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]

Happy New Year, Pppery!

Happy New Year!

Pppery,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Pppery!

Happy New Year!

Pppery,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About a declined {{db-g5}}

Hi Pppery, about the declined CSD, I understand that the article creation doesn't predate the block, but the {{db-g5}} referred instead to a topic ban that the user was subject to. It was discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Walter Tau. I think there was consensus there that the subject of the draft (created on 4 December) violated the topic ban, which was implemented 26 November.

If I'm mistaken and this isn't appropriate for the CSD tag, that's fine. Just thought I'd clarify based on the edit summary. Thanks, all best. Happy New Year, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit rollback

Since you were the one who rolled back my edit, perhaps you can answer a question for me; why is I Love the '70s: Volume 2 a redirect to the I Love the... page, but none of the other mini-series pages do that? I undid the redirect because it's inconsistent with the other pages. If that one redirects, then why do none of the others do? Thank you. PAKMan1988 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love the '70s: Volume 2. And I rolled back your edit because you're unilaterally overturning the result of a community discussion, which is verboten. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur district, India

An article which you recently protected from vandalism (Mirpur district, India), has now been nominated for deletion by an editor. Your contribution to the discussion would be appreciated. Kind regards --Rvd4life (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care, and find this attempt at canvassing inappropriate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

I know it's a frequent target, but is indef protection really needed? RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to suspect time will alleviate the problem? I think not, and it's been going on for months now.

Playing whack-a-mole with short protections is a necessary evil for high-traffic noticeboards with lots of posts from new users like the help desk or the teahouse, but for back-end noticeboards it seems wiser to just set it to indefinite. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, replied at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#swarajyamag.com. extra999 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		This award is given in recognition to Pppery for conducting 500 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User award notice

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		You are hereby awarded this Anti-Spam barnstar for your work on the spam black/whitelist pages. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very discouraging!

Hello, I hope you're doing good? Happy new year.

See, recently I made two request on the request page on AWB and PCR, all denied. I clearly understand the reason behind the PCR denial. But AWB really? Your reason is because I set a goal of 30k edits by the end of the year 2025? I clearly stated that to show how motivated I am to contribute actively to the encyclopedia, and with or without AWB, I will achieve it given the pace I'm going through.

I'm relatively new here, and within a timeframe of 1 month on wikipedia, I created 21 standard articles on Wikipedia with majority either start or C class. I have almost 16 editors praising my efforts in providing resources full information regarding Nigeria, you can look up my talkpage. I had 900+ generic edits within a month and before the threshold of January ending, I predict to have 35 standing C class articles, all within a month.

See what you did is called bias. you didn't check my activity, you judged based on a statement of motivation I said.

This community is basically discouraging and I'm already fed up with it. I came very enthusiastic with the spirit of contribution to open source knowledge, but leaving with disappointment. I know a user with 10 articles and 520 edits and has access to AWB, what you did is bias, judging from a mere statement of motivation. Best Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what am I allegedly biased against? People making automated edits? People using AWB? If either of those were true I would not have spend months monitoring WP:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and approving dozens of people. If you mean "am I biased against people with editcountitis", then yes and rightly so. I continue to feel that the mindset expressed there is incompatible with AWB usage, and am unlikely to be convinced otherwise.

Finally, I see the number of articles you have created as mostly irrelevant to whether you are qualified for AWB - the two are very different skillsets. I'm an admin and AWB user, and have created precisely zero articles.

I'll drop a ping to Primefac, the other regular reviewer of permission requests there, and see if they wish to comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with pppery on this one. Wanting to help out is great, as is recognising that some fixes occur frequently and it's a pain to do them manually. Implying that you're doing it to rack up your edit count is somewhat concerning. Now I will be honest, I do not usually cross-check perms and likely would have granted this had I been the first to review the request, so maybe come back in a month or two and re-request. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Your response is more validate than that of the other editor. I appreciate the fact that you implied to comeback in a month, and I promise to come back stronger. But what I noticed closely is that, people who tend to write short sentence on the request page gets approved immediately even if they are not up to the criteria. I have came across few.

I went ahead to explain in details that I need access to make manual edits, even stated that I'm new and given the current rate at which I'm going, I have projected to reach a designated number of edits. with our without AWB.

strangely enough, what shocked me is the fact that the editor left all those comment and fired straight at me even quoting my statement of motivation.

Primefac, check my history, I started becoming more active on Wikipedia and in less than a month, I created 20+ articles and 1000 edits. That's the main Idea why I stated that.

