User talk:Pppery

Welcome!

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

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 . Again, welcome!

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

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

For the last 15 years, a long term abuser has made north of 100 accounts and tried, in vain, to create an article about Joël Fils-Aimé. They've been deleted innumerable times. There's two different SPIs covering the accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noneof yourbusiness48 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne. A sampling of some of the various attempts that have been deleted:

• Joél Filsaime (from 2011)
• Joél Filsaime (rapper)
• Joél "J-Pimp" Filsaime
• Draft:Joël Fils-Aimé (Haitian candidate)
• Draft:Joël Fils-Aimé (businessman)
• Draft:Joel Fils-Aimé (businessperson)
• Draft:Joël Fils-Aimé (musician)
• Draft:Joël Fils-Aimé (American producer)

And on it goes. I think we're long past due a this point for an entry in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to block this. I know your active on that page. Can you write something to block this? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 17:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Came across Joël (musician). This was created in 2019, and wouldn't have been picked up by the titleblacklist anyway. Is there someway to prevent creation based on content, not just the title? "Joël Fils-Aimé" is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. Maybe there's some tool that looks for that? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be WP:Edit filter, which I'm not involved in. You are welcome to request at WP:EFR. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 19:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

My big mistake on 6/7/26

Hello, Pppery,

I don't know if you still monitor Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions/U6, but if you do, you'll see my name pop up there over 200 times this week. I had a big mishap the other day when I did a batch delete on the wrong category, I meant to delete the daily U6 category contents and instead found that I botched up the Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion category. I caught my mistake within minutes and manually restored all of those pages. I think there is an easier way to revert admin acts but in the moment, I just wanted to get things back to normal. In the 11 years I've been an admin, I've done this one other time before with batch delete (that I'm aware of) and there is no permanent damage beyond some incorrect log information and embarrassment. But I happened to come across Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions/U6 which I sometimes review and realize that my mistake would flash like a big red flag so I wanted to pass along my explanation and an apology.

I know that admins and editors that monitor project pages don't get a lot of thanks or recognition but I appreciate the work that you do and I'm glad there is someone who will to spend a little time looking after the nuts and bolts of the project. Thanks for all that you do here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. And yeah, I am still monitoring that page, although I probably would have quickly seen that the pages on the report were blue and realized what you had done. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 23:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Will229's AWB permissions removed

Hi Pppery, there's an AN thread for the removal of Will229's AutoWikiBrowser permission and I went ahead and did so. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Unprotecting Talk:Edit

Hi Pppery! Hope you are doing well. I believe that Talk:Edit can be unprotected now that the bug in XFDC has been fixed, but I wanted to check in with you first :) Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine with removing the full prot (here and at Talk:Reply), but I would keep Talk:Edit at semi. Even before the XFDC bug there was enough random crap in the page history to warrant a WP:SELDEL so I think that's warranted. Someday I'll probably do another seldel, once I come back from my current break from admin activity in protest against COMMTECHGATE. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 21:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good— Done with thanks :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Notification of closed clarification request

A clarification request in which you were a party has been closed and archived. This is only a notification, and no action is needed on your part. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggested changes to be made to the following system messages on Wikipedia

Since you recently customised the MediaWiki:Right-editprotected and MediaWiki:Right-editsemiprotected system messages on Wikipedia, I was thinking you should make the following changes to the following interface messages:

System Message	Suggested Text
Action-abusefilter-hidden-log	view hidden filter log entries
Action-abusefilter-hide-log	hide entries in the filter log
Action-abusefilter-log-protected	view logs of edit filters marked as protected
Action-abusefilter-log-suppressed	view logs of edit filters marked as suppressed
Action-abusefilter-modify-global	create or modify global edit filters
Action-abusefilter-privatedetails	view private data in the filter log
Action-autoreview	have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted"
Action-editautopatrolprotected	edit autopatrol-protected pages
Action-editautoreviewprotected	edit autoreview-protected pages
Action-editeditorprotected	edit editor-protected pages
Action-editextendedsemiprotected	edit autopatrol-protected pages
Action-editpatrolprotected	edit patrol-protected pages
Action-editprotected	edit fully protected pages
Action-editsemiprotected	edit semi-protected pages
Action-edittrustedprotected	edit trusted user-protected pages
Action-extendedconfirmed	edit extended-confirmed protected pages
Action-movestable	move pages under pending changes
Action-override-antispoof	create accounts with names similar to existing usernames
Action-stablesettings	configure how the latest accepted revision is selected and displayed
Right-abusefilter-modify-global	Create or modify global edit filters
Right-editautopatrolprotected	Edit autopatrol-protected pages
Right-editautoreviewprotected	Edit autoreview-protected pages
Right-editeditorprotected	Edit editor-protected pages
Right-editextendedsemiprotected	Edit extended confirmed-protected pages
Right-editpatrolprotected	Edit patrol-protected pages
Right-edittrustedprotected	Edit trusted user-protected pages

― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've done some of the abuse filter -> edit filter changes, as well as Stablesettings. I decline to do the rest - they consist of either messages that aren't used at all on enwiki or ones where any problems the message may have aren't specific to enwiki so more properly should be changed on Phabricator. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Miraheze

If I am not mistaken, I first learned about Miraheze from a page on the same name on Wikipedia. As is now, this is a redirect to Wiki hosting service. Maybe it is not deemed to meet the threshold of Wikipedia:Notability? If so, to what extent is it deficient? If not, then what?
Enquire (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraheze (3rd nomination) * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 02:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, re tech move request

Pppery, thank you for carrying out the admin move request for that oddball case of someone developing an autobiography in their common.css. Had to chuckle at your edit summary. In the case of a brand new user, if their page just seems to "disappear" on them, they might think they forgot where they put it, and could show up at the Teahouse or someplace asking about it. This offers them a bit of continuity and a minimum of hand-holding while they on-board without bothering anyone else about it. I don't disagree that its ultimate fate is likely the trashbin of Wikidom, and will certainly not object to someone G11'ing it after the user has had a chance to digest what happened to it, and perhaps react. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Mentor away request

Hi Pppery, do you mind setting LuniZunie-Mentor to away for a bit? All of their accounts are currently locked as compromised. Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary - given that their account has the "Blocked" rather than the "Active" status on Special:ManageMentors I think the system will already treat them as if they are away. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

And in any event they already marked themselves as away. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see, I thought that they hadn't been given there was a question from one of their mentees, but I'm guessing their mentee didn't use the mentor interface to ask a question. Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding the deletion of "Aharon Heichman" (G5 / WP:CT/A-I)

Hi Pppery, I noticed that the article I recently created about "Aharon Heichman" was speedy-deleted under criterion G5 (WP:CT/A-I). I understand that topics related to Israeli history are highly sensitive and subject to strict general sanctions. However, I am a new editor trying to contribute in good faith, and Aharon Heichman was an important historical figure (a prominent commander in the Irgun during the pre-state era). If the text appeared to look like AI-generated content or violated writing styles, I sincerely apologize. I am a real person, and my only goal is to document this historical biography properly using reliable sources. Would it be possible to restore the deleted text to my personal draft space (User: The Regulator 1/Aharon Heichman) or the Draft namespace? This will allow me to completely rewrite, clean up, and format the article manually to ensure it fully complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) and sourcing guidelines. Thank you for your time and guidance, The Regulator 1 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

No. You are not allowed to edit in this topic area until you become extended-confirmed. Restoring the content to draft space would only encourage you. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 17:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I understand. I'll refrain from editing within the topic area until I become extended-confirmed and will focus on contributing elsewhere in the meantime. Thanks for your time. The Regulator 1 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The Regulator 1 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pppery,

I have now become extended-confirmed.

If the only reason the article on Aharon Heichman was deleted was that I was not yet extended-confirmed, would you be willing to restore it to my userspace (User Regulator 1/Aharon Heichman) or to Draft space so that I can continue working on it?

If there were additional concerns with the article beyond the extended-confirmed restriction, I would appreciate knowing what they were so that I can address them before requesting a restoration.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards, The Regulator 1 (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you've gamed the system by making large numbers of trivial edits to the same series of articles (i.e 11 edits to do nothing but add section headers, 14 edits to do nothing but add wikilinks (at least one of which seems like an overlink), the same), all only a day or so before making this request. Hence, I decline. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Pppery,

Thank you for explaining your concern.

I understand why the pattern of some of my recent edits might have looked unusual. My intention was not to game the system or artificially reach the extended-confirmed threshold. After your earlier message, I deliberately avoided the sanctioned topic area, as you had instructed, and focused on contributing elsewhere while becoming more familiar with English Wikipedia's editing practices.

Since then, I have continued making constructive contributions to a variety of topics, including Trutnov Synagogue, Libratone, Giovanni Maria da Crema, Dobruška Synagogue, Les Passantes, Israbluff, Tetrateuch, Centralization of the cult, Discovery of the Book of the Law (Josiah's reign) and Joris Lacoste.

I understand that trust is just as important as meeting the technical requirements for extended-confirmed status.

Rather than asking again for the restoration now, could you let me know what you would consider sufficient evidence of sustained constructive editing before such a request would be appropriate? I would genuinely appreciate any guidance.

