai, but it has become outdated. I’m wondering—if we bring it back to life, would you kindly help us with troubleshooting? This could potentially increase the reach of the material to a wider audience. --Taweetham (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to look in principle, but of course I don't speak Thai. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. We will handle all the translation (as well as liaison with admin on Thai Wikipedia). I led the translation of WP:TWA ten years ago in June 2015. It was nice to have for a few years until it was broken and outdated. --Taweetham (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we may start with a very simple task, let me describe the first issue here. https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TWA/1/Start?tour=twa1&step=8 is the deepest we can get through at this point. I cannot get a response when clicking on the button further. I compare the source code from both wikis:

~~It looks fine to me at Step 8 (//8).~~ I notice that ", true" is missing in Step 8 (//8) of the Thai version. Do you think changing the code in Step 8 here or in the next step (//9) will solve the problem. If so, let me know. I will test this with the admin on the local site to see if how it goes. The progress may appear slow at this point but we should pick up speed at later stage. I would like to test the most efficient way to make edits. (Revising bits by bits vs copying English Wikipedia for all 7 .js files then work on translation later) --Taweetham (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific problem there is that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js&diff=prev&oldid=1034620862 was never made to the Thai version; you will need to get someone with interface admin rights on the Thai Wikipedia to make that edit (and the same for the other 6 modules). Once that is done my guess is that the adventure should minimally work but I did a fairly substantial rewrite in May 2024 to, among other things, support VisualEditor, and if you want to include that then you'll have to start from the current version of the English JS files and translate them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The change was just implemented on the first .js page by an admin a moment ago, and I’ve tested that Mission One now works perfectly (for the two badges). I’ve submitted an additional request to apply the same change to the remaining six .js pages. If the response time from admins on Thai Wikipedia isn’t too long, we can likely continue making live edits directly to the .js pages. Otherwise, we may need to consider an alternative approach, such as hosting the scripts in a user namespace. Definitely, we’re also interested in getting TWA to work with the Visual Editor, and we’ll return to that after we’ve finished rescuing all 15 badges. --Taweetham (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery!

I wanted to provide an update on the test regarding the lead time of the WP:AN request.

We currently have one admin, B20180, who is available and willing to help. However, although he has interface editing rights, he reports that he is unable to edit the .js page. The admin who made the initial edit to our first .js file has been unavailable for the past few days, but has confirmed that he is able to edit at least the second .js page.

Given these circumstances, would it be possible to proceed with the alternative approach that was previously suggested? Specifically, we could place the seven .js files in an alternative namespace (such as a user subpage) temporarily while we work on the translation and testing. Once everything is complete, we would only need to request seven page moves from a local admin. (and it may take a week or two!)

Could you help us by setting up one example to get us started? This would enable our volunteer to move forward and complete the project quickly and efficiently.

Thank you so much for your support!

--Taweetham (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The GuidedTour extension has no way of supporting loading tours from userspace. This is necessary as an anti-XSS measure; if you could set up a tour that you could edit as a non-(interface-admin), then, since guided tours are loadable by URL, you could give any random bystander a URL to load that tour and execute its code in their browser, which can do bad things. I tried to come up with various hacks involving creating a tour in the MediaWiki namespace that loads the actual code from the user namespace, but couldn't get them to work (and then later realized it was a bad idea anyway). I know this isn't really fair, but it's how the software works.

B20180 most likely can't edit the JS because they don't have 2FA enabled; the software pretends interface admins who don't have 2FA lack the rights entirely and gives elatively unclear error messages. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your technical insights. I was under the impression that ten years ago (2015), we did make this in the username space before moving it to live page. I will help B20180 to get 2FA and let you know the progress. --Taweetham (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digging through the logs on the Thai Wikipedia (which is difficult when you don't speak the language), there seems to have been an attempt to do stuff in userspace before deploying, however my guess is you didn't actually run and test the code until an admin (admins and interface admins weren't separated until years later, and 2FA hadn't been invented yet) deployed it live, and there were repeated technical failures. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I continue to do what I can do slowly. The progress of this new translation project can be seen as

Done on the page th:วิกิพีเดีย:The Wikipedia Adventure/Index. I will keep you posted about what we decide to do on the lack of interface admin availability. --Taweetham (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery! Our admin is still working on 2FA but I made progress elsewhere anyway. The template th:วิกิพีเดีย:TWA/Welcome does not substitute into a talk page properly (e.g. th:คุยกับผู้ใช้:Taweetham). Please kindly confirm if this will be fixed when the javascipt is updated. --Taweetham (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js&diff=prev&oldid=1224247291 is the edit that made the welcome template subst properly without hacks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your continued support! --Taweetham (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, why do the links from Wikipedia:TWA/Earth/Talk and WP:TWA/MyTalk point to a real user page (Ocaasi)? Aren’t these links supposed to direct to the fictional users whose pages we’ve previously created? --Taweetham (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but in any event neither of those pages are actually used by the adventure; the actual pages that are used are Wikipedia:TWA/Earth/Talk/1 through Wikipedia:TWA/Earth/Talk/5 and WP:TWA/MyTalk/1 through Wikipedia:TWA/MyTalk/8. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I rather blank the two pages in Thai version as I found another issue with {currentdate} vs {{currentdate}} on one of the two pages. --Taweetham (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are nearly 100% finished with translating all the accessible pages, thanks to the many volunteers who each contributed bits and pieces along the way.