But right way firing at me if not impressive, and I don't even want access to the AWB tool again.

Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malay dialects and varieties

Hi, I noticed that the article was deleted due to concerns about potential sockpuppetry by the creator. However, I believe the article holds significant value for WikiProject Languages, and I would like to see it retained. I am committed to maintaining and expanding the content to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. The article does not appear to contain any harmful or irrelevant material, so maybe WP:AGF by the creator could be considered in this case.

In any case, could I kindly request that the article be restored? Thank you for your consideration. Cal1407 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the edit summary of the G5 tagging edit was G5 + contains several hoax languages (courtesy ping to Austronesier), I'm disinclined to oblige. Finally, I'm not the one assuming, or not assuming, good faith, that was done by other admins when they blocked. I'm merely doing what has to be done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, I did not found any hoax or misinformation in the article, although I haven't read it in its entirety and can no longer preview it. I'm not trying to defend the user—they deserved to be blocked for misusing multiple accounts. However, if the articles they created contain factual information, I believe they should be retained.. Ping @Austronesier for output. Cal1407 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cal1407: I strongly urge not to restore any article created by that sockfarm nor to re-translate any of the articles from Indonesian WP that were created or heavily edited by them. It is not just a matter of abusive block-evading editing, but the massive competence issues that are apparent in their editing. As for the hoax content: the article Malay dialects and varieties contained Mekong Delta Malay and Johor–Riau Malay. The first is a made-up language turning the Cham language into a some kind of Malay variety. "Hoax" might be too harsh; I guess the patently incompetent sockmaster for the n-th time entirely misread sources in their obsession to create languages and ethnic groups out of nothing. "Johor–Riau Malay" was spuriously presented as a regional vernacular dialect of Johore and Riau, whereas the term actually is just a synonym for Classical Malay, the literary language associated with the Riau-Johore court. In short, the result of their presumably good faith efforts in many cases are indistiguishable from deliberate hoaxes.

So, @Cal1407, if you believe that the topic of an article created by a sock of @Jellywings19 and subsequently deleted based on WP:G5 is notable and can be sufficiently expanded into a standalone article based on a proper reading of reliable quality sources (i.e. scholarly sources in the case of language articles), then please do it from scratch without taking anything produced by that sockfarm as a starting point. That includes material here, in Indonesian WP, or in any other Wikimedia project they contribute to in their persistient creation of personae in order to evade our scrutiny (note that even now, as we speak, another sock account has been created by the sockmaster, but is already blocked thanks to quick action by User:Bbb23: I had seen it too and wanted to file an SPI after work, but @Bbb23 beat me by a wee few hours).

As for Malay dialects and varieties, it is a subtopic of Malay language and an intergral part of that article. It could be split out in case length issues arise, but the deleted article (NB the non-spurious parts of its content) was just a small-sized and unnecessary content fork. –Austronesier (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier Thank you for the output and detailed explanation regarding the issue. In that case, I won't be pressing for the restoration of the articles anymore. Cal1407 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a redirect when you move an article with WikiProjects on the Talk page

