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)

Stop describing Tfd nominations as "nonsense"Edit

I think the heading makes it clear. You have done it on some of my and Q28's nominations in recent days. If you continue to describe nominations as "nonsense" an ANI will have to submitted over this kind of behavior. And I will have to remove you from the task force. Your responses aren't being taken as constructive and are coming off as mean-spirited. If you don't understand, so be it. You can still vote as you see fit without such words. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop nominating templates for reasons that make no sense and I won't have to do that. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
What you think doesn't make sense doesn't mean you can call it that. It comes off as a personal attack and others will view it as such. You shouldn't be doing that in the first place. I don't want to drag this any further so just don't do it again. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletionEdit

Hello, Pppery,

When you tag a page for deletion, please notify the page creator with a notice on their talk page. It is easiest if you use Twinkle because the program will usually post the notice for you once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator" and check the boxes of every CSD criteria. But even if Twinkle fails to do this, then you need to notify the page creator yourself with a personal message. What query this refers to are 2 categories you tagged for speedy deletion....both of these categories were created by administrators who placed a tag on them NOT to delete them if they are empty. I think it's important that you check with the page creators about this. I know that I am reluctant to delete pages under these circumstances. Right now, an admin evaluating the pages needs to trust your word that these categories are no longer needed. It would be ideal if the admin who created the pages did the deletion once you informed them of the situation.

It's always important to spend the time communicating with other editors when you are requesting action that doesn't seem obviously necessary. My guess is that most admins who patrol CSD categories will pass on acting on your request and decline to delete. Here's a tip, there are lots of admins who look at speedy deletion categories but if they are unsure about a tagging, they leave it for the next admin to look over and make a decision on. So, if these pages are still sitting, tagged, hours from now, that's a sign that the admins who looked them over were not certain that they should be deleted. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing ambiguous about it. In the case of Category:Pages which should not use KML from Wikidata, the category text says quite clearly that it was populated by {{No KML}} (Pages should be added to this category using {{No KML|reason=Some reason}}.). Since that template has been deleted at TfD, the category quite clearly meets the G8 criterion (Categories populated by deleted [...] templates). G8 doesn't even have a template to notify the creator, who in any case hasn't edited since August 26, so I suspect asking him would have not produced a useful response.
For Category:Wikipedia spacecraft media missing information, although the creator is still active, they merely moved the page from Category:Wikipedia spacecraft articles missing information per a discussion in 2013, which does not make them any better-situated to evaluate whether the page is G8-able than you are. Regardless, the category was populated by {{spacecraft missing information}}, which was deleted at TfD, so this is again a straightforward {{db-templatecat}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
And Explicit deleted the categories an hour and a half after you posted this message, proving your speculation of the future wrong. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ontario COVID-19 pandemic timelineEdit