Could you please confirm whether the dysfunctional th:WP:Teahouse on the Thai Wikipedia will have any impact on WP:TWA? If so, what is the minimum required to make it functional? I created a CSS page th: วิกิพีเดีย:Teahouse/Header/styles.css, but it doesn't seem to be working. Thanks so much in advance for you suggestions. --Taweetham (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TWA does not itself link to or depend on the Teahouse; it merely talks about the Teahouse. Your CSS doesn't work because it's content model needs to be sanitized-css, something an admin can fix via Special:ChangeContentModel on the wiki. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I plan to send the .js update requests to m:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous as I have contacted all local admins with interface rights publicly and none of them are available at this point. We will probably test the lead time first and then apply changes in phases at the same time as testing. --Taweetham (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the stewards will refuse to intervene saying it should be handled locally, but you're welcome to try. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both answers—they are very helpful. As a backup to the direct steward request, my plan is to assign a person from our TWA developement team as a new admin, either temporarily for interface purposes or through a full, proper process. This could also be requested locally, as we have a bureaucrat on-site. We view WP:TWA as a high-impact project that will help recruit new contributors to replace inactive editors and admins. As such, this is a time-sensitive priority that may require shortcuts rather than following the full process at every step. --Taweetham (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have several positive updates to share:

A local admin who had been inactive for nearly six months has taken action on our request. As of yesterday, all 15 badges can now be awarded on the Thai Wikipedia. This serves as technical proof that the code is functioning correctly; the translation effort will follow. (See below)
A local admin nomination was launched on Sunday. The page has received reasonable support in the first few days and is expected to close within the next 10 days.

We owe you a big thanks for reaching this milestone, though our work is still ongoing and your continued support will be greatly appreciated.

I understand that there is no way for non-admins to test JavaScript pages. That said, do we have a convention for sandboxing? I propose creating 7 pages named th:MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twaX.js/sandbox (where X = 1 to 7) based on the English Wikipedia. Volunteers could then handle translation and proofreading the sandboxes before an admin replaces the content. (As we anticipate that the text will change substantially,) Would this be an appropriate approach to move forward?

--Taweetham (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't technically possible. Any page in the MediaWiki namespace can only be edited by admins. Any page in the MediaWiki namespace with the JavaScript content model can only be edited by interface admins. Local users have no power to overrule these built-in rules.

On enwiki, we've sometimes worked around this by using the MediaWiki talk namespace instead, like MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist-custom-archive/sandbox for non-JS pages, although I don;t think we've ever had collaboratively-built JS of that sort. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I got this idea from my work on the CS1 module on the Thai Wikipedia. I just realized that we are talking about a different namespace (Module+MediaWiki+Talk). So, the correct possibility is actually: th:MediaWiki Talk:Guidedtour-tour-twaX.js/sandbox (where X = 1 to 7). I completely understand your point that this has never been done before, but if there’s no harm and no better way to make substantial improvements to the text—especially given the limited availability of admins—we will proceed with this approach from this weekend. First "beta" version should be ready early next month. --Taweetham (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do, after a fashion. Consider MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js: this is a javascript page in MediaWiki namespace, so can only be edited by interface admins. But the data portion (line 17 onward) can be modified by proxy: this portion is copied from Wikipedia:Geonotice/list.json by MusikBot II (talk · contribs), provided that it parses as valid JSON. Wikipedia:Geonotice/list.json is fully-protected, but technically could be any prot level, including unprotected. In this way, we allow non-intadmins to edit a page that they otherwise wouldn't be able to modify. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thank you. It is a great idea for other projects in the future. For the time being (WP:TWA), I probably stick to "MediaWiki Talk". On Thai Wikipedia, we do have admin bots and their operators may agree to take up the idea of maintaining the .js pages via bot copying. --Taweetham (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, please let us give you a quick update:

Over the past two weeks, we've made progress on a few fronts. We've completed the interface admin nomination process (congratulations to @Wutkh: on being elected/appointed), and we've added a few more lines regarding security matters specifically tailored for Thai users—specifically in the JavaScript section of Mission 1 and the background section of the final page of Mission 7.
Additionally, we’ve compiled a list of TWA-related technical questions in Thai on our local talk page. We've been working through them, and a good number have already been resolved locally. However, the new admin and I plan to translate and bring the remaining questions to your attention in the near future.

Thank you again for your continued support.