Hi Pppery, I noticed you recently moved the article titled Nazir Ahmed (politician) to the title Nazir Ahmed (politician, died 1972) without leaving a redirect. Unfortunately, if you make a move in this way and the talk page has WikiProject banners, the move breaks the reporting of WikiProject article name changes and the moved article appears as an entirely new article, rather than a renamed one. When you move articles with talk page banners for WikiProjects, please leave a redirect for both the article and its talk page. If you are then going to change the redirected page's target, then you can add the banner {{Talk page of redirect}} to the talk page of the article that has been moved, rather than leaving the option open for someone to unwittingly recreate the talk page. See Talk:Nazir Ahmed (politician) for what else I did to maintain the WikiProject assessment reporting. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the assessment bot should be fixed rather than foisting this burden onto every page mover. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Most of the time page movers move both the article and the talk page and leave redirects when they do so. So I think it must be something to do with the way that certain administrators have the option not to leave a redirect, when many editors who can, and do, move pages don't get the option, as a redirect is normally left automatically. Most move instances leave a redirect, in this exceptional case a redirect was not left. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not leaving a redirect is hardly "exceptional". It's something I've been doing for months, and you're the first one to complain. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Perhaps it is because I am the first one to notice the problem and work out what was going on. I suspect most people simply ignore the problem. Anyway, I am drawing your attention to it now and pointing out that if the Talk page has WikiProjects on it then you need to leave a talk page redirect as well if you move/rename an article in the main article space. It is not a problem if you move an article to draft space because then the WikiProject banners are automatically re-assessed as "Draft" upon being moved. The issue is only with the main article space, where a redirect is also needed for the attribution history. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed for attribution history - the move is still properly logged in the page move log so it doesn't need to be in the page history too. I'm disinclined to modify my workflow to work around one bot making a wrong assumption. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Nevertheless your workflow process breaks links, and leaves the talk page links red in the bot reports. This does not happen for most page moves. The bot fundamentally depends on article talk pages existing and appearing talk page assessment categories. Since all the assessment categories are based on categorising talk pages. Having a redirect without its corresponding talk page as a redirect means its status cannot be reassessed when the article is moved. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This line of reasoning is circular - the bot is making wrong assumptions, and you're saying just "but the bot is making wrong assumptions". The bot could be coded to check the page move log, instead of assuming that a move always involves the talk page redirecting. I'm not going to pamper a buggy bot by creating more placeholder pages that have no independent reason to exist, as {{talk page of redirect}} necessarily is. And you won't convince me otherwise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I think you are making the wrong assumption about the way Wikipedia categories works. This has nothing to do with the coding of the bot, but to do with what categories article talk pages are placed in. If a talk page doesn't exist it cannot be given an assessment category. Therefore, once talk pages are created they need to remain in existence and shouldn't be deleted. So when you move a page you need to leave a redirect at the old page, even for talk pages. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're just wrong about that. This is about the coding of the bot - the database table used to store categories stores the page ID, which isn't changed by a move, so categories themselves are not impacted by the rename at all. Other tools are postprocessing that data and making wrong assumptions. Anyway it's clear we won't convince each other at this point so I'm not going to continue this argument. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your continued high-quality admin work. We need more admins like you on the site! QuicoleJR (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks

... Re your comment at T384697 ... I'd forgotten about that one, which is something I wouldn't normally do! I did try searching first but searching in Phabricator has always been a bit odd for me; I didn't know about Phabricator search terms until now, which help a bit, but Phabricator's interface is a bit weird on my end. Graham87 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Hollygrove redirect

Hello. Please create the DJ Hollygrove redirect to The Chopstars and protect it with the level of protection you deem suitable.—Alalch E. 01:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Alalch E. 01:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move review

Per your closure of Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Requested move 25 January 2025- you closed the RM less than an hour after it was opened, and after there had been only three comments, which is clearly not in line with the guidelines at WP:RMEC. Additionally, your participation in the RfC on the talk page means you are not an uninvolved editor per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Conflicts of interest. As a result, I'd like to propose you revert your closure and relist the RM- otherwise it would need to be taken to WP:MRV. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 04:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the article will get renamed, or are you just trying to waste everyone's time? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I closed the move request before commenting on (or even seeing, if I remember correctly) the RfC. Involvement doesn't look backwards in time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what I personally think. There needs to be time to actually discuss the merits of a move, so closing the RM after less than an hour and only three comments is not only completely contrary to the rules of Wikipedia but also contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. The current situation is that a large number of editors (judging by the number of edit requests) support a move but there is no room to discuss this thanks to the RM being prematurely closed (as was the last RM).

A centralized place for discussing the merits of a move, which reliable sources Wikipedia should follow the use of, etc, would be far less of a waste of time than whatever the current mess on the talk page is. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just wasting more people's time. The previous move request provided that centralized place, and it was shot down in hours. Take it to MRV if you want to continue this silly crusade - I won't be reopening. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Gulf of Mexico

An editor has asked for a Move review of Gulf of Mexico. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horserace edit

Would you please make the edit to the Horseraces infobox that we discussed here? Someone else said they were going to make it, but it looks like they left Wikipedia a few months ago. While you're at it, I suggest you make a similar edit to the Template:Infobox award for the same reasons. I'd do it myself, but they're both protected, and I can't edit them. - Burner89751654 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you make the edits to Template:Infobox horseraces/sandbox and Template:Infobox award/sandbox I would be willing to copy them over to the main template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done. Please copy them over. I'll update the documentation after you move over the code. - Burner89751654 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"3500 (year)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 3500 (year) 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 January 29 § 3500 (year) until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Please see my comment on the talk page for Tamzin Hadasa Kelly. For some reason, I have no way of knowing if you got my ping. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got it, and I'm aware. But I figured rather than getting into an extended argument with you now I should see what other watchers of the page have to say. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no intention of arguing with you either. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion review of Astana platform