Hi Pppery, I wanted to reach out to you regarding your reversion of S201050066’s edits to the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario article. You objected to the addition of lists between September and November 2020 on the grounds that they were taking up too much space and that there was an automated table at the top of the article. Me and S201050066 are working on an ongoing project to put in tables with a breakdown of daily cases, recoveries, deaths and cases in hospitals. One solution may be to spilt the article into 2020 and 2021 articles. That will help reduce the length to a manageable level. Andykatib 19:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Splitting the article into two instead is fine with me. (Although you've misstated my objection, it wasn't that I thought the article was too long, it's that the page exceeded the post-expand include size limit and as a result the navboxes at the bottom weren't rendering). * Pppery * it has begun... 20:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pppery, thanks for the clarification and understanding. My apologies for misstating your objection. I meant to say that it exceeded the article maximum size limit. I have managed to create two separate Ontario timeline articles for 2020 and 2021. Since the 2020 article is about 306,000 bytes, I have advised S201050066 that he can help reduce the length of the article by using just one source for each of the daily reports. That should help keep the article length at a more manageable size. Andykatib 20:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pppery I am going to echo what Andykatib said to you earlier you undid my edit on the Ontario Timeline and I do recognize that you have a point on the issue but you should had not reverted me and Andykatib work On The Ontario timeline we undid your edit on the Ontario timeline page for 2020 we had spited the articles into 2020 and 2021 and what you did was unnecessary and I think you should apologies to me and Andykatib and if it happens again the next time you will be getting a warning and if you continue to undo our edits like you did On the Ontario Timeline page you will be blocked from editing for 24 hours or indefinitely.S201050066 5:42 pm eastern standard time
There was nothing wrong with my initial revert; you made a bold edit, I reverted it, now we are discussing, and I've indicated I'm fine with splitting the article and keeping the content I removed. True, if I start edit warring with you and Andykatib I might get blocked for that, but there's no indication that will happen and your threat is entirely unpersuasive. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
apology accepted I understand your point and I am very sorry me and Andykatib we were both little upset earlier and I understand now and I think it comes down to matter of respect and I Know that you are good User but you did messed up lets settle this issue down and lets move on S201050066 7:22 pm eastern standard time December 10 2021
OK. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries Ppery and S201050066, I wasn't upset at all. I understand that Ppery's intentions were well intended and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Glad that we have managed to reach a good solution to the issue. S201050066, it might help if you could improve your grammar and spelling as well as your editing skills. That will reduce the risk of other users reverting your edits. Andykatib 00:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Andykatib thank you I was kind of a little upset with Pppery and I was not upset at Pppery it was just the time and effort I put into my work I did for September through November of 2020 we hope we don't get you involved in any of our work again Pppery have a wonderful day S201050066 7:50 pm eastern standard time December 10 2021


Hello, Pppery,

I'm just a little curious but how are you finding all of these outdated, now useless categories you are tagging for deletion? They are uncategorized by subject or use so I'm not sure how you even found them or came across them. Are you going through the thousands of Noindexed pages or Hidden categories? That's a time-consuming chore! But I'm glad someone took it on. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I just realized that these categories are probably associated with deleted templates and that's how you found them. But I'll leave my message as it is. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm going through all categories that are in Category:Hidden categories and in no other parent categories (not counting subcats of Category:CatAutoTOC tracking categories), at Fayenatic london's suggestion. There were only about 150 total, so it's not actually that time consuming. (And these have nothing to do with deleted templates) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Pppery/noinclude listEdit

Hi, do you know why User:Pppery/noinclude list is showing as transcluding {{WikiProject East Timor/hide}}? It's being reported at Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The page transcludes all templates listed at TfD in order to check that they are properly tagged. The transclusion should disappear in a few hours when Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 4#Template:WikiProject Ohio/sandbox/hide and related /hide template subpages is closed, before that database report is next updated, so there's no need for me to do anything. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!Edit

  Thank you for your efforts at Protected edit request! — xaosflux Talk 11:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 CompletedEdit

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Database reportEdit

There exists Module:Database report. Consider if you want to do anything with that. Izno (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved it to Module:Sandbox/SDZeroBot/Database report to match the userfication of the template. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Izno: And there's also {{database report end}}. Would you mind userfying that as well? (I'd do it myself, but I don't have the right to move pages without leaving a redirect) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit vs. cleanupEdit

Greetings! Regarding this edit...yes, I send dozens of articles to the Guild of Copy Editors every month. In general, they don't accept articles that have other problem tags, like lack of sourcing, and will change the copyedit tag to a cleanup tag, or just drop it entirely and wait for the other problem to get fixed. -- Beland (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a valid point. On the other hand, when you use {{cleanup}} what tends to happen instead is the tag gets completely ignored, which isn't much better. Thus, for the last few months I've been periodically loooking at transclusions of {{cleanup}} and replacing them with other more specific tags to hopefully attract attention to them. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that's great; a lot of people don't know the more-specific tags exist, and there are definitely people and bots better suited to such tasks. The cleanup tags aren't ignored entirely, but cleanup that involves substantial rewriting does take a lot longer than a copyedit or MOS fix, so the cleanup backlog is just a lot longer (currently 12 years). There are certainly editors working specifically on January 2010 right now, but anything we can do to make the backlog shorter would for sure help the project. Sometimes I take the oldest listings from Category:Articles needing cleanup and post a brief list to Wikipedia:Cleanup, which for some reason seems to have at least some willing volunteers who don't look at the categories. I think seeing a cleanup tag also causes editors who watchlist a given article and people who happen to be reading it to take note and motivates some of them to fix the problem. (You can see that the longer ago a month is, the smaller the backlog is for that month.)
Given how time-consuming major cleanup work is, I also think people are more willing to do it if they are actually interested in the topic, and Wikiprojects are a major source of interested editors. I have recently purged the old Pages Needing Attention and am still dealing with on-site Cleanup Listing pages. We now have excellent per-Wikiproject, per-problem listings at: https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/index.html
If you see an article festering in the cleanup queue and there's no better queue to move it, my recommendation would be to 1.) make sure it is assigned to at least one Wikiproject on its talk page, 2.) make sure linked Wikiproject pages are linked to the corresponding bambots page, and 3.) drop a note on the Wikiproject talk page if editors there don't seem aware of the cleanup backlog for their project. -- Beland (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
People were using {{cleanup}} far too often without showing why, so we added code to populate Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletionEdit

Hello, Pppery,

When tagging pages for speedy deletion, like Category:Articles with faulty Semantic Scholar author identifiers and Category:Articles with Online PWN identifiers, it's important to post deletion notifications on the talk page of the page creator. Actually, this is a crucial step to take with any type of deletion (CSD, PROD or AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.).

I encourage you to start using Twinkle when you tag pages for deletion because once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post these notices for you. Thank you, Pppery, for all of your many contributions on the project! Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

G8 speedy deletions don't have a notification template (even when using Twinkle). I do generally notify creators when starting deletion discussions or doing speedy deletions for other criteria that do have notification templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Articles with Online PWN identifiersEdit

Hi, I noticed that you tagged the category page Category:Articles with Online PWN identifiers for speedy deletion, but you did not notify on my talk page. If any page created, including a category page is nominated for speedy deletion, the author is notified on their talk page. See an earlier notificication. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notify you because there's no template to use to notify people of {{Db-templatecat}} deletions, which I've taken to mean that for that kind of uncontroversial deletion there's no need to notify the creator. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I still didn't get itEdit

Hi Pppery, I observed that my edit request at Template talk:!( § Template-protected edit request on 31 January 2022 has been declined. I went through the archive you linked but still couldn't quite understand what's the point of having these templates at the first place if the resultant transclusion will be seen as a regular wiki-markup? Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 17:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what purpose the template serves, exactly, but I also know from that discussion that making the kind of edit you requested is simply not a good idea. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Collapse of convoEdit

Hey! I saw you collapsed some of the discussion at the proposal village pump. I do agree that some of it was offtopic, however some of the discussion that is in the collapsed part wasn't necessarily offtopic. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I left Lallint's original response (saying that the discussion I had pointed to was 8 years ago) uncollapsed. Absolutely none of the rest was related to the original proposal of adding Wikipedia:Articles for improvement to the main page, which is the topic of the section. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

PDB GalleryEdit

Did anyone ever chase Primefac's closing statement at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Template:PDB Gallery? I'm currently chasing the nochecker class for removal from Common.css and ended up at what looks like a totally unnecessary template system mess that has the issues as described by Gonnym (never mind MOS:COLLAPSE). Izno (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing has ever happened there as far as I know. I'm bad at following up on that sort of thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for Jonathan D. GrayEdit

Hi Pppery. I recently posted an edit request for Jonathan D. Gray, the president and coo of Blackstone Group. Since I noticed that you are a member of WikiProject Finance & Investment I thought you might be interested in implementing my edits. One editor, Sdrqaz has been helpful in the past, but they seem to be busy at the moment, so I am turning to you. I would really appreciate it if you would take a look. Thanks, ThomasClements Blackstone (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I am not listed as a member of WikiProject Finance & Investment anywhere to my knowledge and have no interest in this subject. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


There's definitely stuff to transfer there, given that the content that you blanked has sources that the other article needs, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Robert Clinton BogardEdit

Hello, Pppery,

When admins patrol through CSD categories, they open up all of the pages in a criteria category and go through each page, one at a time. So, it helps if the editor who tags a page for CSD G4 deletion adds a link to the deletion discussion so the admin can just pop over and confirm that the discussion ended in a deletion decision and that the new article is sufficiently similar to the version that was deleted. In this case, it wouldn't have occurred to me that this page was deleted in an MFD discussion, not an AFD discussion.

