Taras Shevchenko

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28

Could you please take necessary steps to restore the article? I added clear proof that it is notable. I only temporarily edit here. Iconicos (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is never my responsibility to help people circumvent the past will of the community. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUP merge Category:Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (Jordan) to Category:Ministry of Planning (Jordan) Thanks. QalasQalas (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to WP:Categories for discussion properly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pppery I wanted to request some updated information to a company page that you edited back in July 2024. In complete transparency, I am an employee of this company and will be abiding by Wikipedia rules in order to maintain good faith. I would like to make edits to outdated information (non promotional) that is currently on the page and would love for you to oversee implementation of the edits since you've worked on this page before. Looking forward to hearing back --FindingYutori (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to try. I have the page on my watchlist (and have had it there since the 2023 spat - it's my practice to do so when repeatedly reverting promotional material), so will notice any changes. I warn you that it's difficult to write non-promotional content about the company you are employed by, even if you are genuinely trying. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pppery - I noticed that you reverted my history merge template on the Tetrabaena page. Perhaps that's not the correct template, but I'm struggling to find the correct template for a non-simple history merge, or any guidance as to how correctly flag this and the Tetrabaena socialis article for a history merge, given that it was originally cut-and-pasted from the article at Tetrabaena socialis. If you could provide any information on how to proceed, it would be much appreciated! ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are WP:Parallel histories here, so a history merge is not desirable - the text merge is already properly attributed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I see that the original redirect was by a good-standing editor, and the content by the puppeteer wasn't toxic, so it didn't need to be redacted. So the content by the puppeteer is still in the history, and duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've rightly been told by another user to refactor my user talk page to remove all the old AfD nominations. In my will to get that template deleted I completely blanked my talk page and will restore all the important parts soon. Bobo. 19:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser has a serious backlog, myself included, spanning from March 18th, I saw you have done it before, if it is no worry, can you do some of the requests? If not its fine, I don't mean to be a pistol either, but I just see its a huge backlog! Thanks, Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review#March_2025_revocation_of_my_AutoWikiBrowser_rights_by_Pppery seems to have discouraged me from processing AWB requests for a while. Not consciously, but I just haven't felt motivated to do it (and I've been going through a lot of off-wiki trouble, but that's mostly resolved now and never really prevented me from editing). And I really don't want to be the only person keeping a process from collapsing, as I am in far far too many scenarios. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can't say I haven't been through enough within my time here, its been a bit of a hassle! I understand if you can't, but I believe it shouldn't matter what 1 person or even 100 people think, it should matter what you think, If you believe you can't do it, DON'T. But if you believe you can overcome this, you should attempt to try, coming from someone that has felt similar issues. I came to you, as I believe you were one of the only, and I was right about you, about you being amazing for helping out. But everyone just tries to make you mad, and makes you upset... If you don't want to do it, its fine! I believe everyone has the right to their own opinion, but if you want to, it'd be greatly appreciated, as we've really wanted to edit with AWB, including myself... If you cannot I will go to someone else who possibly can... Thanks, Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am restarting WP:USC or known as WikiProject U.S. Congress, it has over 10,000 or more articles that aren't reviewed, and I saw you were kind, loving, didn't have motivation and thought this will be a fun project to revive! I believe this will be a fun thing for you to do and help us review articles, we are in dire need of assistance and would love a kind and loving person like you! You don't need to say yes, or don't need to say no! Its up to you, and if you wish to ask anymore questions about this, you can do so at my talk page. Thanks, Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough tasks to do for now, so no thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for even responding! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		A beer on me!