At [1] You might already know this, but the account bringing it was a sock. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A subpage of the Enterprisey script

It appears that you forgot to move User:Enterprisey/easy-brfa.js/tpl-form.js to MediaWiki:Easy-brfa.js/tpl-form.js when moving their parent pages. Could you please do that? JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 00:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Odd, I thought I had ticked "move subpages". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of draft pages

Hi! I tagged Draft:2032 and Draft:2032 for speedy deletion and added the reason "created by an IP vandal". You removed the tags saying "I'm not comfortable reading the creator's mind like that". I'm pretty sure they were created by an IP vandal – all other contributions of the IP were obvious vandalism (adding death dates to BLP articles). (Also, Draft:2032 had been deleted a year ago.) But I'm not going to tag them again, just wanted to let you know that I don't think I was reading anyone's mind. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mind-reading isn't in asserting that the IP is a vandal, but asserting that the motive behind their creation of those two drafts was testing. But then I'm far stricter than most admins at speedy deletions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find a more fitting speedy deletion tag. Is there one? Or what's the best way to get these pages deleted? — Chrisahn (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason they need to be deleted now rather than left for G13? I'm not seeing one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think they're useless and we should waste as little time as possible on this vandal. No need for any discussion. By the way, Draft:2030 and Draft:2031 have recently been declined. Anyway, I'm not going to bother anymore. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're gone. The IP vandal has been blocked -> WP:G5. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Join or not?

Can I join the ANI discussion you created today? Or is it within the scope of my WP:IBAN? 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 01:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BANEX for the relevant rules on the matter. If you have an important point to make that someone else hasn't made, then I think you can make it, but don't get into an extended argument with Aidillia or others over it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and I had some, but I think it is better not to engage further. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 01:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G14 for Terrace of the Leper King (disambiguation)

Hi Pppery, I noticed you declined my G14 tag at Terrace of the Leper King (disambiguation). My understanding was that the wording "Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in '(disambiguation)' but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page" refers to disambiguation pages that have only one active blue link. Is that not what extant means in this context? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second blue link is Yukio Mishima, which is extant as I see it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

??? But "Yukio Mishima" isn't being disambiguated ... It seems obvious that the wording "disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page" refers to blue links that include the base page name, in this case "Terrace of the Leper King". The only other link that includes the base page name is The Terrace of the Leper King, which has never been created. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss the interpretation of G14 at WT:CSD - I think it counts all entries with a valid WP:DABMENTION. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the reply. I haven't tagged many pages for G14 so it's quite possible I've misunderstood. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move Sandbox into Draft

Hi, I have written a page on Harsh Beniwal on Sandbox, added by news reference on the show where it is saying that Harsh has played significant role on those shows. I would like to submit the page for AFC but the draft is protected for admin. Can you please move the sandbox content to Draft:Harsh Beniwal?, so that I can submit the draft for afc. Jitujadab90 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please drop the stick and accept that the community has decided that Harsh Beniwal is not notable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pppery. Actually User:JoelleJay replied this on DRV so made the decision to submit this for AFC. "If you think those reviews are IRS and establish the notability of the actor you can add them to the draft and submit to AfC". Anyway thank you. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Trophy Selection 2011

Hi there, can you please help. I found this page which is a recreated page of something that was swiftly deleted a number of years ago. When I saw that it was recreated and just ignored for a number of years I suggested it for deletion with the rationale that it was a recreated page of something speedily deleted. There was nearly no discussion about this when it went to AfD and the request was closed as no consensus. It seems like it would be very straightforward to remove this page, but apparently it is not. What would be the right avenue to proceed here? Nayyn (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only way the page can be deleted at this point is via the WP:Articles for deletion process. The previous deletion (assuming you mean 2011 Collier Selection Process) was via the proposed deletion process, which allows anyone to contest the deletion, so the prior deletion in 2012 is entirely irrelevant. Normally starting a AfD so soon after one was closed is ill-advised, but I think in this case assuming you actually want deletion rather than merging as you claimed before and make that clear it would be fine to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collier Trophy Selection 2011 (2nd nomination) from a clean slate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.

