Open main menu


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)


Merry Christmas and a Happy New YearEdit

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Pppery, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 22:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


I'm looking at nominating Module:Rail with T3 speedy for duplication, does that seem like the right one for this situation? Cards84664 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally see no reason that Module:Rail can't be kept as a redirect, as the name seems plausible to me. Given that I boldly redirected Module:Rail, it does not meet T3 as it is a redirect. I would recommend starting a RfD, if you think the redirect as it remains is implausible or should otherwise be deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to keep the redirects. Knowing Ythlev's editing behavior, they're just gonna restore it in a day and keep injecting sandbox code into Template:Infobox station, as they did recently. Now the problem is that I'm not experienced with RFDs, could you make the nomination for me? Cards84664 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
RfD created at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 2. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wood Street station (PAAC)Edit

Take a look at Wood Street station (PAAC) as an example, Adjacent stations is pulling "toward to" instead of "toward". Can you fix that? Cards84664 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Yes. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic"Edit

Your recent edit deletes the code <noinclude> and </noinclude> from the template "Year in various calendar" used in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic". However, you should remain "year=1250" in the template "Year in various calendar", which used in the article "Template:C11–17 year in topic". 10:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

... the template already produces so many errors on its own page that it's not worth worrying about this specific case. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:IPA\TranswikiEdit


A tag has been placed on Template:IPA\Transwiki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Unused redirect with awkward backslash leftover from a rename

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Tfd tagsEdit

Thank you for adding them! (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks so much for doing all the tricky template work at Template:Tfm and Template:Tfm/dated, I appreciate you stepping in where I came up short. More impressively, I might add, is that you not only came back and back to fix things up, but took care of various other things as well. Truly a tireless contributor! ~ Amory (utc) 02:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pppery/noinclude listEdit

Question for ya. What is the purpose of User:Pppery/noinclude list??? I keep seeing that page show up in TFDs as the only page transcluding a template that is about to be deleted. Just curious what that is for. Thanks! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: You're the third user to ask. It's a tracking category of sorts, which lists all templates at TfD that are missing TfD tags or have the TfD tags noincluded when they shouldn't be. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. Not a huge deal, but any way to have it list the template by name rather than using a transclusion? Just makes it easier to know when a template is good to be nuked based on having 0 transclusions. If its a pain to do then no worries, but would appreciate it! :-) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: It does list the template name, but in order to check whether the a page has a TfD tag, Module:Sandbox/pppery/noinclude tfd has to call title:getContent() on every page at TfD, which records a transclusion. Also, it should only transclude pages with open TfDs, so it shouldn't interfere with the process of deleting templates: close the TfD and the transclusion should go away. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. Good to know. When I'm closing a TFD I check the transclusions to see if it is ready to be deleted or needs to be orphaned. That's why. All good! Thanks for the info. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Batch protection (originally "Under-protected modules")Edit

Initial discussionEdit

I saw this and figured that this list and this script might come in handy. Pinging @MusikAnimal who asked for a list. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This will need some manual processing to determine which page has the right level, so its not super useful. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if we wanted to protect all of them with the same level you could do so directly on the category page with Twinkle. I understand that is not the case, and it looks like your RFPP requests are being handled already. The mass-protection concept is just something to think about for next time. Thanks for bringing these templates to our attention. MusikAnimal talk 04:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Don't worry, I have far more pages in my queue to request protection for, and I even made multiple edit requests to the infrastructure behind protection. In any case, real life is getting in the way, so I won't be able to do more work on this for many hours. Pppery, the protection wizard 05:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: I've now done the requisite processing and created User:Pppery/pages to semi-protect, a list of pages that should be semi-protected (modules or CSS pages that aren't protected but are used in semi-protected templates). Pppery, the protection wizard 23:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done I spot-checked about half of them and indeed the associated template was semi'd. The rest I'm taking your word for :) MusikAnimal talk 23:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