		Please take it. Valorrr (lets chat) 22:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:) Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Chinese Private Security Companies (PSC) 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 April 9 § Chinese Private Security Companies (PSC) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's wrong with this one page out of seven. Why is this one not deletable like the other six? Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/References? Moxy🍁 05:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because if I had been the reviewing admin I would have declined several of the other six too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Been doing this for over 20 years never been a problem before. Moxy🍁 05:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the essay WP:!G6 that I linked in my edit summary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking more that common sense should apply here vs and essay.... as they have throughout the years and for the most recent deletion request during this round of the wikiproject cleanup process. Would you be in a kefuffle if I redirected the page to the article where all this was transferred to a decade ago? Moxy🍁 05:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is fine - for whatever reason we've adopted a much more freewheeling process for BLARs that for deletions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect I just did a redirect..... sorry for wasting your time. Moxy🍁 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this page as well, had questions about it and posted a note at User talk:Bearcat as they created the page, to see if they agreed with the deletion. And Moxy, when you tag pages for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/etc.), you should notify the page creator. Try using Twinkle, set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify the page creator" and then Twinkle will post these notices on your behalf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pppery. You made a suggestion at UTRS appeal #102115. I have now restored the editor's talk page access so that they can post an unblock request there. I thought you might like to copy your suggestion to that talk page, or (perhaps better) wait and do so if and when they make an unblock request there. JBW (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go start a discussion on redlink user categories before you touch my userpage again. - Ned Scott 16:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Stop refusing to respect prior discussions. WP:REDNOT, despite its location, has long been interpreted as barring all redlinked categories other than Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page and Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you fixed one, but could you fix the other uses on this page? I would fix it, but the template has been deleted, so I can't substitute it anymore. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Disambiguation}} states that talk pages should not be created to contain just this template, and the discussions linked from there point out that the existence of such a page is a disadvantage: it complicates page moves and it causes editors to waste time looking for nonexistent discussion. An editor yesterday created a large number of these, such as Talk:AANM, but seems to have stopped once I pointed out that they should not be created. It would be useful to get rid of them, and G6:"Created in error" seems appropriate. I tried 5 as a start: the latest 3 and the two which were on my watch list and had alerted me to the problem. You declined the speedies: please reconsider. PamD 05:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable doing that level of mind-reading to determine what "created in error" means - if Waxworker wants them to be deleted then they are welcome to tag them with {{db-g7}}, otherwise the pages weren't worth creating but also aren't worth deleting IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask them to do that: would any other speedy Category have persuaded you? PamD 06:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About declined request unprotection on Cinderella III: A Twist in Time you didn't add the comment reason for declined why did you declined this request obviously there's no reason for declined unless you said per above like other comment from Tbhotch or Jéské Couriano tell me the reason for declined why? 2603:7000:8100:29F1:5468:438C:FBE0:8493 (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs involved in the request belong to Rgalo10, but you probably guessed that. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pppery, poking around how the title blacklist system works when I noticed that you seem to be the main person responsible for maintaining it (MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist and Special:History/MediaWiki:Titleblacklist) so you seem to be the best person to ask, I hope you don't mind.