--Taweetham (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pppery and Taweetham,

Firstly, thank you Taweetham for your kindness. After sysop appointment, I'm looking to JS in th:WP:TWA. I've tried to pass the 5th mission, but I stuck only the 15th step (according to th:มีเดียวิกิ:Guidedtour-tour-twa5.js) and I can't pass through it. (Even it's same code in MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa5.js. Can you advise me to deal with that? Thank you --Wutkh (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The adventure assumes you have "enable quick replying" (English)/ "เปิดใช้การตอบกลับอย่างรวดเร็ว" (thai) set in the "editing" section of your preferences, as it uses that interface for replying. Once I set that I was able to complete the entire adventure on the Thai Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery. Thank you for your quick response. I really appreciate it. I've confirmed it ("enable quick replying" (English)/ "เปิดใช้การตอบกลับอย่างรวดเร็ว" (thai)) has already been enable. I just also aware that Taweetham has found a temporary workaround, but it is not ideal trick to pass that by

have some text typed into the reply box
close the WP:TWA dialogue box
refresh the page (F5 on Windows).

Could you please advise on a more permanent solution?

FYI I've tested this on VisualEditor on Microsoft Edge. --Wutkh (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you since I can't reproduce the problem - it worked for me once that preference was enabled without any additional steps. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I am aware that there might be a specific trouble in my language Wikipedia. So we might implement temporary notice for this issue to users through the dialogue box instead.

Taweetham and I are also there are some pages produced from this platform and proposed to use a bot to remove them. Can you guide us to do so? Recently I tried to use pwb python to alter some text but it can't, especially in MediaWiki namespace. I am not sure that because of logging in without sysop privilege in PAWS. --Wutkh (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PAWS OAuth consumer only allows specific permissions (cross-check with Special:ListGrants), which don't include editing in the MediaWiki namespace or deleting pages (this is unrelated to whether you are or are not a sysop). If you use Pywikibot on a different system, such as your own computer or toolforge, and supply either your password or a Bot password rather than using OAuth, then PyWikibot can delete pages and edit in the MediaWiki namespace - I've done both myself with mw:User:Flow cleanup bot.

I'm not particularly interested in helping you code a bot to auto-delete those pages, since enwiki has worked fine for over a decade without any such bot so I don't see the value. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this limitation. Have a good day --Wutkh (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, Thank you very much for your guidance.

Regarding Step 15 of Guidedtour-tour-twa5.js, we may need to bring in more testers to better understand the root of the problem.
Thanks also for the tip about PAWS. I believe that can now help Wutkh log in properly and quickly make the necessary changes to TWA. We're currently aiming to replace certain terms, as our translators have revised their choices and we want to ensure the updates are applied consistently across all pages.
@Wutkh: also pointed out that Step 29 of Guidedtour-tour-twa7.js refers to WikiLove, which is not yet available on Thai Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether this feature requires a request on Phabricator, or if it's something a local sysop (like Wutkh) can enable directly. Unlike the Teahouse—which we opted to substitute with th:WP:ASK—WikiLove seems to be a distinct and valuable feature that could enhance collaboration and foster a positive community spirit in line with TWA’s goals. Any guidance you can offer on this would be greatly appreciated.

--Taweetham (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiLove extension (the heart icon on my talk page) is something that requires a request on Phabricator. But the adventure is describing a concept rather than a specific tool as I see it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. @Wutkh:, we can modify the wording around WikiLove as a feature in progress at Thai Wikipedia. Community consensus will take 14 days to confirm. This is unlikely to be controversial. I will start a discussion on the local site. --Taweetham (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battle of the Blades participants

Many thanks for your close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 17#Category:Battle of the Blades participants. I agree, it couldn't have been closed in any other way, and I'm also disappointed that there wasn't more participation. Given the clear precedent for deleting categories of this kind, I'm positive more input would have resulted in a "delete" !vote. When do you think it would not be too soon to nominate this again? --wooden superman 08:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion suggests If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sana Yousaf

Murder of Sana Yousaf needs to be recreated as it's really talked about a lot in Pakistan and getting coverage by International media as it is prime example of Violence against women. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] اُردو (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're not a sockpuppet of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress, you're welcome to recreate it if you wish. I will not be rewarding the sockpuppeteer by undeleting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll create to face these allegations, previously I created an article and I was being blamed for sockpuppeting, that's why I'm not doing on my own to face that again.I'll wait for someone to create it.--اُردو (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, and Coen brothers

In May, the Ethan Coen article and the Joel Coen article were created. I am posting here because you moved both articles from Draft status to Published. Both of the individual articles seem to have possibly relied heavily on content at the previously-published Coen brothers article, see this & this. (I say that because I have found Harv error issues from uncited sfn targets on both Ethan Coen/Joel Coen, that appeared as cited in the brothers article, plus Retrieved/accessed dates within cites that are not May 2025, etc.) Does there perhaps need to be a note on the individual brother's article talk pages in regards to attribution? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My publish action was doing technical cleanup after a page was deleted to make way for an AfC move that hadn't happened. Josedimaria is really the correct person to ask. But no real objection to adding any missing attribution. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added dummy edit Notices to both the Ethan and the Joel Coen articles, as well as Template:copied on those 2 articles' talk pages. I posted on ClovisBarnHopper's user talk about the attribution and they said it was fine with them & that they had copied from the parent/Coen brothers article to the subsequent individual articles. - Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Publications