System messagesEdit

@MusikAnimal: OK, I'm back at the protection-management task again. Please fully-protect all pages in Category:Pages used in system messages needing protection, an auto-generated category I just created that categorizes all pages tagged as {{Used in system}} that aren't already fully-protected. Pppery, the protection wizard 21:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done Thank you! MusikAnimal talk 22:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, if you think it's a good idea, we could have User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector automatically protect anything in this category. MusikAnimal talk 22:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: That's too prone to vandalism: what if someone adds {{Used in system}} to a random template they want protected. This would be a good idea, however, if the bot actually checked that the page was used in a system message, and removed or nocatted the template if not. Pppery, the protection wizard 22:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I was thinking the same. It would need to verify {{used in system}} is accurate. I like the idea about having it remove the template if it is incorrect, too. I'm going to be making some new proposals for this bot at WP:AN soon, I'll be sure to mention these ideas. Cheers MusikAnimal talk 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Removing the template is going to be a difficult bot task, as pages can be used in system messages in extremely obscure ways. See Module:Jf-JSON for an example. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't even see how MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js is using it, but okay. I guess that bot task is a no go! MusikAnimal talk 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Template protectionEdit

@MusikAnimal: One final set of pages to template-protect as modules/stylesheets of protected templates is available at User:Pppery/pages to protect. I'm reusing User:Pppery/pages to protect for a different task {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the pages that will still be left in the bad protection level categories after this:

  1. 3 pages need full protection, which is requested normally at WP:RFPP
  2. Template:Infobox book is a false positive: the code isn't designed to handle a template that sometimes calls a module.
  3. The "XXX as random slideshow" templates, Template:Stack begin, and Template:Smallcaps2 are false positives: code isn't designed to handle CSS pages used by multiple templates.
  4. Someone needs to decide on the right protection level for Template:Flex columns: the module, template, and CSS pages all have different levels and I'm not sure which is right.
  5. Template:Pp-office and Template:Pp-reset are a special case: neither template-protecting nor fully-protecting the entire line of modules they use feels correct to me. Pppery, the protection wizard 01:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to have to stop here. I think we need broader input. Semi and system messages are one thing, but template-protection for Module:Search for instance I don't think is really needed. Yes, {{search}} uses it, but I'm not sure why that's template-protected either. ECP at most, in my opinion. I think the solution is to start using cascading protection, if we really wish to have all transcluded templates have the same level of protection. MusikAnimal talk 01:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Cascading non-full protection isn't allowed by the software because it would allow non-admins to protect pages. Pppery, the protection wizard 01:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I'm still a bit unsure about some of these. Template:Chess diagram I think used to have a lot more transclusions. Today I don't see template protection as necessary. Maybe these could use a more thorough look over? MusikAnimal talk 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


How is Template:!Cite/doc not a subpage of a deleted page? Template:!Cite is a redirect to Template:Full citation needed. Am I missing something? --Gonnym (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Gonnym: Template:!Cite exists, so subpages of it doesn't meet G8. In my opinion, G8 doesn't apply to subpages of redirects, and in this case there is nothing wrong with a redirect to the doc page of the target. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh come on, G8 is used for these routinely. There is also absolutely nothing to gain from a redirect from a /doc template with no incoming links. Please revert your revert as this is really pointless. --Gonnym (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: No. CSDs are intended only for uncontroversial actions. The fact that something is done routinely does not make it right. If you really wish for these templates to be deleted, please take it to RfD. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Coxeter–Dynkin diagramEdit

Hi Pppery, I moved the template and module per Requested move; but you need to fix documentation text manually in the Module. Regards, Xain36 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template issuesEdit