1. What is the correct procedure for requesting titles be blacklisted? I assumed RFPP but wasn't sure if it was handled there, but then I look at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist and I don't notice any requests to add a whole page blacklisting.
2. Would a title blacklist be overkill for the problem of an internet meme, see Low Taper Fade, Low Taper Fade (disambiguation), Low taper fade (meme), Low taper fade (deletion log) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Taper Fade (disambiguation), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low taper fade, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low taper fade (meme).

I hope a response wouldn't be too much of opening a fresh can of maple baked (my personal favourite) but if so let me know. I'm just genuinely curious about the appropriate procedures for some of the things I'm coming across. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for requests seems to be to post on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. For example see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Protected edit request on 29 October 2024. 16:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

And I don;t think Low taper fade is quite at the point where a TB rule is warranted - an article on the meme (as distinct from navigational machinery that that article requires) has only been created twice. Normal salting should be tried first IMO, so I've done that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, makes sense. Thanks! Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your continued upkeep, maintenance, cleanup, and refinement of The Wikipedia Adventure. Thank you for your dedication, time, and service. Ocaasi t | c 17:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery. Can you tell whether File:Bosnian Cultural Center.jpg is a reupload of what you deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 17#File:Bosnian Cultural Center.jpg. It was uploaded by user and has the same file name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Marchjuly: The deleted image was nothing like the new one; it showed the interior of the building. JBW (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JBW for checking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think creating an article when there is a draft to build up on is fine, then at least merge the two things. I won't let my work go to waste. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You requested a speedy deletion for a reason that didn't meet any of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What, because I wasted what little time I spend on Wikipedia? No wonder I barely edit anymore. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no content to merge - all of the content in the draft is also in the article and if anything the article has more content. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I did it first. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a history merge, then I guess I could agree to do that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Don't feel obliged, but it's just that it blows that the one time I do content it goes to waste. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History merged. Sorry for my brusque tone there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I was the one who came by your page with that tone first. It's only fair. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) : I've been having various discussions about drafts/sandboxes not really making sense for article incubation, and this is actually one of the main reasons. (Avoiding this). Have either of you got any thoughts on the matter? (Should we make drafts more official and more easily searchable? What about articles that have unclear names that could be created as several different drafts at once?) Thanks for any thoughts you might have... Tduk (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an image is in use, you don't have to delete it for being FUR-less. You can just add the FUR yourself. DS (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @DragonflySixtyseven: The image was deleted per WP:CSD#F3 (Improper license), not because it lacked a FUR. F3 was applicable because when uploaded, the selected license was "The copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes", which yields the template {{subst:Non-commercial from license selector}}, which automatically adds {{db-f7}}. Pppery was acting on the presence of that last tag.

In addition, it is not the responsibility of Pppery (or any other deleting admin) to add a FUR. It is the responsibility of the uploader, which was Courage Doe (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still not in the mood to do AWB requests, if you are disregard this message, if you aren’t AWB has a backlog and it’s me and another member and I was wondering if you can review it… If not it’s fine! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 15:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 20:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise is not banned but blocked, and what I posted on ANI was not a ban appeal, as there is no ban in place. Instead, it is a proposal to institute a community ban. —Alalch E. 20:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would oppose it as unnecessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas? This situation isn't good. —Alalch E. 21:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it good? Skyerise is welcome to request an unblock via UTRS if and when she wishes to do so, and as a procedural matter that should suffice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to appeal now because of the disagreement around what was meant by the use of capital letters. The way the system works, Skyerise is going to be required to admit and she has repeatedly denied. At the same time, the incident wasn't particularly serious. Then it was aggravated by also not especially serious arguing post-block involving the some of the least intense outing concerns I've ever seen lead to an indef. Meaning that for something not serious the editor is indefinitely blocked with talk page access revoked and we can predict with above 50% certainty that appeals are not going to work, meaning that we are losing an editor for something not serious. —Alalch E. 22:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with you, but at the same time I don't think anything anyone can do now could remedy the situation. Trying to impose a community ban as a way of loosening the sanctions on someone is very unorthodox and not how the process is meant to work.

It's also possible that in a few months the initial block for that will have been seen as superseded by the later block for posting personal information, which will instead be what she needs to address, and Floquenbeam's comment kind of suggests that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hopefully that's how it will be. —Alalch E. 23:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am really sorry for applying all the requests at once, I didnt have any bad intention to showoff but just wanted to gain a new exerience, if I get the rights so to prevent vandalism, Thanks for the guidance! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pppery, quick question. When moving pages like Tarran T1 Pro is there a way to avoid leaving a redirect behind? I have started to do a lot more page moves for AfC so it may be helpful. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you're a WP:Page mover there's no way to not leave a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Maybe I will look into it once I reach the requirements. Have a great day! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsigned2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Unsigned. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, per this move, could you also move Talk:Holy Ground (song) to Talk:Holy Ground (Taylor Swift song). Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That is an instance of T12814, which I knew about but in the complexity of the operation (also involving a history merge and split) it must have slipped my mind. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently working on an draft article about Geoffrey Hoyland (1889-1965) a Quaker educationalist and writer from Gloucestershire, England. I was wondering if you had any feedback and how you think it could be reviewed faster. Thank you! Haysop76 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to involve myself in this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hope I'm not bothering you, but I would like your perspective on potential hijacking of long-standing redirects. This was a long-standing redirect to Atlantic Charter. An editor has taken the redirect and created an article about a subject which appears notable (haven't fully reviewed it yet). In my view, there are two solutions. Either, 1 - revert the redirect hijack and let the editor know they are welcome to create a new article, using a disambiguator, in this instance probably (organization). Or 2 - move the current article to the new title, and then recreate the redirect, adding hatnotes to both pages. The only guidance is the essay, WP:HIJACK/A, which suggests that it also includes redirects, but does not give an example which corresponds to this type of instance. The redirect, which definitely has numerous existing links to the Charter article, needs to be preserved. I'm asking you because of your edit on March 5 of this year. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think (1) is the right thing to do - the end result of that is either more effort for everyone, or that an article on a notable subject gets lost in the shuffle. My March 5 edit was complaining about the process steps "Create an article over a redirect -> Move that article to draft space -> Someone else requests speedy deletion of the redirect -> The end result is a redirect deleted out of process" more than the end result. The question then becomes which topic, if any, is the primary topic for the term "Atlantic Conference", which is not something I'm equipped to evaluate.