@Pppery Hi Admin, I’d like to bring up an issue I’ve come across frequently while editing India-related articles. There’s still a lot of uncertainty around the reliability of Indian news publications, especially English and Hindi-language sources. In many cases, sources are being marked as unreliable without much prior discussion or a clear consensus. While it's true that some publications have issues such as paid content or bias, I don’t think it’s always appropriate to label them unreliable across the board. Many of these outlets publish bylined articles and original reporting. In situations where there’s no existing consensus, it’s genuinely difficult to know how to handle such sources. Moreover, there are several sources where reliability is still a matter of debate, yet they are often categorized as unreliable without sufficient discussion. This lack of clarity leads to confusion and inconsistency in editing practices. Would it be helpful to start a centralized discussion or create a dedicated page that looks specifically at Indian publications? Something similar to WP:RSP, but focused on sources commonly used in India-related topics. This might help editors better understand how certain sources are viewed and avoid disputes or inconsistencies when editing. Happy to hear your thoughts on whether this is needed, and if so, what the best next steps might be.Afstromen (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in any event I am not interested in engaging further in this area. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Sir, no problem. Could you please guide me on where I should raise this issue?Afstromen (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock question

Hi! I saw your block of User:Anogen522 for vandalism and being a suspected sock, and I noticed that there's a few other unblocked recently-created accounts that are very obviously this person, with 3/4 causing minor disruption (mostly uploading random images). The accounts in question:

Do you think it would be worth blocking them? /gq Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any particular value in blocking accounts that haven't edited for between weeks to a month or more. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fair enough. Thanks for the prompt reply :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting self-PCR removal

Hi! Probably an unusual request but I just never use it enough to warrant having it. Could you remove pending changes reviewer from my account? It's neat but just unnecessary for now. 🪷 nahida 22:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 🪷 nahida 22:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category rename

Hello I saw you commented on a recent rename discussion of a category Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 3#Category:Quranic scholars

I wish to let you know I have opened a similar rename discussion for a related category , so please take a look if your time allows it to be, for Category:History of Quran scholars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_15 Pogenplain (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only closed that discussion and corrected some procedural errors. In a week when the discussion you started reaches its seven-day period then someone (possibly me, but hopefully someone else will step up to the plate since it's not really fair that I end up closing nearly all CfD discussions these days) will close it and implement the consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_5#Category:Bissau-Guinean_military_doctors

Hi, you forgot to merge this one when merging: Category:Saudi Arabian military doctors. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically your fault since you asked to merge it into a redirect which made the CfD implentation bot barf. I've told the bot to merge it into the target instead, which it should do in an hour or so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you assist? In the following discussions not all the categories were merged. I contacted the closing admin but they don't seem to be active. I noticed the other categories listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_14#Category:Chinese_andrologists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_14#Category:Belgian_palliative_care_physicians were not merged. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added those to the bot's queue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note

nothing serious, but you used the wrong link for this. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. They requested rollback and the admin corps decided to grant pending changes reviewer instead without a separate PCR request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Okay Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 00:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

Did WP:XFDC not work for Special:Diff/1295587849? Primefac (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't try to use it. I generally prefer to do most tasks manually and eschew the use of scripts. And yes, I probably should have replaced {{tfd}} with {{being deleted}}, and realized how few uses there were of the templates - my expectation was that a discussion of that scale would have required a lot more implementation edits than it ended up requiring. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category question

Hello, Pppery,

Sorry to bother you about this but it seems like recently, you've been doing work with categories and renames at CFD.

So, there is a link we use, here, that will list empty categories that need to be tagged CSD C1. And there have been dozens of categories listed all day as empty categories but they are actually categories that were listed as Speedy Renames but the CFD bot has yet to move the category contents over to them. The categories were moved, the old categories have been deleted but the contents of the old categories need to be recategorized to the new ones.

Can you check and make sure that these are listed on the Working page over at CFD? I have yet to fully understand how the CFD system works. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a mess. A tree that needed to be kept together was nominated for speedy renaming piecemeal in a way that just doesn't work. I've decided to WP:IAR a bit and process nominations whose time hasn't technically come due yet to restore a state of sanity, but User:Gaois, please don't do that, and also the CFDS admins (which don't generally include me) should have caught the error and directed this to a full discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of official overseas trips made by Catherine, Princess of Wales

The content of the aforementioned article was copied from the article List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales. I had assumed that a history merge would correct the attribution on XTools. The parent article has since been renamed to List of official overseas trips made by William, Prince of Wales, and while authorship attribution appears correctly there, the article on Catherine's visits (which was created a few days ago) has not received proper attribution. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for the impossible. There's no (practical) way of duplicating edits so the pre-split edits can only be on one page. The split is already correctly attributed per WP:CWW so there's nothing I can do here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that?