Thank you for your time.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I've revoked your extended-confirmed permission for now. Please remember to use edit summaries, and absolutely do not use LLMs/AI for wikipedia editing, including for responding to people on talk pages. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

(For context, I asked for a second opinion on whether you were gaming the system, which drew asilvering into this) In that case, to answer your question, you'll have to convince someone to restore your extended-confirmed permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. Their standard (I have at times responded there but will leave this case to another admin) is roughly "500 substantive edits". Very roughly, I would suggest counting each series of multiple consecutive edits to the same article with no edits by others as one edit, and each series of multiple very similar edits to closely-related pages (like adding identical shortdescs to multiple articles in a row) as one edit. But you're not trying to convince a robot; you're trying to convince a human, so that's only a rough approximation and not an exact goal to reach for and cause Goodhart's law to apply. And finally, as Asilvering said, don't use AI to write comments. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about article "omar pitras waqar"

Hi Pppery I'm a brand new wiki user, who is here to help fix the article on DC musician Omar Pitras Waqar. We removed all external links, and the discography. Can you help me understand what else needs to be tweaked? We have provided many academic and media resources on the topic, and removed all personal life details that can not be traced back directly to one of the given sources listed. Is there specific wording or phrases that are inappropriate? Any help would be appreciated, we can modify it right away, to meet with community standards. Jellybean1345t (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, having re-read the article (Omar Pitras Waqar), I no longer remember why I added the promotional tone tag and the tone doesn't seem that promotional so I've removed it. I added the article to the new pages feed as a procedural action since the person who approved it the first time was evading a block so all of their reviews lost trust. I don't review articles myself on request, so the page will have to remain in the NPP queue until someone else looks at it. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that removal, sorry for my ignorance do I need to monitor the new pages patrol? Jellybean1345t (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

No you don't need to do anything. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 19:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

"Template:Map" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Map 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/2026 July 5 § Template:Map until a consensus is reached. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For fixing the WikiEd editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

How do I change the article title name because you said Not the correct way to use {{correct title}} and not how we would title articles in any event

I am trying to rename the article name to Fandango at Home to Fandango (Streaming) because they officially rebranded it where the at Home part is removed just calling it Fandango this was noticed on the news ~2026-38746-70 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like Alalch E. already did the move, but for future reference see WP:Requested moves. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 05:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

About LTA

I saw you kept removing people adding the On Wikipedia tag to LTA. I added it and I don't see why this should be removed. We do the same thing for acronyms like MOS, SPI and POV. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

LTA has also became more well known online since the creation of videos like 'The Cryptids of Wikipedia' (YT video about LTA cases) so I feel it is appropriate to be there. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The reason is that readers are unlikely to care about Wikipedia's long-term abusers. It removed the hatnote from SPI for the same reason. People deliberately looking for Wikipedia's internal politics should know not to search for it in the main namespace. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I search for things in mainspace this way on mobile sometimes when writing Wikipedia: takes much longer then just search acronym, tap link. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I consider "don't expose readers to Wikipedia's internals" to be a much more convincing reason than "some Wikipedia editors are lazy". * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you are using 'lazy' here correctly. Especially on mobile, typing is a pain and three letters is infinitely more convenient. That is not being lazy; it is being efficient. I don't do this when I have a keyboard at hand by the way. And on our internals, those interested enough to click (or even notice!) the tag at the top of the article are much more likely too actually be interested in our internals then the average reader. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Refusing to type two letters and a colon is by definition "lazy". Yes, I'm using that term correctly. And if you put a pointer to something right in front of someone's eyes then the fact that they notice it proves nothing -- it definitely doesn't prove that they are much more likely too actually be interested in our internals then the average reader * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia: is not two letters. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

"WP:" * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I always forget that somehow. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Also why do we have the tag On Wikipedia and selfref which both do the exact same thing for no reason? Ilov3gam3z (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That said, as procedural matter I should probably not have slow-edit-warred against so many other people for so long, so I won't revert you this time - I got a bit carried away. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hello. An article was previously created, but it was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:G7 by the author and subsequently deleted.

I have a question: would it be acceptable for me to recreate the article by translating it from other language Wikipedia languages?

Pnkar (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As a general principle a G7 does not bar you from recreating the page. Without knowing what specific page you are talking about I can't give any more details than that. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 14:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery and Pnkar: Zahra Mohammadi Golpayegani. Pnkar, please say what language Wikipedia you translated it from here. Thank you - Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Raaka (film)

Hi there! I wanted to let you know that I've declined your G4 speedy deletion of Raaka (film) because there are now new sources published since the previous AfD. Feel free to re-nominate for AFD if you feel the film still fails to meet N. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raaka (film) (not nominated by me). I've known for a long time that I have very little patience for WP:GAMENAMEing so tend to over-apply G4 whenever I see it. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity#Statistics

Is it possible to include a stat about how many Editors of the Week have signed? I think that statistic could help to emphasize this petition's broad appeal. - Shearonink (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Creation protection lift for Think Yoruba First (Organisation).

Hello. I understand that Think Yoruba First (Organisation) was deleted under G11 and the title protected. The previous article relied primarily on the organisation's own website rather than independent sources.