Can you clarify what you meant by template limit issues? Asking because of your revert on Module:TfdLinks. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: It was part of a (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to get Wikipedia:Templates for discussion out of Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded, see Wikipedia:Template limits. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok well I don't see any issue with the page being a larger size. If it actually prevents proper functionality that is different. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: It is preventing proper functionality: it's causing the bottom part of the page to not transclude properly. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have looked at the page and see no issues... What are you referring to? How does adding another link prevent the page from transcluding? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: Then you haven't looked closely enough: Look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions and see that all of the log pages before the 22nd are linked instead of the content showing up like they should. My edits are trying to fix that issue. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah ok now I'm seeing it. Thanks for clarifying. Not sure what we can do there. Removing the link from the module won't help. It is still transcluding the same number of templates. As we continue with this large cleanup of unused templates I think we are just going to have to deal with the old discussions not transcluding onto the main page. If you want to look at the old discussions, click the link and look at them there. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: The actual way the limit I'm trying fix is calculated is not "number of templates transcluded", but roughly "amount of Wikitext transcluded by templates" (see Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size for a better definition), so removing the link from the module does help, as do my recent "hack to reduce post-expand include size" edits. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement wrappersEdit

You have been involved in previous similar discussions. A new batch of wrappers has been proposed for replacement: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox RMEdit

RMs usually turn into !voting and zero discussion which was why I didn't open it as one. From the two comments already there, this will probably be the case here. --Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


Your appalling rudeness in moving pages such as Module talk:WikidataIB/testing that I've invested so much time into, yet you have never contributed to, without any discussion or a notification to me is unacceptable. This is not the first time you've fiddled with work that I've spent so much time on - the documentation at Module:WikidataIB is a classic example of you deciding that you know best about what should be included in a module and stripping out the documentation of whatever you didn't like. If I don't get assurances from you that this is the last time I have to complain about such actions on your part, I'll be taking steps to see you topic banned from the area of modules. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@RexxS: you don't WP:OWN ANYTHING on Wikipedia so threatening another user with topic ban because of their work is frankly laughable. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly! Especially when the entire substance of the complaint is a months-old content dispute and then me making a bold move. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Coxeter–Dynkin diagramEdit

You seem to have broken Point group. J G Campbell (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@J G Campbel: A null edit seems to have fixed the problem. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates with similar codeEdit

Based on your Module:String crusade, I thought you might have some insights on this. See all the templates at Template:Yes documentation. They all (or mostly all) seem to have the same exact code, with the only difference in the class and color values. Seems to me that a module doing that work with the templates only supplying the variables would make for much better maintaining of current templates, and for the creation of newer ones (as I'm pretty sure that some of the editors just copy/paste without actually understanding the code). Thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Storm nameEdit

 Module:Storm name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit requestsEdit

XfD noticeEdit

Regarding your XfD notice on User talk:AnomieBOT, due to this edit by bot operator, please do not add any XfD notice on this page, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What happened there is someone notified to bot of an RfD because it created the redirect. That's nothing like what I did, which is notify of a TfD of a template that the bot does care about. You're massively overgeneralizing. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Pppery, Ahhh, I think User:Anomie will remove this as pointless. See WP:CANVASS. Hhkohh (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That is, of course, his right to do. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


I evidently misunderstood what was happening with Module:Text_count. Would you mind helping with the actual conversion? Its been sitting in the holding cell for almost a month. Thanks! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I've been waiting for the merge of Module:PatternCount and Module:Text count into Module:String to happen first; doesn't make sense to me to convert uses of one template in the holding cell to another template also in the holding cell. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thanks. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Fold into intro?Edit

Feel free to fold my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#RfC_on_templates_storing_data into the intro to the whole discussion. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NaNs due to deletion of Decimals templateEdit

Hello, this morning I noticed a problem on some articles where NaNs kept appearing in inflation-adjusted currency amounts. For an example, see Macy's, Inc. I couldn't pinpoint the problem so I asked the Village Pump, and the problem was traced back to this edit. The cause is that the output of {{Inflation}} is often piped to {{Formatprice}}, and {{Formatprice}} doesn't like numbers in human readable scientific notation (like 6.022×1023). {{Decimals}} used to output in computer readable scientific notation (like 6.022E+23), but {{Rnd}} does not. Do you have any objection to reverting your edit until a solution can be found that prevents these errors? Thanks. —BorgHunter (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@BorgHunter: No, go ahead. Also, pinging the users involved in the merge: @Zackmann08, DannyS712, and Kadane:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this something we want to fix by changing articles, or should we update the template to recognize human readable scientific notation? Kadane (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kadane: I'm not actually sure what do do right nowm, but it's not changing articles. My best idea is to modify Template:Rnd (actually Module:Math in some way as to support the computer-readable output. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Help requests from sock puppetEdit