There's also a draft at Draft:Atlantic Conference from my March 5 effort, which should probably be history merged (and possibly the redirect edits need to be split again). I'll handle that after it's sorted out what title the 2025 topic should go to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for that. There's another article in the NPP along the same lines. I'll move them to a dab title, and then create dab pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Articles with inline parenthetical referencing progress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you selectively delete a large portion of the page history in this category? I'm curious since the how-to guide discourages selectively deleting pages when REVDEL works instead. Were you trying to histmerge the page or something? I'm just slightly confused since I'm concerned that I'm missing something. Fathoms Below (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just figured it helped nobody to leave the history cluttered with hundreds of vandal edits and reverts, even if they were revdelled, and doing a seldel was more in the spirit of WP:DENY. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I was just concerned in the case that a non-admin patroller would be confused why the page was protected. Haven't seen selective deletion used for that purpose before but I'll make sure to ask around since I'm mostly just curious. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for always swiftly and kindly dealing with my page deletion requests! I appreciate it so much! :)

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Indian_metropolitan_areas_by_GDP#List

Body Balram (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Jagadeesh93: You should file a request at WP:RFPP, providing evidence that protection is warranted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please unsalt Low taper fade (meme)? I think it would be helpful to have a redirect from that title to Ninja (gamer)#Low Taper Fade. Xoontor (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit comment, I think you'll be glad to know that Nucleariida no longer exists as a separate article from Nucleariid. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, noticed you closed the AN discussion regarding User:Scerri with an unblock. Also noticed you apparently didn't notify the user they were unblocked - checking to see if that was intentional? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was half-intentional (meaning that I didn't consciously decide not to notify but instead it didn't even occur to me). Anyway now done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ceylon was renamed Sri Lanka in 1972. I am attempting to add categories for Ceylonese parliamentary elections from 1947 to 1970. However, I am unable to do so using the {{YYY0s elections in countryname category header}} and {{YYYY elections in countryname category header}} templates, as the country name Ceylon is not recognised by the system. The error message states: Template:YYYY (or YYY0s) elections in countryname category header cannot find the adjectival form of the noun "Ceylon". For more info and suggested remedies, see Template:GetAdjectiveFromCountryName#Country name. Would it be possible for you to rectify this issue by updating the template? Alternatively, I would appreciate if you could advise me on a suitable workaround. Best regards. QEnigma talk 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added support for Ceylon to the relevant templates. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! QEnigma talk 03:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying was redirected due to the article being too small and not notable enough to warrant it's own page (apologies for forgetting to put that in the edit summary). Either way, the article is now under AfD due to the redirected removal which I invite to to participate in if you feel otherwise. Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see your edit summary at Special:Diff/1289978944, and I wanted to note that browser support may well matter if someone with a non-supporting browser tries to edit the page and thereby breaks the regexes. And other than for avoiding confusion for humans looking at the page, that's the only reason I can think of since the servers would be fine with it. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we update WP:RDRAFT to also include other namespaces? [1] Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. The same logic seems to apply. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Square root of 9 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 May 14 § Square root of 4 until a consensus is reached. I am bad at usernames (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, thanks for deleting the tracking category on mediawiki. Category:Pages that use extended references can be deleted as well – or moved at Category:Pages that use sub-references per Special:TrackingCategories and MediaWiki:Cite-tracking-category-ref-details. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please help with clearing the redirect for this page and turn it into a red link? It's proper article is eligible to be created! JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to delete the page first to create an article at that title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft for the article but I can't move it to the mainspace for some reason. Should I add it to the requested move page? JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:RMTR}] would have been the proper venue. In any event I've now deleted the redirect since the author requested doing so, so you can now move your draft. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pppery,