I have since rewritten the article in a neutral, encyclopedic style and would appreciate it if the revised draft could be reviewed on its own merits. I also request that the creation protection be lifted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Think_Yoruba_First

Thank you for your time.

Dolpina (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Think Yoruba First (Organisation) is not, and has never been, creation protected. Think Yoruba First is, but I had nothing to do with that so there's no reason to ask me. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh. Okay thank you. I thought it was you. I'll go find out about that. Dolpina (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Request from MSEIndiaEditor

Dear Reviewer, I submitted a wiki page for "Metropolitan Stock Exchange India" which got rejected, can you please help me with elaborative feedback on the rejection reason, so that i can rectify and submit the page again. Waiting for your response. MSEIndiaEditor (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I did give you elaborative feedback - the page (Draft:Metropolitan Stock Exchange India) was deleted because it was unambiguous spam. As you would expect from somebody writing about their own employer. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Backlinks script

Hi, could you give the Working/Large CFD page a once over with your script? There's a lot piled up there. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems that something weird is going on in the Marven Gardens and Spore (2008 video game) revision histories

Hello! I was actually looking at Special:Log the moment you merged Marven Gardens' vandalized revision histories to User:Pppery/Trashcan and Spore's vandalized revision histories to User:Pppery/Trashcan2. Scrimbley and IdkSterling were doing some mischief there; thank you for helping with that. But also, The Bushranger protected the Marven Gardens page and the system thinks The Bushranger added 6,729 bytes to the article, even though the user is performing the action "protect", so, Pppery, you may have deleted a few constructive revisions. Spore (2008 video game)'s protection by Newslinger is even more brutal; +101,155 bytes added to the article, only because you merged the revisions, then destroyed them,, and Newslinger protected the article. Is there any way to fix this or I might have to go to Phabricator again to figure out why this is happening? Best regards, SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 01:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

See phab:T38976 * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Mon Dieu, celle-ci est vieille comme le monde ! (My goodness, that's an old one!) I guess this was probably during a time period where NawlinWiki did the same thing: delete the article(s)/page(s) under G6, undelete them, and the bug happens. Especially how I imagined Rubeus Hagrid's revision history back in 2007 only because, yes, Grawp. I still wonder if you would bring back the constructive revisions, most of the Marven and Spore revisions which you deleted were likely expansions. – SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 01:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing, there are no "constructive revisions" to bring back, unless you count vandal reverts as constructive in which case there's no point in keeping if the vandalism they revert is buried. When I do this work I'm incredibly careful to not decontextualize edits; each edit that survives will have a parent revision with identical (or in one case almost identical) content as its parent as it did before. And the only consequences of this is that they byte count is wrong; the diffs are correct. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe even less...? Okay, maybe I lied. If not counting the vandalism edits and reverts (or this "(Username or IP removed) and "(edit summary removed)" mess), I am 100% sure that you may have deleted a few constructive revisions. No idea, no clue. One hint for the future: look for a constructive edit summary! Sometimes IPs masquerading as vandals literally just help the encyclopedia. SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 01:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And I'm 100% sure I haven't. Here's the proof. look at this diff. See "no difference". If there had been some constructive edits I had wrongly buried then they would have been present in the the page at the time it was protected and hence shown in that diff, since I literally lack the power to change the text of an edit (only WP:Importers could do that). Ditto for each of the other marker edits with the erroneous bytecount values. If you don't believe me about this then there's nothing I more I can say to prove it to you so we're done here. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

db-g14

Algirdas Paulavičius: at the moment of nomination it contained two valid Wikipedia pages (it did have redlinks, I've just killed them). You probably had in mind the clause "Disambiguation pages, regardless of title, that list zero extant Wikipedia pages" - this clause does not say "zero extant English Wikipedia pages". In fact the page is useful, because the two persons are mentioned in articles aboutseveral Lithuanian films; that's why I created this dab page. --Altenmann >talk 02:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

What you did there does not follow MOS:DABSISTER. See Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_54#Interlanguage_links_and_links_to_sister_projects, which came to a rough consensus that links to other projects are fine as an addendum to a red link but the entry still needs to be supported by a link somewhere on the English Wikipedia. And I interpret G14 as incorporating that by reference -- and it seems like Rusalkii agrees with me -- that's why I asked for a second opinion by tagging rather than deleting myself. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

<sigh> Discrimination against non-English; eh? (joking) In any case, as you see, I have a simple remedy for this. Good thing I keep the list of my (mostly harmless) contributions --Altenmann >talk 03:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes; in practice I expect most references on enwiki to "Wikipedia page" to be about one on this wiki, and interpreted the CSD criteria that way. That being said, @Altenmann if you feel strongly about this I wouldn't mind undeleting and sending to AfD, my general policy on CSDs is that a good faith objection from an experienced editor is enough to merit a full discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if this isnt a normal thing to put on some one talk page