I suggested merge if someone wanted to keep it, but the page really isn't serving any purpose for an encyclopedia and I thought that would have been obvious to the other reviewers at AfD. Nayyn (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg

Hi Pppery. I don't believe this discussion should have been closed as no consensus. Both of the keep !votes were effectively ILIKEIT and neither addressed the policy reasons given for deleting the image. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you forgot to add the {{Oldffdfull}} tag to that page and the talk page for File:Moliendo café Chi sarà.png. I have done so for you. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 16#File:4HTexas.png

Hi Pppery. You closed as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 16#File:4HTexas.png as "no consensus" which is fine; however, you forgot to add a {{Oldffdfull}} template to the file's page as part of your post close cleanup. The file was prodded for deletion earlier today, and perhaps the prodder wasn't aware that the file has been discussed before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I personally don't see the value in that kind of template - it just redundantly repeats the page history which isn't long. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can kind of see your point, but it's listed as one of the things to do in WP:FFDAI; so, it's probably like dotting the "i" in a sense that it just makes things a little clearer. One other thing, your close basically left the file licensed as is, but {{PD-USGov}} clearly is the wrong license to use in this case. There was some mention in the FFD of converting the file to another type of PD license. Would doing so be against your close? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can really be against a "no consensus" close, since it means there wasn't consensus to do anything. The dispute on which there wasn't consensus was whether other public domain reasons (which I'm not sure how to represent as templates) applied, so I guess it would be okay to change it to those.

This is why I don't particularly like Ffd closing - it's something I begrudgingly stepped up to the plate to do after weekslong backlogs formed when Fastily was recalled. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can really be against a "no consensus" close, since it means there wasn't consensus to do anything. Does this mean "no consensus" to delete as well? I can't remember how a "no consensus" works in FFD anymore since Fastily left the project. George Ho (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery. I apologize if it seems like I'm criticizing your close. That's not my intent. Just pointing out that the current licensing of the file is incorrect and it should be changed. The world won't end if it's not, but it still should be changed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: This is sort of covered in #7 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines, but I believe there's some wiggle room when it comes to non-free content based on how the closing administrator interprets WP:NFCCE. FWIW, "no consensus" closes aren't very common when it comes to FFD, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to update that the file's licensing has been changed; so, things seem OK now. For reference, this file can probably be tagged for a move to Commons since the copyright status of the four-leaf clover element discussed at FFD seems to have been resolved on Commons. If someone wants to keep a local file on English Wikipedia just in case, they can tag it with {{Keep local}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Saw your message at the top of your talk page about feeling discouraged with Wikipedia, I've been there to - here is a cat to help!

RossEvans19 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parietes redirect

Hi Pppery, on the soft redirect close of WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 23#Parietes, can you relist or change to No consensus? There was only one participant who supported the wikt redirect. The only other participant, I didn't. The close came just after an hour of my follow-up comment, where in I added more weight to my suggestion, and it was too early to get reactions on that. Jay 💬 17:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion had been open for a month and a half already so relisting would have been counterproductive (I think we tend to relist far more than we should). And there were two supporters of Wiktionary redirecting (the nominator and Utopes), not one. I decline. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I've reopened, because this isn't worth fighting over. But I consider the idea that a discussion that has already been open for six times as long as it should have been be extended even longer completely ridiculous. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how long a discussion has been open. What matters is when the last input was provided, unless of course consensus was already generated and the last input makes no difference one way or other. Closing a less participated discussion one hour after the last input defeats the purpose of the RfD, which is to enable community discussion. Jay 💬 06:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree - discussions have a defined default length of seven days for a reason. I suspect we won't convince each other of this, so I'll just leave it at that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the minimum 7 days is a given. Jay 💬 10:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Chris Wright

I noticed that the discussion at Talk:Chris Wright was "closed" by the same relatively new editor who started the discussion, in violation of WP:INVOLVED. As you carried out the page move, you should revert the improper close and close the discussion properly, lest editors be mislead into thinking that this was a permissible close. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BD2412 T 22:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TNA events

Are we moving more of these? TNA No Surrender, TNA Victory Road, TNA Lockdown, TNA Under Siege, TNA Against All Odds, TNA Emergence... all have yearly event articles which could be seen as ambiguous. 162 etc. (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clean WP:Partially disambiguated page names/Report so only moved the ones that showed up there. And my current AWB run is only retargeting and fixing links for instancess where there as an actual ambiguity with actual articles. But no objection to other moves. On those specifically.

No Surrender has only Van Morrison: No Surrender, which is only a subtitle.

I don't see any ambiguities at all with Victory Road.

Lockdown has many ambiguous cases

I don't see any ambiguity at all for Under Siege.

Against All Odds (2011) is ambiguous with Against All Odds (2011 film). I don't know how I missed that series before.