Hi, I hope this is fine to ask here as I don't want to clog up the AutoWikiBrowser permissions discussion more - how did you know those numbers of mainspace and non automated mainspace edits I have? (This is so that I can check for myself and re-request when I've met the requirements). Thank you for clarifying :) --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 07:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the "non-automated edits" link on your request header, or directly https://xtools.wmcloud.org/autoedits/en.wikipedia.org/Not-cheesewhisk3rs * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klassekampen

There is another of the WP:PAID editors continuing the edit warring over at Klassekampen [1]. (The claim about "conspiracy theories" seems made up to me; the author of the book on anti-Semitism they refer to is Torkel Brekke, a very respected researcher on anti-Semitism, and it was published by one of Norway's largest academic publishers. So this is likely a way to attack a source they feel doesn't further their marketing interests). --Svantetos (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Edit

Thanks for fixing that - apparently some CfDs think Edit is part of the nomination somehow. I think it's delete nominations that use a template to show the category name in them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_11#Category:Republic_of_the_Congo_parasitologists

Thanks for closing this CfD, somehow Category:Syrian pharmacologists wasn't merged? LibStar (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, will be fixed with the next bot run. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LibStar (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A favor

Hello, Pppery,

I was hoping you could do a favor for me, and the community. As you know, when editors start a discussion on AN or ANI, they are supposed to notify the parties that are central to the dispute. However, there is a distinct difference between the AN notice and the ANI notice.

The AN notice, {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~, leaves a header above the statement that creates a separate paragraph for the notification and makes the notice easy to see. It's hard to miss. However, the ANI notice, {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~, doesn't include a header. I've frequently gone to the User talk page of editors being discussed and added a header to the notices because the notice just looked like it was a sentence in a different discussion on the talk page. Well-intentioned but inexperienced editors just add the code to the bottom of the talk page and it just looks like the continuation of another discussion.

Is there any way you could fix the ANI notice so that it, like the AN notice, includes a paragraph header? I'd really appreciate it as I don't have experience editing templates. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Liz: {{subst:AN-notice}} does add a heading, but also allows |heading=no to suppress that. {{subst:ANI-notice}} lacks both. However, {{subst:AN-notice}} has all the features of {{subst:ANI-notice}} plus more: and it's possible to use {{subst:AN-notice}} for an ANI notification, by using the |noticeboard= parameter: {{subst:AN-notice|noticeboard=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}}. When used like this, it will still respect the |heading=no and |sign=yes options. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for missing this at first, I had a hectic evening yesterday and this fell off my radar of things to do). In addition to what Redrose64 said, it seems best to leave things as-is; doing this would break one workflow to fix another. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending-Changes Reviewer

Hey! Pppery, what can I do to better my chances of becomeing a "pending-changes reviewer"? --PawPatroler (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything more to add to the comments I left on your original requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page redirection

Hello @Pppery I hope you're doing well. Is it necessary to maintain a redirection for the previous talk page? Riad Salih (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason not to? No valid speedy deletion reason was given. See also WP:!G6 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery Honestly, I still don't get it. It's a draft page, same for the talk page. I rarely see draft redirection links being kept. Riad Salih (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're approaching this from completely different perspectives. My role, as a speedy deletion patrolling admin, is solely to assess whether a valid speedy deletion criterion was specified, and I determined one wasn't - you used a template that plainly didn't apply, so I was duty-bound to decline. This is what the community has asked admins in this area to do, so I'm doing it and caring not at all about the desired end state. But even if I were to shirk my duties there and follow your logic it would still be incorrect; redirects from drafts are often kept per WP:RDRAFT. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Let's keep the draft, but regarding the draft talk page, I have concerns. If you believe it should be kept, that's fine, even though the explanatory essay is unclear regarding the draft talk page. Have a nice day Riad Salih (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:T5

Criteria for speedy deletion T5 specifically mentions: "Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself" and no where does it mention that the specified unused subpages must be harmful so even "harmless" subpages qualify. Why are you rejecting such as "harmless"? I am not aware of any such documented criteria for speedy deletion rejection where the tagged page needs to be harmful (although some of the deletion criteria clearly specify things that could be deemed harmful but not all do). —Uzume (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be a proceduralist then I can counterargue that the page is a redirect not a template and hence TXXX criteria categorically don't apply. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No where in T5 does it say subpages cannot be redirects but if you are going to be a proceduralist, I can certainly make the page not be a redirect. —Uzume (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piper sanctum - Piper auritum