How do I add that cool "In solidarity" thing you have at the end of your name when you comment TheGhostGum (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Signatures#Customizing your signature * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

sick, thanks. how do i look. is the full "forever in solidarity" too much? should it made smaller or just "solidarity" 🐾 Picket Possum talk · forever in solidarity 16:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It's up to you. I don't think it's appropriate for me to critique the design of your signature. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Orion Group AfD

Hi, I wouldn't have foisted a burden on anyone as i'd have put it on my watchlist which numbers almost 10,000 articles and from which I remove promotional content on a regular basis. This article wasn't on my watchlist and I agree it was doubtful notability which is why I voted weak keep. But my main concern is the org grind trivia is ridiculous - such as saying that a company closing or merging is trivia when it is often covered with significant content. If it's just a notice then that isn't significant. I took part in the RFC for NORG and the org trivia section goes beyond what was agreed there in my view, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

David Stewart move

Hi there! I wanted to apologize for my page move that you had to revert. I looked at the talk page and saw this post, which points to this dead link and I couldn't find the conversation from there. No idea how, but I managed to completely miss the actual move discussion template and I am completely confounded. Didn't mean to go against consensus there, and I'm sorry for the wasted time. Sock (tock talk) 01:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Apology accepted. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

When are special pages expanded?

Hi Pppery,

Do you know if there's any way to do something like this?

{{#invoke:string|match
	| s = {{Special:Contributions|target=Grufo|limit=1}}
	| pattern = data%-mw%-ts="(%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d%d)"
	| plain = false
	| nomatch = Something to be written when no match
}}

I'd like to extract the timestamp of my last edit and, if it's older than, say, a few days, display something like this on my user page:

<indicator name="something-tbd">Wikibreak</indicator>

From what I can tell, however, {{Special:Contributions|target=Grufo|limit=1}} is expanded only after Module:String has been invoked. Do you know if there's any way around it? --Grufo (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There is not, for security reasons. See phab:T73167 * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. --Grufo (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

National Express

Hi there. I see you recently closed the RfD for this redirect as "retarget", but it's still pointing to the previous target (Mobico Group rather than National Express Coaches). Should I do the retargetting (and update the dab page), or is this something you'd normally do as part of your duties? Tevildo (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I was supposed to do it myself (so it should have been my duty) but I forgot. In this case you can go ahead and retarget it. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 00:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

All done, thanks. Tevildo (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the IDW Sonic characters image

On my Wikipedia:Files for discussion nomination for File:Sonic the Hedgehog 75 Cover RI 110.png, I provided counterarguments to the "Keep" arguments in hopes the admin would consider them, but they do not seem to be addressed. Is there any way to have this reevaluated? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 01:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You made your case but failed to convince anyone else. I'm not sure what more there is to say. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it because I made them late into the nomination's timespan (and failed to notify), and thus they didn't get a chance to see and respond? If so, is there any way I can try this again? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 01:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't answer the question of how people would have behaved in a counterfactual world since I can't read their minds. So that's certainly possible but not guaranteed. I'm a believer in closing discussions quickly rather than letting them stall out as is all too common at FfD. Anyway, to answer your second question see WP:Renominating for deletion. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

McD.L.T. page deletion on 18 April 2026

Hi Pppery!

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and was hoping to write my first-ever article for the McD.L.T., but I noticed that you deleted an existing article under G8. I'm unable to see the contents of the article that existed. Is it possible for me to gain access to the now-deleted article so that I can use it as a base for mine, fixing the issue(s) that let to it being deleted? Or should I just take a stab at a new article from scratch?

Thanks, and apologies if you're not the right person to ask!

Zucef (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The deletion you are referring to is something I undid a minute later, so there's nothing to see there. Separately from that, I deleted McDLT on the same day because the creator was evading a ban and hence all of their edits had to be undone. Hence, in a series of steps, I returned things to the state they were in before the sockpuppet got involved. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to give you access to that version, on the same principle. Separately from that, there is a old version from 2007, which is not of much use given its age.

Finally, note that creating articles is very hard when you're new, and give Help:Your first article a read. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

About recent category merge

When I nominated Category:Fictional felids and related categories for merge, I forgot to add Category:Lists of fictional felids. If you believe it needs an additional nomination that's fine, but I think that per the same rationale it would be uncontroversial to dual merge into Category:Lists of fictional animals by type and Category:Lists of felids. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Listed for bot. Sidenote: the entire contents of the category in question is fancruft lists that I doubt would survive Afd. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 19:13, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft deletion

Draft:Untitled fourth Trolls film was also kept at MfD, and yet that one has just been deleted. It was deleted by a different admin, sure, but it goes to show that being kept at MfD is not a good reason to remove a speedy deletion tag, especially when there are surefire signs that the Bee Movie 2 draft is a hoax. JHD0919 (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@JHD0919: I just came across your re-tagging of Draft:Bee Movie 2 and have declined again. I agree with Pppery that being kept at MfD with minimal changes in the intermediate three months is a good reason to decline a G3 speedy deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion: If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it must not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Note that G3 is not an exception listed at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions, but that G13 (abandoned drafts) is, which means that after six months without edits the draft can be deleted.