I don't see any ambiguity at all for Emergence.

So, definitely move Against All Odds and Lockdown. Bad Blood (2004) versus Bad Blood (2004 film) and Never Say Never (2023) versus Never Say Never (2023 film) also show up there and two instances from TNA Rebellion also show up there. The case for moving the other series is much weaker. If any event is ambiguous then it's probably best to move the entire series for consistency. Whether I'll take the initiative on this, though, remains to be seen - doing the post-move cleanup for just the three I moved is a lot of work. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the smaller series myself and started move requests for Lockdown and Against All Odds. That's as far as I intend to take this, although others are welcome to take it further. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk talk

The Help Desk is semi-protected, the talk page is semi-protected, where should IPs and unconfirmed accounts ask for help? DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either the Teahouse, which currently isn't semi-protected, or, as the giant banner at the top of Wikipedia talk:Help desk says, via the use of {{help me}} on their own talk page? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or via the GrowthExperiments help panel which directs questions to their mentor's talk page. Or via IRC. I was not the admin who protected the help desk itself, and its talk page has never been a help venue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good job noobs know all those things from the helpful notice at the top of the Help Desk. DuncanHill (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the "talk page has never been a help venue" is downright wrong according to WP:SEMI "Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page". So the Help Desk talk page is the page for such users to ask for help. DuncanHill (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've configured things so if a non-autoconfirmed user tries to edit the help desk they see that banner at WT:Help desk already. And a look at the history of the help desk talk shows hundreds of vandalism edits and basically zero constructive edits so I maintain my protection is reasonable. And you are not going to convince me otherwise. Take it to WP:RFPP or WP:XRV if you want to pursue this silly crusade further. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:47, 29 January 2025 Pppery talk contribs deleted page User:Jose Luis Blanco Vega

Hi, @Pppery,

I am new in wikipedia. After some days, I went to my draft page to see my work and I found

17:47, 29 January 2025 Pppery talk contribs deleted page User:Jose Luis Blanco Vega (U2: Userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user) (thank)

WHat did I do wrong, please? I do not clearly understand what happened here. THanks Patroclo2001 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft still exists at Draft:Jose Luis Blanco Vega. All I did is delete a redirect you left behind in the wrong namespace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit

Howdy, you protected Bybit some time ago as an anti-spam measure, but this hitherto obscure cryptocurrency exchange is now all over global news for suffering what appears to be the biggest crypto hack of all time. There's an article now at ByBit (note caps) with plenty of WP:RS, would appreciate it if you can unprotect and move the article to its correct name. Jpatokal (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've unprotected. But I want to be clear: the behavior of creating an article at an incorrect title because the correct title is protected is inappropriate and made me tempted to decline out of spite. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Believe it or not it was accidental (see edit history), I genuinely thought it was "ByBit" before I realized I had miscapitalized the name and only then uncovered the previous AFD drama. Jpatokal (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown (2016)

Hi. Hope all is well with you. I rarely disagree with you, and while I understand your reverts, in this instance, I think these configurations with the dates should point to the wrestling page, rather than the dab. Are film or tv articles ever redirected using only the date? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the result of a requested move discussion. See Talk:TNA Lockdown (2005)#Requested move 18 February 2025. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk semi-protection

Hello! I've seen that you have protected the Help Desk (thank you for that!) but is the one month protection to 26 March accidental (since its not usually protected for so long...)? Jolly1253 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an accident. The page was protected for one month before the most recent incident started, and so I protected it for the same length as before (although even longer would have been justified) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think I missed out that part while reading the logs. Thank you! Jolly1253 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context this has been going on for months. A look at the protection and deletion logs should hopefully explain why I chose such a long protetcion period. 05:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your help cleaning up the mess I made from my copy/paste expedition and explaining how to avoid that problem in the future! Delectopierre (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massmessage

Yo Pppery. This may or may not be a stupid question or both or neither but... when mw:Extension:MassMessageing, if you add a ref, the ref always sticks to the bottom of the talkpage, even if others add new sections. So would it be possible to have a warning pop up when you put <ref> tags in the MassMessage thingy? A simple reminder to add {{talkrefs}} for example? You are a lot more familiar with Phabricator than I am. Polygnotus (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming there already is something to prevent unbalanced tags, if not that would be nice too. Polygnotus (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to submit a request on Phabricator for it. From experience, it will likely languish unless somebody (which in some distant future could be me, but probably not) volunteers to do it.