Patrolling admins look over a lot of pages over the course of a day and it really helps not to have to go searching for deletion discussion pages when the tagger can just add a link to the deletion tag. Confusing CSD tagging frequently results in admins "passing over" the pages and leaving them for another admin to deal with, in this case, you corrected the tag yesterday but it was still sitting without action when I returned to it tonight. I appreciate all of the work you do on the project, from templates to tagging, I see your contributions on a daily basis. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Tagging Pages for deletionEdit

I noticed that you tagged my category for deletion. I read through deletion guidelines, and in no way does it break any of them. Also, it was never previously deleted via a deletion discussion, because I checked the deletion log. With your logic, any Wikipedia category with ancestry in it should be deleted. TatiVogue (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, any Wikipedia category with ancestry in it should be deleted. Because the community has come to a consensus against categorizing users by ancestry. G4 doesn't care about the title of the page you created; as long as it's fundamentally the same category, which it is. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Then mark every one for deletion then. 🤷 TatiVogue (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Are there any other Wikipedians by ancestry categories I've missed? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I notice that you only did it to POC ethnicities. Do you have an issue with people of color? soundsl ike you're being racist.......... 🤷 TatiVogue (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
No, I nominated the entire Category:Wikipedians by ancestry tree for deletion back in May 2021, and saw the category you created and G4-ed it because I look at all newly-created user categories as a matter of course. Before accusing me of bias, can you point to a specific example of a non-POC ancestry category that I didn't nominate for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


Hi! I removed your CSD tag from Nick Tanner (disambiguation), and converted it to a {{hndis}}. Wanted to drop you a message. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 17:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Some help neededEdit

There are quite a few categories to be deleted per discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 12 that I can't get emptied. Do you happen to know the remedy? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Done most of them. The remainder are populated by Template:user x, which checks if a category exists before populating it, so an admin just needs to hit the delete button (and I've tagged them for deletion accordingly). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

CFD closuresEdit

Hello, Pppery,

Please let the editors who close CFD discussions tag categories that are due to be deleted. Categories must be emptied before they are deleted or we end up with a WP:REDNO situation that then has to be addressed. The few admins and editors who close CFD discussions are very experienced at this point so please let them handle all aspects of a closure. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: The editor who closed the CfDs above explicitly asked me to handle them in the previous section. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I see that now, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't look at other messages on your talk page. I was mistaken. We still need to empty some of these categories. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: As I said on the categories themselves to hopefully avoid this eventuality, the current member[s are] populated by automatic template logic that checks if the category exists before populating it, so will disappear upon deletion. This whole project to clean up babel categories seems to be a recipe for pissing people off and accomplishing very little, and I probably wouldn't have bothered starting it if I had realized that a week ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


Hi Pppery, thanks for your help with local engagement. The message I posted at WP:VPM seeks a wide audience so I wonder if you can consider cross-posting it, rather than moving it. It also seems redundant where it was moved, since a previous message on the same topic remains unarchived there. Please let me know what you think. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea that something (regardless of what that thing is) should be cross-posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), which is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category, in addition to one of the other category pages seems illogical to me. If it belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), then it by definition does not belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), since it fits into another category. I guess I can't stop you from reposting your message there, but I don't see a good reason to. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again, and for explaining your thinking. Since global announcements are typically posted at WP:VPM, I think some cross-posting is okay here to make sure the draft and opportunity to provide input are not missed. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Your improved versionEdit

Do you plan to upload a color-corrected version? I cropped the photo to get File:Green Bay in Lake Michigan on April 16, 1972, cropped from AS16-118-18879.png and File:Delta County, Michigan, cropped from AS16-118-18879.png; I'm definitely interested in your color corrections. If you intend on uploading your whole file, I could download and crop yours. Or if you don't plan on uploading the whole file, could you crop replacements for them? I am just fine with you uploading them over my crops and replacing them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no plans to upload any files myself, and am not sure why I was notified here. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I confused you with User:Ahecht, who wrote that he did color corrections.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

TfD text transclusion suppressionEdit

Hello. Could you please take a look at a few diffs I have provide? I'm still a little confused.