Hello, I saw that you removed a merge history tag that I added to Piper auritum. I am new to the English Wikipedia (I usually edit on Spanish Wikipedia) so I am not used to the way things are done here, was the tag appropriate for the article? did you remove it because the histories were merged or there wasn't any need for merging? I am asking out of curiosity to better understand English Wikipedia. Regards. JaimeDes (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deemed no merge necessary because of WP:Parallel histories. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you! JaimeDes (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 3#Category:Sports competitions in Scandinavia

The intention from my side was that the two categories Category:Sports competitions in Scandinavia and Category:Inter-Nordic sports competitions would become one, Category:Sports competitions in the Nordic countries. Either that was unclear or the bot didn't understand how to process the second one. How do you interpret the nomination? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the nomination as "Merge Category:Sports competitions in Scandinavia to a new category called Category:Sports competitions in the Nordic countries and the existing Category:Inter-Nordic sports competitions". Which doesn't make sense now that I look at it in hindsight, and I'll fix to what was actually intended shortly. I think your shorthand was unclear and it would have been better to list the two instructions separately; "propose merging Category:Foo to Category:Bar and Category:Baz" is a common phrasing at CfD, whereas "Proposing merging Category:Foo and Category:Bar to Category:Baz" is much rarer (because it's written out as two bullet points usually) so my brain expected the former even though you clearly said the latter.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is my fault - I made a mistake; I'm merely trying to explain the steps that led me to make that mistake, not to justify what I did. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can also make it clearer in the future. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect file deleted

Hello, pppery, it appears you accidentally deleted the wrong file. The discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 16#File:Iron Man (circa 2018).png closed as keep, yet your summary appears to be for a separate fiel discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 June 16#File:Lodestone games logo.png. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Undeleted that and deleted the file I meant to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chattha State

Hi Pppery, It seems like you recently redirected a page by the name of "Chattha State" to "Chattha (clan)" created by me. I think there has been some misunderstanding and the page shouldn't have been redirected as there was a Deletion discussion regarding a page called "Chattha Dynasty" created by me as well. The deletion discussion closed and the result was a redirect to the page called "Chattha (clan)" as it was original research. Whilst the name of the page seemed to be the issue. I hastily changed it to "Chattha state" which was supported by the sources. And when I recreated the page with improvements with the name "Chattha State" it got speedy deleted as it was deleted before through a deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chattha Dynasty. I would appreciate your help in this case. Jatwadia (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with Ixudi, who tagged it for G4 instead; I merely observed that, accepting Ixudi's argument, the correct action was redirecting rather than deletion, and given that there was no need to review the merits of the argument since Ixudi could have BLARed themselves without involving me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Park Historical Village Page

Looks like you are a sophisticated user of Wikipedia and maybe have a connection to Heritage Park. You might be able to fix this - I sure can't. A user just eviscerated the Heritage Park Historical Site wiki page taking out almost all of the information that could be useful to potential visitors. I am a VERY novice user. This user (Magnolia677) got on me because I was adding some content on a Sam Livingston page without footnoting everything on another page unrelated to Heritage Park (my bad I guess). This whole source/footnoting thing seems like a bit of a joke (to me) now on Wiki generally - I see that many sources across Wikipedia topics are just links to blogs that the same person/organization probably authored as original content. However, I understand the source rule now - but maybe there is some exceptions when there is no source for information known to be correct? Regardless, this user (Magnolia677) seems to be out of control. I added some things in 2023/24 to the Heritage Park Historical Park content. This user (Magnolia677) has not only deleted ALL of my additions but also appears to have deleted almost everything on the page including most of the long existing content (there long before I made any revisions), my revisions, your recent revisions (i.e. about the new paleontology exhibit), etc. Given you appear to be a more sophisticated user of Wikipedia edits is there something you can do? GordCalgary (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in involving myself with this; I made a minor technical edit which does not imply any knowledge of the area. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help...

Hey! I've notice a problem on Mission 6; when you "reply" again, the "Wikipedia Adventure" does not let you move forward; this might be a bug, but I need help getting to the end of Mission 6. --PawPatroler (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you don't click the final "reply" button until you're told to do so. Otherwise I'm not interested in painstakingly walking you through the adventure; most people can complete it without needing to ask for help on two different occasions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment on CFDW

Hi!

Re: this comment to me, it seems indeed that I made a mistake in the original nomination. The idea was to keep Category:Trilateral relations of Canada/United Kingdom/United States and merge the rest there.

May I also suggest the following item that was left out?