Another idea would be to write a user script or gadget - that at least doesn't require tangling with the WMF's very slow software development and code review processes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phab:T387629 Like this? Polygnotus (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1952 Dallas mid-air collision

Why did you move this? There was clearly no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I saw a consensus to move. Your analysis of the sourcing was refuted by Deeday-UK, which left just "following a convention" as an argument, which I considered to be much weaker than the arguments raised in favor in moving, especially since the existence of that convention was challenged by GalacticOrbits et al. I agree I should have provided a closing statement, though - I actually started typing one up but then for some reason I can't recall decided not to save it. Feel free to take it to WP:MRV. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the rebuttal and I don't agree with it. Of course the article is about a mid-air collision. GalacticOrbits also presented two disasters where it wasn't a passenger plane and a general aviation plane but a passenger plane and military planes, which does not contradict what I said. Would you mind relisting? That's what I'd ask for at MRV anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was already relisted twice before. We generally don't do third relists. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this, we have now entered the same philosophical dispute as #Parietes redirect above. I believe discussions should have a definite maximum length, and that discussion had already been open for several times longer than it, and as a general matter we tend to relist way too much. That time I backed down, and the discussion was several days later in the same way as I had closed it. Others seem to think we should have a much more freewheeling relist culture, and leaves things open much longer, but I don't hold that view, and don't want to endorse it be acceding to requests to relist on my talk page. I would be interested in seeing what move review thinks of the matter * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective CfD outcome enforcement review

Hi, see User talk:Namiba#CfD listing for the background. For Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Sinhalese queens regnant, I see that you were the one to delete Category:Sinhalese queens, so would you please help make sure that Category:Sinhalese queens regnant was properly merged into both Category:Queens regnant in Asia and Category:Sinhalese monarchs as well? I don't know how to check that. Thanks, it's lio! | talk | work 11:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it wouldn't trouble you, please do review the enforcement of the outcome of the following CfDs as well:

@Fayenatic london: since you were the one who pointed out my mistakes, would you please help Pppery with this as well? I've gone through all my other closures and am reasonably confident that they had been carried out in line with the actual outcome of the discussions. I'll make sure that this never happens again. Thanks to you both, it's lio! | talk | work 12:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these seem to have been done right: Sinhalese monarchs, Lawyers by populated place, Cardiac surgeons, Kenyan footballers. IIRC I silently corrected the entry on /Working to match the discussion, whereas Fayenatic london pointed out the inconsistency. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! it's lio! | talk | work 16:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, well done, Pppery. Lio, here are a couple of ways you could check: look at old versions of WP:CFDW to see what instructions were fed to the bot; or look at the contributions of JJMC89 bot III (there's a link on that Working page) around the time that relevant pages were processed, e.g. [2]. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Order of magnitude

After some investigation, I figured out the breakage was being caused by a complicated expression (specifically, I think the parentheses are the issue, though I didn't test removing them without also removing the multiplication) being passed directly to {{order of magnitude}} via {{significant figures}}, from {{PH brgy table lite}}; that particular case is fixed by #expr-wrapping the expressions, but of course that's not a guarantee there are no other cases in other templates which would(/did) similarly break. I'm not sure what the universal fix here would be, either, nor why my version of {{order of magnitude}} was causing this breakage when the current version is not; I'm curious if you have any thoughts on these. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 03:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either - I saw the error, and traced it to your template edit, which was recent enough I thought it was safe to revert rather than spend more time investigating since I didn't really understand how either version of the template worked. I guess the next time I do my run of articles with malformed markup I will see if anything else breaks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should go ahead and redo my change and we see if anything else breaks, then? :) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 03:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hopefully everything's fine this time around (though of course don't hesitate to revert me again if something else similarly arcane is broken now). I also took the opportunity to remove the <noinclude/> hardening from the safesubsts, since the whole template contents are wrapped in a includeonly tag anyways. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{☎ Dinoguy1000} 04:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CISV (disambiguation)

Not sure what I'm missing and I intend to do more housekeeping so maybe you can help. The CSD template I added says it covers a page that "disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and ends in "(disambiguation)". Both of these criteria are met as the only page CISV (disambiguation) has ever disambiguated was the Italian vexillogical organisation. Llew Mawr (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it disambiguates two pages. The other is CISV International. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New AWB user making mass cosmetic edits