This is in regards to this TfD tag of yours [1], an unregistered user's apparent attempt to help [2] and my response [3]. which is somewhat confirmed when I noticed an edit by User:Jdcompguy [4].

All the above rather begs the question: Shouldn't this suppression somehow be done automatically? In fact, what is {{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}} supposed to be doing. Naively, this looks to me to be precisely the automated suppression needed, but is not working? Perhaps something happened on WP:THURSDAY?

Thank you for your time. DB1729 (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The system is working exactly as intended; the transclusion is not supposed to be suppressed, and would not be if it weren't for people trying to declare their templates to be special snowflakes that are above the law. The purpose of {{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}} is explained at Template talk:Tfm/Archive 1#TfM in template documentation if you really want to delve into technicalities. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I really wasn't sure if the text was intended to be suppressed or not. I guess it just looked odd to me to see it in a hatnote. Cheers! --DB1729 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sierra Leone ConstitutionEdit

You deleted almost the entire article that I worked very hard to write on the Sierra Leone Constitution because it was "unsourced." I am going to change it back to the original unless you take the liberty of doing that yourself. The sections that you deleted was a summary of each section the Sierra Leone Constitution that would have been very valuable to the people who live there but don't have the time to read all 97 pages of it. Those sections did not warrant citation because they very clearly came from the text of the constitution itself (see Constitution of the United States which has minimal citations in the sections that summarize the text). Almost anyone (but apparently not you) understands that. I suggest that you read it to understand that my summarization was not disingenuous. I am insulted and disappointed that you cannot see the value that this article has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.c.gallego (talkcontribs) 00:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy. The burden is on you to properly source material you add, not on me to find sources for it. Articles (or major sections of articles) should not be based on Wikipedia:Primary sources such as the constitution itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The text of the constitution is straightforward. I merely summarized it. Michael.c.gallego (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Michael.c.gallego saying I am going to change it back to the original unless you take the liberty of doing that yourself is not acceptable. Wikipedia relies on consensus - if someone reverts your edit, the onus is on you to discuss the issue and find a solution. Making demands of other editrs like this are unacceptable. It's also rude to quote fragments of policies out of context to try to negate what others are saying to you - Pppery is quite right in their assessment. I will give you more feedback on your talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

So ...Edit

What is this "tool" you are referring to? Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In some cases, for small categories, closers just implement the result by manually editing each page in the category being renamed. In some cases Wikipedia:Cat-a-lot is used. More fundamentally, all that actually needs to happen to implement a CfD is for all pages to be removed from a category, and the process of how it is done does not matter. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who stands with Ukraine nomination for discussion, replyEdit

Well actually, you should nominate it for deletion. I understand what you mean, I just wanted to express to Wikipedians how Ukraine is in bad condition due to war crisis. But that okay, maybe I should think about it. By the way, can you give me a favor on helping me improve these pages, Miss Earth 2022, Template:Country data Australian Aboriginal, and Independence referendum, if you wish to. Have a good day. LikeRealTimes I got you a message!📩 13:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@LikeRealTimes: I'm a firm believer in the principle of consistent enforcement of the rules, not declaring that the war in Ukraine is special enough to be given an exception. And I see no reason why acting on that principle requires me to improve some unrelated articles, none of which are in obvious need of improvement. Finally, please don't use templates in your signature. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I now understand. Hope you can bring maintenance to Wikipedia. LikeRealTimes (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Gerrit open changesEdit


Since you helped me some days ago with the Jenkins outputs I thought you'd be a good choice to quench my curiosity on this topic. Does every open task have to be closed (abandoned/merged) sometime or is there no "policy" on this? I was seeing that the list of open tasks extended as far back as 2013, spawning 223 pages. - Klein Muçi (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