Hi Pppery, just fyi, you fulfilled an edit request in Rising Sun Flag, which was actually made by indefinitely-blocked user:Shingling334. He often places the "{{Help}}" template on protected article talk pages, asking for changes. He sometimes edits via VPNs, or sometimes just directly from his ISP, "Talk Talk Essex". Typical subjects are related to Northern Cyprus, Turkey, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, any "de facto" states, politicians, and so on. The section in question has in the meantime been removed for unrelated reasons, so it's a moot point, but you might want to double-check before answering similar "help" requests in the future, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Pages with graphsEdit

Hi Pppery

I closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_17#Category:Pages_with_graphs as rename, but can't figure how the modules are populkating the categories.

Please can you help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: The category isn't populated by a template at all; it's populated by the software directly. To implement my rename proposal, you need to edit MediaWiki:Graph-tracking-category and MediaWiki:Kartographer-tracking-category. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Done!
Now just waiting thousands of pages to be purged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was efficient.Edit

I was still trying to get things to play nice with the flatlist and you cut the grass below my foot! You quite surprised me, but hey, I won't complain, it seems to work fantastically. I'll test it some more, but it looks good. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to work for the last three parameters here (draft). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: You actually discovered a bug in Template:Template parameter value.   Fixed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Look at that, I'm the Magellan of bugs today it seems! Could you deploy this to the live template? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb:   Done. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Now it's the first two parameters that don't work right. Possibly a thing to do with their names (Has-title/Has-blurb). And the handling of empty parameters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: No, it was just me making a careless error, which I've fixed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, the testcases and WP:NEWSROOM. still look busted to me. Even after purging the cache. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Looks like it's yet another bug in Template:Template parameter value (that took me forever to track down), requiring another easy fix (which I did). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Seems to work a lot better now. There's an issue with an empty |Notes= though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Fixed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems to work now. And I've fixed the preload template to make use of the correct parameters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Technical Barnstar
For this and the associated voodoo magic that came with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Um, Headbomb, the actual Lua code was written by Alex 21, not me (I actually tried to get it deleted at one point). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, you fixed several bugs, so there's been magic involved somewhere. Plus you used #invoke' s. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Cheers for the fixes. There's still one big bug I need to work out as well, and that's if the parameter content includes any piped links. It cuts off at the first pipe it sees. -- /Alex/21 02:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Previous accountEdit

Please acknowledge your previous use of the banned Technical 13 account, to save me the tedium of an SPI. I was prepared to ignore this obvious socking, and have done so until now, because your new account seemed to have good intentions, until you started being a dickhead at Rexx's RfA. You're not going to squirm out of this, so just admitting it seems most prudent. There might be ways to avoid having you indefinitely blocked if you co-operate. -- Begoon 15:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not Technical 13. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Heh. We'll see. I don't have much time right now, but rest assured I'll get back to this soon, unless you retreat once again to 'good edits' without fuckwwittery, which is why I've taken no action regarding your blatant socking so far. Second chances have limits. 'Happy editing' anyways. -- Begoon 13:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) A full confession at the RfA may help, perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Centralizing/redirecting discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Technical_13#08_April_2019. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the SPI closed as unlikely. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April Fool'sEdit

Thanks for catching that mistake. I thought I was marking the page pertaining to featured articles, but I was actually marking the page for all April Fool's items. As best as I can tell, "Did You Know" is still (semi-)active with respect to April Fool's day items, but all other categories (featured article, in the news) are defunct. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


I just wanted to let you know that the SPI that was opened against you has been closed due to lack of evidence. I've also archived the report just a bit ago. Reading the discussion on the talk page of RexxS' crat chat, some users are debating whether or not someone should message you and apologize for any hardship, frustration, stress, or disheartened feelings that the accusations, the SPI, and other related discussions have caused upon you. I personally believe that if such an apology even becomes a debate in a related discussion, one should be given - even if the goal is to try and end things on a positive note so that everyone can move on.