Hello, Pppery. I noticed that you had granted AWB perms to Electricmemory recently. They have been informed that their use of bot-like cosmetic edits is discouraged by the AWB rules and refuse to stop, clogging watchlists with changes to non-broken redirects with no changes to the output text. I would appreciate some guidance here, since I don't normally deal with AWB issues. Cheers, Sounder Bruce 20:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this more closely in a few hours, since I'm busy with another project right now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked access. Whether this edit counts as "cosmetic" is dubious - arguably WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is analagous enough to a hidden category to cover the third bullet point - compare WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 9/WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot1058 10, but I think making 10,000 edits of this sort in only two weeks and not stopping after a complaint isn't really how AWB is meant to be used. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, For this reason (and others) I believed I was OK. I was only trying to help. I wasn't sure whether to stop immediately after Bruce messaged me so I chose to continue. My apologies! Electricmemory (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood...

Hi, I believe you've misunderstood my intentions. What I was doing was attempting to clear out Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations, so that others in the future could have a far shorter list to look through to check for visible errors that needed fixing. This was my only intention.

The majority of my AWB edits were non-cosmetic, visible edits. Electricmemory (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they weren't. I spot-checked several more edits in response to this comment and none of them seem to me to have any visible impact on the article.

Anyway, I will not be regranting you AWB access. You are welcome to return to WP:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser and see if another admin feels differently, or appeal my removal to Wikipedia:Administrative action review. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of the edits I made affected visible link text, as well as AWB's general article cleanup. Also, you yourself stated that my actions could arguably be justified given the third bullet point on WP:COSMETICBOT, so... what exactly is the issue? Electricmemory (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example? I've looked at several dozen edits across several editing sessions and found a few cases where AWB genfixes did something that's technically visible, but none at all where the link wasn't piped. The issue is that people have complained about what you're doing, and you've effectively ignored them and carried on as is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One person complained, and he isn't an administrator, so I had no reason to believe it was necessary to stop immediately. Had it been more people, brought up sooner,(I've been doing this for weeks) and by an administrator, I would've stopped and dealt with it a whole lot sooner. I am also not surprised that you didn't find an example of that in a dozen edits, given that I've done around 12 thousand of them in two weeks. Electricmemory (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I'm an administrator should not give my opinion any more weight than that of a non-admin. Adminship is supposed to provide only technical access, not social authority. And I find it telling that you've not actually provided an example of the edits you're claiming exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In matters like this, admin status absolutely does hold weight, quite a lot of it actually. I have no idea how to dig through 12 thousand edits to find examples for you. The mere fact I'm not able to do it quickly should not be "telling" to you at all. Electricmemory (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I sound ticked off, but I don't find this sort of treatment to be fair after I've spent fifteen hours of my own time doing these edits only for you to come in, immediately revoke access, and accuse me of malfeasance despite my work being perfectly valid per a written Wikipedia policy. Electricmemory (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just provide diffs, as requested. It is a normal request to provide links to diffs or other illustrations when you are asked for evidence to back up a claim. Link to ten or twenty diffs in a row and tell us which ones were not cosmetic and how. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Thank you. Electricmemory (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unique prime number

This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xayahrainie43, a long-term abuser. They just need to be reported and/or blocked; trying to reason with them in edit summaries doesn't work. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing

[3] Do you think their changes [4] should be reverted? Doug Weller talk 11:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a regular editor in this topic area, but from a very quick skim, what's left of there changes that someone else hasn't reverted already consist of:

Bypassing a redirect from Zio (pejorative) to Zionist as a pejorative. This is fine.

Adding Muslim supporters of Israel. I guess this is fine, given Of the community of Muslims that support Israel, a portion designate themselves as "Muslim Zionists".

Adding Israel Democracy Institute. I would remove this - the article contains no mention of Zionism.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Côté

Hey Pppery, just checking in on how to proceed here: Talk:Alain Côté#Requested move 26 February 2025

Not that your close was a bad call (it was an unopposed RM) but the whole rationale for the RM doesn't really make any sense, and it seems like nobody caught it.

The requestor just stated "obvious primary topic" but I don't see how this is possibly the case. Between the two Alain Côté hockey players, there is consistent view overlap going back several years that makes it fairly clear there is WP:NOPRIMARY between the two hockey players of the same name.

Pageview stats

Not sure how to proceed with this one. Should I just open up a new RM to suggest it be flipped back to having the DAB page at the root? RachelTensions (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In principle fine with another RM, but I would give LilianaUwU and Rlendog a chance to explain themselves first - there must have been some reason they saw it as obvious that you don't see. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]