In an ideal world, people would review every patch. Wikipedia is not an ideal world, as people only review the patches that interest them (and I'm not aware of any policy requiring them to do otherwise). This, incidentally, is the main reason I quit actively contributing to Gerrit some years ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 11:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I remember you mentioning that to me some months ago in a conversation at Trappist's talk page if I'm not wrong. Are backlog clearing drives a thing? Is there even somewhere where we can discuss such things? Why doesn't Gerrit have a forum venue where we can actually discuss about projects in general beside the individual patch comments? Or do these discussions happen in Phabricator/MW:Project:Support desk? Soon 10 years will have gone by since the oldest open patch is still open and waiting for review. Maybe such very old patches should be abandoned en-masse. (Or ideally reviewed en-masse and mostly abandoned.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
They will be likely be abandoned en mass when GitLab replaces Gerrit. I've not been following Wikimedia development closely enough to answer any of your other questions. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I knew nothing about the GitLab initiative. You gave me something else to read about. :P Thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing back the dead but I had another question related to Gerrit and thought that the answer to it might be a short one so might as well not start a new thread.
Can you maybe explain to me what exactly has happened here in regard to the JenkinsBot actions? Why was it set as a failure -1 and then verified removed and then it got verified +2? What does the gray color coded verified removed exactly mean? - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The first time the patch was +2ed on May 3 the tests failed and Jenkins-Bot applied "verified -1". When it got +2-ed again today, Jenkins-Bot first removed the old -1 ranking to re-run the tests (what "verified removed" means). The tests then passed, so Jenkins-Bot applied "verified +2" and merged the patch. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand. Do you have any idea what might have changed in the background to make such a thing possible? I mean, the first time failing and then succeeding without me actually doing any changes to my patch? Of course, reading the failure reports might have given us a clue what might have changed but apparently it's too late for that, so that's another question: What happens with these failure reports? Where exactly do they live and when do they get deleted? Is there somewhere you can go and take a look at all the failure reports that are generated currently, even those not related to your patches? - Klein Muçi (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, here we sort of have the opposite of my example above. Jenkins-Bot +2-ed something, it then removed its verification and +2-ed it again. Why would it need to do that? :/ - Klein Muçi (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The reason for the removing and re-adding of a +2 is that different kinds of tests are run when a patch is +2-ed compared to when it it initially proposed. I really don't know the answer to any of the other questions you've asked. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, so removing the verification is generally a needed step before approving assuming I have set up myself for patch autoexamination by the Jenkins-Bot. My patches will always be marked by it because of that and even if they're +2-ed, JB will have to remove and re-add the +2 again when the merge procedure starts. Thank you! - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback Request ServiceEdit

Thanks a lot for re-adding my name to the FRS list. It keeps on saying that I have not edited in the last 6 months, and that is why it has removed my name from the list. But, that is wholly not true. I have always edited, and am always editing. What is wrong with this bot? Do you have any idea? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 02:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

WT:FRS#Sending requests to dedicated user talk subpage. I emailed the operator a while ago about the bug, but they aren't very active and haven't responded. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all you help. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 02:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to comment an RfDEdit

Hello. The RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands has been stalling for quite a long time now, I guess because the consensus or lack thereof is not clear enough. Could you come and gie your opinion so that the RfD can hopefully be closed? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?Edit

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi Pppery,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


MJLTalk 04:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Module chartEdit

Hey there!

Some months ago you helped me solve a problem with Module:Chart and thus I was thinking if you can consider making a small modification to it. Can you enhance it so when you hover over a bar (in a bar chart) a line is drawn from it to the x axis together with a number showing the exact number that the column is supposed to represent? Is my explanation clear? As it currently is, you can only know the value of the columns approximately. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The module already supports that feature in some cases. See, for example, Module:Chart#Stacked. I think that the only time it doesn't is when that feature conflicts with hovering over links to show the article they point to, and I don't feel like writing code to remedy that conflict (if doing so is even possible). * Pppery * it has begun... 13:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You're right on that I suppose. The case that gave me this idea was exactly what you describe. But, oh well... :P :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer grantedEdit

Hi Pppery. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)