I obviously can't speak on behalf of other editors directly; I think that those who actually made the accusations and/or caused any stress or frustration upon you should be the ones apologizing - not someone such as myself and in an attempt to speak on behalf of others. However, I will express my sincere feelings of sympathy and compassion to you regarding the situation, and encourage you to not take the accusations personally, and to move on from this as positively as you can. My talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me there any time you need any input, advice, assistance, encouragement, mentoring, or if you just want to talk... please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything you need. Keep your head up, move forward from this, and everything will be okay. :-) As you already know: How you act and behave following such hardship will be what the community will see and judge in the future - significantly moreso than the accusations themselves.

I hope you have a great day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I just wanted to offer some sympathetic support regarding the recent SPI you were involved in. I've never been in that particular situation, so I can't know exactly how you feel, but I did get blocked once, when I was a brand-new editor, when an admin mistakenly thought I was vandalizing when I had, in fact, merely tagged a vandal's article for speedy deletion. That both stressed me out and bummed me out. I imagine you felt similarly. Everyone makes mistakes and I would like to apologize for any mistake anyone made that caused you any undue distress. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Agggghhh, try not to take it too personally. I've actually been blocked twice as a sock due to total vindictiveness. Sock accusations are terms of endearment around here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • "terms of endearment!" No, no, no, , no no no no ... . * Pppery * fades away 00:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
The Special Barnstar is awarded to a user as a gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Um, ToBeFree, what is this barnstar supposed to thank me for? * Pppery * survives 21:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe that a general gesture of appreciation, especially as Wikipedia offers such a beautifully colored star for special circumstances, is appropriate.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Purple Barnstar
I'm surprised there are only three apologies on this page. Thank you for all of your contributions. You are valuable to the Wikipedia community, and I hope the recent events don't discourage you from staying with us. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You will appreciate the ironyEdit

Sorry to have seen the "inquisition" you faced at the recent RfA SPI, which was unfair in my view [1]. There was another editor User talk:Woshiyiweizhongguoren, who had been only 14 days in WP and entered the RfA, asked a full RfA question [2], and logged their RfA !vote [3], without any SPI concern. However, they have only now been revealed as an SPI and blocked. I thought you would appreciate the irony and it might give you a laugh. All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing is, though, Woshiyiweizhongguoren's fate is irrelevant now that the RfA has passed and the arbitration committee seems uninterested in the matter. * Pppery * fades away 22:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Life goes on. Most of the non-content / non-platform development part of WP is not very meaningful in the long-run. I am not sure it brings anybody much satisfaction. Not by accident so many crats are uncontactable/fade-away. This article is an amazing read on long-term satisfaction in WP User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. Britishfinance (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


Just FYI: I'm not new here. I was going to redirect Pilgrim (song) myself-—after fixing the incoming links, so it wouldn't set off the WP:DPL bot. Maybe chill while another editor is still working. --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Ancient GreekEdit

Sorry about this. It wasn't intentional; I was viewing an old revision and mistakenly edited it instead of the current one. — Eru·tuon 21:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Lua helpEdit

  Moved to Wikipedia talk:Lua: * Pppery * has returned 12:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Merging templatesEdit

Hi Pppery. You know it's sort of a new development that folks are also tagging the template to merge into. Our instructions at TfD don't really say to do it. That being said, I don't mind, but wanted to call your attention to that. Maybe it's something that ought to be changed? --Bsherr (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Not new to me; I've been tagging both templates since I became active in my "add tfd tags" task in September 2016. * Pppery * has returned 18:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

TNT docsEdit

heh, I agree - i wish there was a better shared docs system :(. So far we have translate wiki (great from translation perspective, but absolutely horrible for actually creating content itself -- all those special comments keep breaking, section tagging get mismatched, and very few people actually understand how to use that tagging system. I hope the TNT-based alternative is better -- adding a {{#invoke:TNT|table|message}} is fairly readable for any person who uses mediawiki templating language, and easy to trace who uses what. Thx for editing. --Yurik (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