I was going to tag this CSD G7 as I thought the page creator tagged the article for a Proposed deletion but it says that you tagged it as a PROD. However, you don't appear in the page history as an editor. Do you know what happened here? How can you PROD an article but that not appear in the page history? Thanks for any explanation you can supply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They copied the wikitext I used to PROD List of current Indian chief ministers / deputy chief ministers. In any event G7 doesn't apply because the PRODder wasn't the sole contributor to the article prior to the move, so I would just let the PROD run. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the consensus as moving "Bar (river)" to "Bar (Ardennes river)", not to "Bar". But if you persist in this, please update the now wrongly linked templates too. The Banner talk 20:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help and made it worse. And then someone else tried to clean it up and made it even worse than that! Appreciate the clean fix. Ivey (talk - contribs) 21:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, I work for American Heritage Schools. Thank you for weighing in on our request to rename the page. It's been 2 weeks since the request has been relisted, and there have been no others comments - would you please consider making the page move to American Heritage Schools? American Heritage Schools (Florida) is also acceptable, however the disambiguator seems unnecessary since American Heritage Schools only exists in Florida. The request is listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Heritage_School_(Florida)#Requested_move_23_April_2025

Thank you, AH60BRSchool (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am now WP:INVOLVED in the discussion so cannot be the one to close it. Please be patient - someone will get to it eventually. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to help the new "lost" good-faith editor you reverted at WP:AARV? Or do I need to? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Laurelli7#Re your post to XRV * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've done it. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He-he we edit conflicted with significantly different (and both relevant in different ways) information. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully between the 2 of us we've helped some. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, you closed the RfD as disambiguate, but Welcome to Molliwood still redirects to Sonny with a Chance. Is this an oversight? Jay 💬 14:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, you closed the RfD just 24 hours after my vote. Did you go by number of votes, or go by the strength of IP's single vote? Jay 💬 08:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "the IP's single vote"; they fact that others were convinced by the IP strengthens their position, so both in some sense. If you think the disambiguation page should be deleted it's best to make that case at a separate AfD IMO; especially since "no consensus on whether to delete or disambiguate" would have defaulted to disambiguate since deletion requires an explicit consensus, and I can't see a strong enough shift in favor of deletion to produce an outright consensus to delete happening even if the discussion were to be reopened and relisted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added a request for PCR, and have waited 6 days but it has not been reviewed. There are some people who have waited 9 days (top of requests list). Could you please review this permissions page? Thank you for your help. ExplorerofSpace (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not pester individual admins to review permission requests. Someone will get to it in due time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, thanks for your response. I will not do that anymore. ExplorerofSpace (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 17, was not in accordance with the interests of the Cabal, and as soon as we figure out how to do so, it will be reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, or harsh realities and dark truths of Wikipedia bias you'd like to expose, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Just kidding! Go ahead and proceed with the deletion of Category:Pages affiliated with the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW) per G7. Thought maybe I'd write you something here since it's been over 10 days since the nomination was made. All hail SCREW! » Gommeh (he/him) 18:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And thanks for the laugh ...

I was kind of hoping someone else would process this, both due to WP:INVOLVED concerns and worries about inching closer to breaching the promise I made in my RfA, but since you explicitly asked me to do it I obliged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I doubt that it would have been contentious though, since it was deleted at the request of the person who created it. » Gommeh (he/him) 18:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You indef protected this on May 17. Did you mean to set an expiry date? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery!