Separately I cannot find an MfD nomination for Draft:Untitled fourth Trolls film (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Trolls 4 appears to be referring to a different draft). I'll ping @BusterD here since we're now discussing an admin action of theirs.

Speedy deletion is meant to be uncontroversial, and is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion [emphasis added] (from Wikipedia:Speedy deletion). Given that you were the one who nominated at MfD, and seemed to have followed the discussion, I would have thought that consensus against deletion was clear. Please keep this in mind going forward, and happy editing. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Draft:Trolls 4 was moved to Draft:Untitled fourth Trolls film at some point. I could be wrong, though. JHD0919 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't. Instead it was WP:BLAR-ed to that draft, which was later deleted. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 14:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Had I known that speedy deletion does not apply to drafts that were ever at MfD, I never would have taken the Bee Movie draft there. Lesson learned, I guess. JHD0919 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@JHD0919: I don't think that's the right lesson here. Even if you G3-tagged instead of MfD-nominated the draft three months ago and it was deleted as such, the benefit of hindsight tells us that there was consensus against deleting the draft, so policy tells us that in this hypothetical world we would have ended up at the "incorrect" outcome. I think nominating for MfD was probably the right call if you thought it was a hoax, but tagging for G3 afterwards was not. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 14:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Automatic check for unknown parameters

Hi Pppery! I'd love to hear your opinion on this proof of concept. You can see a demo here. The error message still needs to be written properly and should also be rewritten using table.concat(). Tracking categories and the rest are still missing. The basic idea is that a template can simply append {{#invoke:introspection|check_for_unknown_parameters}} at the end, without requiring any additional configuration. As far as I can tell, the only cases where this approach would not yet work are templates that use constructs such as {{{dynamic_parameter_{{{something}}}_foobar}}} or templates that invoke modules that call frame:getParent(). Even so, it should still cover about 99% of templates. --Grufo (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Idea looks fine technically to me, but see Module talk:Check for unknown parameters/Archive 1#automatic fetch of template parameter names, Module talk:Check for unknown parameters/Archive 1#Could this be automated?, Module talk:Check for unknown parameters/Archive 1#Blank usage. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, it seems it has been discussed often in the past already. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you! --Grufo (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for your actions regarding User talk:椿. It was just what was needed. JBW (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Re: Template:GeoGroup and GEO Group

While I would concede that the link is not strictly "needed", I would note that GeoGroup redirects to GEO Group, and that the template, "GeoGroup" has hundreds of thousands of uses within Wikipedia. To my mind, this raises a possibility that an editor looking for the template documentation might inadvertently go to the article, and benefit from redirection. Perhaps instead of {{for|the Wikipedia template for geographical coordinates|:Template:GeoGroup}}, I should have used {{redirect|GeoGroup|the Wikipedia template for geographical coordinates|:Template:GeoGroup}} to make this clear. If you still have reason to object, I won't restore it, but this would not be the only instance in Wikipedia of a hatnote disambiguating a similarly-named internal subject (e.g., Dispute resolution, Five pillars, AFD). BD2412 T 23:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

My thinking on when these hatnotes should exist is roughly "is it possible that a reader or extremely new editor could be looking for this?" In the case of GEO group the answer is no -- anyone sufficiently involved with deep obscurita to care about the template knows enough not to look for it in mainspace. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I accept that reasoning. There is also something to be said for not directing casual readers to look at the mysterious (and edit-protected) inner gears. BD2412 T 02:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Volleyball pool tables

How will the contents of {{2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup pool tables}} be transferred to both Pool A and Pool B as it will be deleted? Can I do it myself? ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 08:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is explained here. And you're welcome to do it yourself if you feel you understand the process. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 14:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I understood it and thanks! ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 15:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Template is now orphan and can be deleted any time I guess. Another thing, I nominated {{2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Cup pool tables}} as it is link to a single page, can it be speedily close or still wait for a week? ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 15:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It will wait a week. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Rare "Language evolves" case

Thanks for your help on template the other day. I would appreciate your guidance on a rather unique situation in which I have no idea how best to approach. I apologize beforehand if the explanation becomes too long.

'Rayon' (as in fabric) is a term I grew up with, and I learned that it is a very American word after becoming an adult. This word is destined to die because it can no longer be used in international trade (except between the US and Japan) as customs declarations in the world require adherence to ISO 2076:2021 (see the details in the draft named below) in describing the meterial. I didn't know this, and the majority of English speaking population in the world doesn't know, so in the societies outside of fiber/textile industry/trade, the word 'Rayon' will be used for a long time in the future, but its use will become less and less as the industry is under the pressure not to use the term because of the regulations.