Propose merging: Category:Canada–United Kingdom–United States cultural relations to Category:Canada–United Kingdom–United States relations, Category:Canada–United Kingdom cultural relations, Category:Canada–United States cultural relations, and Category:United Kingdom–United States cultural relations

I did that merge manually, the now-empty Category:Canada–United Kingdom–United States cultural relations remains to be deleted. Place Clichy (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I feel like you forgot a section when transferring to CFDW: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 June 23 § China–Japan–South Korea sports relations. Place Clichy (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of figured that intention out from the fact that they weren't tagged. Anyway, done both. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD noob

Hey Ppp. Could you double check my recent closures at CfD? First time. Diff of closures, diff at the working subpage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. As a general note, special caution is warranted when renaming categories populated by templates as the bot sometimes can't find the populating template so manual work is needed (and if it's not done on time then Special:WantedCategories patrollers barf). But for stub templates specifically the bot is smart enough, so proceed as normal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw that note and misinterpreted it—I bungled the obvious meaning of "populated". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genan Wakil

Hi how are you ? this page has Local sources and not worked, so I think should be deleted and not have a page here, not notable.how we can do this? @Pppery @Johnj1995 Ilovejournalism8 (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Deletion process and don't ping random people with no prior involvement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovejournalism8 won't be replying here because .... "Checkuser says no" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I apologize to you?

Pppery, I'd like to apologize to you for bludgeoning the process over at Talk:Molly White (writer). I have gotten into so many disputes, and I'll admit that I did get carried away with all the responding. I now know that everyone in a discussion gets a chance to reply with their own opinions, and since they generally don't try to impose those opinions on me, I shouldn't do the same.

Moving forward, I will make sure to remember that I should not reply to every single comment in a discussion, the more I try to enforce my own opinions, the less effective they become, and that this kind of behavior will result in a block.

Can you forgive me? 1isall (talk/contribs) 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You're the best. 1isall (talk/contribs) 22:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This might be a bit of a weird thing to thank you for, but I appreciate the "I don't think this needed to be relisted" over at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#June_27#Development of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. It's useful to be calibrated on where people's expectations there are :) Rusalkii (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		Thanks for all your dedication to keeping CFD moving. It's much appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Metro move at Waterloo metro station

Thanks for finally closing that! I was just wondering though, was there any consensus for the stations mentioned in the RM, but not formally listed? Per WP:CONSISTENT, I was thinking of just moving them without an additional RM. For clarity, I mean articles on stations that will become sole metro stations in the future that currently use "railway station". Thanks again, Fork99 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a formal matter a RM only binds any pages that were properly tagged and listed, but this doesn't stop you from boldly moving other pages, merely means they are bold actions subject to the standard procedures for undiscussed moves and not sacrosanct. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western hunter-gatherer

The result of the move request was: Not moved That's great and all, but aren't you supposed to like, say why it wasn't moved? 🤔 Tewdar 21:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there wasn't a consensus to move there. I don't think there's anything more to say; you made your case but failed to convince any of the other participants. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, even that would have been better than nothing. Tewdar 21:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RM close at Talk:Scotch Mist (drama)

Hi Pppery, a minor point, but curious whether you really concluded there was consensus to not move here (i.e., consensus for the status quo). I don't see any consensus really, and thus a close of "no consensus" seems more appropriate, per WP:RMCI, even though the immediate result is the same. Note that Necrothesp subsequently moved Scotch Mist (drama) to Scotch Mist (play); I don't object to this as it does seem like more common disambiguation, but there doesn't appear to be explicit consensus for it at the RM. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I clearly did see a consensus not to move (or else I would have said "no consensus"), but looking at in hindsight I now don't see any such consensus so have changed the closure to "no consensus". I suspect my thinking back then was that discussions where the trendline swings dramatically in one direction are more likely to have consensus for the late outcome, but that only applies when there was some new argument made, which there isn't really, just the same tired dispute being rehashed.

And I agree the move to (play) was fine; that's not on the same axis as the things the RM discussed at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For nipping the imminent disruption in the bud here. The article was clearly going to be a target for the genuinely appalling harassment and BLP violations that have dogged that individual (here and elsewhere) sooner or later, different subject notwithstanding, and I'm just happy you've largely helped prevent them by protecting indefinitely. Thank you so much for keeping such disgusting behavior at bay. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cutting of classification list

The removal of this list of subject headings seems very destructive given that there is no alternative pages with such a list available. As well the links to the various classification headings are now gone from this page as they had originally been available through said list. 2607:FA49:7C3D:9000:E4E2:DA90:A668:FAB8 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not disruptive at all, merely enforcing WP:NOT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classifications; it's not Wikipedia's goal to replicate https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/ * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of United States Senate

Hi! It looks like you made the extended-semi on United States Senate indefinite. But your post at special:diff/1299298216 suggests that you wanted it to be temporary. I'm probably missing something, but just flagging in case it was a mistake. (I'd suggest temporary for now, and see if things calm down in a week or two). meamemg (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, now fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And (film)

Hi Pppery! Thanks for simplifying the title of my new article. As you could probably see, I was trying to slavishly reproduce the typography in the film's title frame. I had no IDEA the problems that would cause in sorting and listing the title under the subject categories. I'm glad someone else decided it for me. Sometimes simpler IS better. Cheers, Dennis Filmhunter (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lionsgate" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lionsgate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10 § Lionsgate until a consensus is reached.