I indeed meant to indef-protect, as the edit war might have otherwise continued after a few days. I've returned the page back to semi-protected, which was the setting before the recent content dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery. Hope you are doing well. Recently, I have encountered some accidental use of Rollback as I use it through mobile phone, so it is quite difficult to use. Is there any option to reduce this problem? I even try by installing the Musikanimal script to show confirm button before confirming rollback but it didn't work. Please help me out there. Fade258 (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally use User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback but I can't say whether it will work for you since I don't edit on a phone. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried this on my userspace and it works. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pppery!

Thanks for shifting the draft from my user space to main after the redirect was finally removed. Since I don't usually edit on weekends, I'm glad to see someone handled the transfer so that any reader looking for information of Riffe, Washington wasn't left in the lurch even for 48 hours!

For my own curiosity, is there a definitive guideline/rule on when an article should be moved into main after a redirect? I've only briefly read that a page should be ready. In the 3 or 4 times I built an article and requested a redirect removed it happened quickly, so it was never a worry before.

On another note, massive judos to your thankless efforts behind the scenes helping to keep Wikipedia articles and the processes running and in top shape. Well, done...well done indeed.

My thanks once again!

OlympiaBuebird (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I don't think there's any definitive guidance on the matter - in this case the speedy deletion took six hours, which is a bit slow but not out of the question. In theory admins should do the db-move themselves rather than waiting for you to do it, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This RfC is ... what it is. The wizard skeletons were added to G6 then moved to G13 per Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to merge db-blankdraft into G13. The reason why G13 includes "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text" is that original RfC which would have never succeeded nowadays. Would you perhaps agree with me that this needs to be removed from G13? It fails WT:CSD "Frequent". No one wants to seriously delete these pages. No one has ever explained what the actual point of this subcriterion is apart from "abandoned = delete", which is not a good logic (superficially resembles the sane part of G13, but G13 is not simply about "abandoned", it is about "abandoned and could be bad, so delete mechanically to get rid of the potential bad"), and I am not seeing extant administrator practice in deleting these pages. Do you have an opinion? Pinging also User:Hey man im josh for an opinion. —Alalch E. 00:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a lot of assumptions that don't seem to be necessarily supported. There's absolutely no way of knowing how often this subcriterion is used other than writing an adminbot to scan through the deletion log and review the contents of deleted pages, which is way more work than I'm willing to do, as they are nearly indistinguishable from other G13 cases. Personally, I'm not sure what to think of the matter, but I don't think your case for repealing it is that convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at User:SDZeroBot/G13 Watch. It doesn't seem to include such deletions. I also read Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion/Archive 90#How does G13 work nowadays? where Hey man im josh said that was a frequent viewer of the bot report. Hey man im josh was oblivious to the third limb of G13 until recently (he legitimately didn't know policy; proof); he was going by the report for a long time and the report doesn't include these cases. He would have noticed that this exists if it were a living practice. They require manual tagging and aren't in any report. They just don't get deleted. —Alalch E. 11:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The code that generates that report is based on predicting what pages are about to be G13-ed tomorrow, unaware of this proviso, and then cross-referencing it with the latest deletions. If there were deletions of this sort, then the prediction would fail and they would appear there are "[Possibly invalid G13: Could not find excerpt]". But, anyway, there's no point in trying to convince me; if you want to propose the subcriterion be repealed then do so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation regarding that page. I was interested in your opinion before proposing because I'm still thinking about doing it and, at the same time, about the best and simplest way to word the proposal. —Alalch E. 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that "are these actually being deleted" is mostly a sideshow; the question is whether they should be deleted. And my gut says that if someone finds these and wants them deleted then more power to them, but I don't really have a good argument for that gut feeling. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• en:MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js and
• th:MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js.

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]

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? --woodensuperman 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 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]

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]

@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]

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:

• User:Anogen509
• User:Anogen888
• User:Anogenyogan7790 (no edits)
• User:Anogen7777

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There is another of the WP:PAID editors continuing the edit warring over at Klassekampen[2]. (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]

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]

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]

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]

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]