British English (in which 'Rayon' is a foreign word) and American English are different, and I know there have been struggles between the British and American editors on en.wikipedia. So the above situation needs a careful handling in reflecting it on articles.

I created Viscose staple fiber in the main article space, because 1. this is the term originally used for 'Rayon' in England, 2. the global industry seems to have settled to use this terminology in place of 'Rayon' in recent years, and 3. partly because I felt I may be uniquely qualified being neither British, nor American. This article has been moved to Draft:Viscose staple fiber (which is OK as the article probably deserved it then), and I have been editing it to satisfy the NPP who placed it there.

However, in editing the draft, I realized I am not writing it for the wikipedia readers, but to convince the majority of American wikipedia editors why this article is needed in addition to Rayon article. (I believe Rayon should be merged into Viscose staple fiber in 10-20 years.) This obscures the focus of the article, which is not my intention at all. And, I have realized that I am not sure how to focus it better under the requirement to pass the AfC process, so the draft might end up having a good chance of being rejected to be placed back on the main article space.

A language distionary cannot point out if a word is going to die, until the evolving process is almost complete in the society. This 'Rayon' case is rather unique in 1. en.wikipedia is not a dictionary, and 2. the likely outcome of the language evolution can be intelligently predicted. So I feel a day this draft spends outside of the main article space is a day of en.wikipedia disservice to the US, Japan, and other societies where 'Rayon' usage was popular, as more and more readers will look up "viscose staple fiber", a term they have not seen until recently.

Is AfC Help desk equipped and qualified to handle this issue? (I have not submitted the draft for review yet.) Do you know of anybody who may be well-experienced to guide me?

I don't mind at all if you could edit the draft yourself if you have some ideas how to make it better. I have no reason to believe I have more to offer on this subject than you, or any good editor. (The NPP is well-experienced in Chemistry, and the academia side might even keep her using the Rayon term for the rest of her life, which is very understandable.) I would highly appreciate it if you could take the ownership and lead the process to place it back on the main article space.   Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in involving myself in this linguistic dispute which seems far outside my areas of expertise (as the edit notice says: Please do not ask me to intervene in social matters that I have had no prior involvement in). AfC help desk might be relevant. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your time.   Yiba (talk | contribs) 01:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Restoring Aztec calendar pages

Hi Pppery

Last month, you deleted Template:AZTECCALENDAR and all its subpages, because they weren't working right and I couldn't figure out what was wrong with them. Now I've finally figured it out. The example given in page 11 of edition 3 of the book was a typo, as it says in the official errata. The month list was also wrong, and is corrected in the fourth edition of the book. So my code doesn't need any changes after all, except to the month names. Now that I understand and can fix what was wrong, can you please restore the Aztec calendar subtempates?🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 (talk | contribs | Yui shrine) 05:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Specifically the reason I deleted was that you appeared to abandon the discussion and TfDs can't remain open indefinitely, but in any event I have restored the pages. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Collapsed infobox section begin/styles.css

Hi Pppery. Can I ask why you don't consider extended-confirmed protection sufficient for this stylesheet? Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Because when a template calls a CSS page on all uses of it, and the template is the only one that uses that CSS page (as is the case here), it means that the CSS page by definition has exactly the same risk level as the template. Hence, since Template:Collapsed infobox section begin has been template-protected since 2017, Template:Collapsed infobox section begin/styles.css must also be template-protected. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 23:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Directed Machines (company)

Hello Pppery. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Directed Machines (company), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thank you. Salvio ^giuliano 20:58, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for deleting User:Fangedparakeet

Hello, @Pppery. Please delete User:Fangedparakeet because it contain a wrongful cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. ~2026-48307-68 (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Why not simply remove the redirection? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Converted to a soft redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I notice while patrolling new redirects that your page move redirects, despite being an admin, still show up on my feed. I think you should given yourself the autopatrolled user right. Have a nice day Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm intentionally not autopatrolled for lack of article creation experience. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DreamRimmer bot should be patrolling my redirects -- I'm not sure why it isn't. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

request

Hello Pppery, would you pease consider doing one more in the future. Could you add Commons contributions total as well? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think Commons contributions are particularly relevant (why not any of the other hundreds of projects? -- the signature page is primarily about enwiki). Re stats updates, I'll do more if enough new signatures are added to make me think one was worth doing; that comment in the edit summary was mostly me expecting the number of signatures to trail off as the petition has lost much of its importance now that the union has been recognized ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

UTRS comment

Hi Pppery, don't mean to nag, just want to remind you of your last comment at utrs:115851 in case you've forgotten. All the best, Toadspike [Talk] 21:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I had indeed forgotten. Unfortunately, though ... see my comments there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

isDisambiguationPage is not iterated through

Hi Pppery! Hope you are doing well.