In truth, my position has not changes since I nominated Module:TNT for deletion back in 2017. The fact that I wasn't able to make as simple a change as that proves I was right. * Pppery * has returned 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Which change? The fact that you tried to add a link to a plain-text-only field proves that a module that allows all wikis to share content should be deleted??? Strange reasoning tbh. All small wikis have been dying to get this functionality, but it will only work if larger wikis support them, because we are the ones who have the vast amount of human resources to make these templates/modules. --Yurik (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that the fact that the module forces that field to be plaintext means it is inhibiting functionality and thus should be deleted. It looks like, in any case, I was misunderstanding what the module was supposed to do; it produces TemplateData, not the wikitext content I typically associate with doc pages, and that limitation is part of the software, not the module. * Pppery * has returned 03:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit you thanked me aboutEdit

There is a discussion about the merits of the article you thanked me about on Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church, so if you want to weigh in, be my guest.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That, if I recall correctly, was a technical "thank", thanking you for not using <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> (which I've been on-and-off crusading against sicne July 2016), and unrelated to the content of the article. I've never been interested in actual article content, instead focusing on the technical side ... * Pppery * has returned 03:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlement - naming topic - Infobox placeEdit

RE Template talk:Infobox settlement#Requested move 28 February 2019:

What do you think about "Infobox place", matching Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place

Furthermore, it

  • is short (length brought up as anti-move reason)
  • only uses one word (multiple words brought up as anti-move reason)
  • catches all use cases, no misnomer anymore (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Could work, but the only way to find out is a requested move. * Pppery * has returned 18:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:Section sizesEdit

Hi, there's no problem with moving the name of this, it's just the first move made the module non-functional and I had to revert it. I thought I had made that clear in the summary. Hope this helps. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

How could you?Edit

Thief! —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw)  00:22, 08 May 2019 (UTC)

The content of your userpage is, like all other text on Wikipedia, licensed under CC-BY-SA; I'm allowed to use it as long as I credit you. * Pppery * survives 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I hoped that'd be clear as a joke. I'm happy to see other people doing the same work. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw)  00:28, 08 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:No Escape listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:No Escape. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:No Escape redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Css in Graph templateEdit

I re-instated the code that calls the sub-page with some style.css stuff in it. It is needed to make the graph templates work on the mobile version of any page - otherwise it comes out as a blank space. There was quite a one-sided discussion by me at the mediawiki page and the solution finally emerged via phabT216431. RobinLeicester (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@RobinLeicester: No need to tell me about this on my talk page; my removal of the CSS was unintentional. * Pppery * survives 18:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The code at the mediawiki page is supposed to be a master version, so changes to the en:wikimedia one will always risk being overwritten - which is what presumably happened before.RobinLeicester (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


I don't believe this was a problem; it would have been removed in the parsing process. But this definitely was. Another error by me; I could have done the simple step of creating a sandbox and testcases when updating commonly used templates; that is my takeaway here. But perhaps I should just take a break.

This is one thing I generally appreciate about coding: it exposes one to the undeniable truth of human fallibility (or at least my own fallibility). Retro (talk | contribs) 02:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Retro: The edit that you pointed out wasn't a problem didn't only remove a newline, it added a necessary datestamp to the template. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
You are accurate (the weird part is I can remember adding the timestamp). But regardless: apparently I did not take enough care in updating the template, and I suspect there still may be errors, based on the testcases page. I will probably fix them, but you are welcome to take a crack at them if you want (I would not blame you if you've lost confidence in my ability to competently code templates). Retro (talk | contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, I wouldn't say I've lost confidence yet. After all, I broke a template used on thousands of pages a few months ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind words. I know the feeling of breaking a widely-transcluded template; I recall more than a year ago, before my 11-month break, edit requesting on a template-protected page and through the fault of either I or the implementing editor, (I remember it being the implementing editor, but memory deceives) watching in horror as the template became broken because an extra newline was inserted. Unlike your five minute fix, it remained broken for an hour until I finally posted about the error to WP:AN. I should have posted to AN immediately, but I was less experienced then. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pppery".