(Courtesy notification to closer of related discussion at Talk:Lionsgate Films.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged

You'ved tagged Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification for deletion but you haven't listed it on its log page. What is/was your intention? Logoshimpo (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dewey Decimal classes (2nd nomination) to cover both pages, and I did list both of them there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that and am not sure why. Logoshimpo (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Armenia 1918-192

Would you reconsider your block? They were never informed about the A-A sanctions, and I think they could be guided into productive editing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block would stand in any topic area, for having done nothing but create pages others have to delete and hence being nothere/disruption-only. They created Draft:Armenian Anti-Communist Resistance (1920–1921) which was deleted as G11. They created War over Mountainous Armenia (1921) which, even before my deletion, was draftified as references are mostly not RS, don't move it to article space yourself, you have a COI and you don't understand referencing, and was also evading a salting of War over Mountainous Armenia. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Independence of Armenia (1918) was heading toward delete as WP:OR even before the ECR issues came about. So, no, I don't think there's a kernel of a productive user here; they are welcome to request unblock and see if they can convince another admin (and I was in the process of forumlating the block template when I got this message). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while they weren't formally aware of the sanctions, they did the most recent move into mainspace after your edit on talk informing them of the restrictions, so I don't think so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:217.178.136.61

We need another round of semi-protection on this IP's talkpage. Thanks. 71.59.186.230 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN Closure

Hello, Pppery,

Thank you for closing the discussion on AN about Starfall2015 but I beieve you need to post a formal notice on the editor's User talk page about the topic ban and include information how they can appeal it. And also add them and details about the block to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Active editing restrictions. There is more information at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a topic ban. It's a partial block. Those follow different rules because they have only technical enforcement and no social enforcement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

@Pppery Hey! I have just moved the page Turf War, into Turf War (TV series). I was just renaming the page as suggested, more like a WP:BOLDMOVE. Revert it if you think it was a mistsake doing it...--PawPatroler (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for deleting pages I requested! Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 18:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pppery2

Recently, this user was blocked for attempting to impersonate you. Should I, you, or someone else put {{Blocked impersonator}} on their user page? Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block and lock can stand on their own and a userpage notice isn't necessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Template Edit request

Hi @Pppery, I noticed that you previously responded to some edit requests on Template talk:Designation, and I was hoping you might be able to take a look at my request for a new designation related to the National Cultural Heritage of Peru. Thank you for your time! Best, JustEMV (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will get to it in due time. Patience is a virtue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you. JustEMV (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Infobox Australian road

May I ask why you have tagged a TfD on Template:Infobox Australian road (see your edit)? There seems to be no such entry or discussion in the TfD log. Was this wrongly tagged? I have reverted and removed your TfD tag. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TfD was there but I just linked to the wrong page. Now fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation

FYI: we have another situation that a page FooFoo (YYY) exists but FooFoo does not exist. This is something that can be found by database queries and needs fixing (by moving FooFoo (YYY) to FooFoo, or less commonly, redirecting FooFoo to FooFoo (YYY)). In some cases a disambiguation page should be created, e.g. Haide (song) and Haide (Mohlsdorf-Teichwolframsdorf) exists, but Haide does not exist (before I created it). GZWDer (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about note left on User talk:208.90.213.91

You left a note on User talk:208.90.213.91 about legal threats. Could you please elaborate? — ERcheck (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what more there is to say on the matter: they posted an appeal via WP:UTRS (which I linked) that contains a legal threat. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My first time to look at UTRS. Do I need to take any action? (Doesn't seem so.) — ERcheck (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was informational and wasn't requesting any action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreview?

Er.. why unreview this? Battle of Manupur Noorullah (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that given the extremely hairy prior situation including the title previously being deleted at AfD the article was best looked at by an independent new page reviewer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery Please see the relevant discussion here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 15#Battle of Manupur (1748) Noorullah (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew. Doesn't change my opinion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.... well I don't know what to say to that other than that it seems disregarding of Autopatrolled. I re-reviewed it because I thought it was a mistake. Noorullah (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your help with WP:TWA in Thai Wikpedia.

Taweetham (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jason Thor Hall article

You cited G4 for the deletion of Jason Thor Hall but I don't think the previous deletions apply. For the article Pirate Software the reason for deletion was for the content to be merged into the article Heartbound (video game) but that article has since also been deleted, likely because of WP:GNG.

I think there should at least be further discussion on recreating the Hall article before deletion, since the lack of notability of the video game does not apply to Hall himself, who does seem to have more media coverage as stated in the Heartbound deletion discussion.

Please let me know if there is a more proper avenue for initiating this discussion, apologies if the creation of the article caused trouble. socj (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. We had a discussion showing that the developer was not notable independently of the video game, and then a second one saying that the video game was not notable. These collectively establish that neither should have an article, the fact that the former was phrased as a "merge" notwithstanding. Take it to WP:DRV if you really insist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, I don't think the dev is particularly notable as well even combined with the game and recent events. Thanks for clarifying. socj (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]