Do you know why isDisambiguationPage is accessible as a property of titleobj, but does not appear when iterating over titleobj with pairs(titleobj)? Is this because it is exposed through __index (or otherwise isn't an enumerable property)? These two module functions (from this test module) behave differently, and isDisambiguationPage is shown only in the second case, where I add it to props manually. Shouldn't it also be included when titleobj is iterated over in the first case?

1. {{#invoke:sandbox/Grufo/PageProps|page_properties_1}}
2. {{#invoke:sandbox/Grufo/PageProps|page_properties_2}}

--Grufo (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

As a technical matter, because it's a metatable-generated field and those aren't included in pairs without special effort. See code at https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-Scribunto/blob/b109cb6e5866c13871e308859ef78249b1bd3ea2/includes/Engines/LuaCommon/lualib/mw.title.lua#L193. The isDisambiguationPage property goes through line 331, which eventually triggers the TitleAttributeResolver mechanism added in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/Scribunto/+/1091767, but the pairs implementation has no corresponding hook even though I can't think of any technical reason it couldn't. On the other hand I don't see a clear use case for enumerating all of the fields of a title object -- they're mostly static info anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into this, Pppery. I'll explain how I got to this point. On lawiki, I created {{De hac redirectione}}, which is somewhat like our {{Redirect category shell}}, except that almost everything is automated—including the many tracking categories used by the template (see § Categoriae vestigatoriae). To achieve this, the template asks {{#invoke:redirection|call_info_template}} to collect the various properties of the title object and pass them to the {{De hac redirectione/tabula}} subtemplate. That's when I noticed that isDisambiguationPage was not being passed along with the other properties, so I added it manually. That boolean was needed for the subcategories of la:Categoria:Redirectiones inter paginas discretivas, which correspond to enwiki's Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages, Category:Redirects from other disambiguation, etc. So, in short, la:Module:Redirection collects all these properties of the title object, and then {{De hac redirectione/tabula}} decides how to handle them. What do you think would be the best way to deal with this? Everything works on my side, but should I leave the manually added property in la:Module:Redirection, or would it make sense to open a request on Phabricator to have pairs enumerate these metatable-generated properties as well? --Grufo (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

A Phabricator task would probably be a good idea. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. I just opened phab:T439197. --Grufo (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer rejection

I believe I already know the answer to this, but would you like to explain the reason for rejection? DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 01:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I did. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery Moving discussion to talk page. How long is "recent" in terms of blocks? DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 15:38, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no specific hard number of days required for a block to cease to be relevant. In this case I thought it was sufficiently problematic to decline especially since you got in trouble for similar misconduct only two weeks ago. If you can keep actively editing for several months without getting into similar trouble I or another admin may be willing to reconsider. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery It won't affect my performance but just for the record, that "trouble" was hardly misconduct, regardless of whether an administrator wished to comment. It was two reverts and an invitation to the talk page. The other two blocks were months ago. DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ 17:23, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Commenting on a deletion decision

I was disappointed to see the outcome of a redirect for discussion, because the obvious solution here was to have all of them redirect to Chloroflexota. For some reason, the non-British spelling redirects linked to the wrong article. I think @Jts1882 got confused with the distinction between green sulfur vs non-sulfur bacteria (Chlorobiota vs Chloroflexota, respectively), and how one member was initially (mis)classified under the latter – which means there are other green non-sulfur bacteria outside of Chloroflexota and maybe should be its own article (rather than a redirect, or deleted).

I was thinking of making a WP:DRV instead of starting a new discussion here, but I wasn't going to bother with the procedures and it did say to discuss the matter with the closer first anyway, so... CheckNineEight (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules for discussion closers prevent me from taking any action on your comments. I can only close a discussion based on the words and signatures actually written there. I can't use my own expertise to declare that one of the participants was confused and didn't really mean what they say. Since literally nobody suggested having them redirect to Chloroflexota closing the discussion that way would have been a WP:Supervote. The only closures that would have been at all reasonable there were "delete" and "disambiguate", and the discussion settled on the latter despite the former having some early momentum. You're welcome to go to DRV, but I think they'll say the same thing: DRV only corrects procedural errors and the only errors you are alleging here are substantive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Should I do a WP:RFU instead (rather than a DRV)? Also, is there a guide/procedure for doing either of those through Twinkle? CheckNineEight (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:RFU lacks authority to challenge deletion discussion results (except in the case of "soft delete" outcomes which this isn't). Twinkle doesn't seem to support either of those venues so you'd have to file manually. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I've made it: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2026_October_4

I still feel as though I should have done a different, more appropriate process than this. CheckNineEight (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you could have involved Jts1882 here to explain your part and make your case stronger. But it's now at DRV which says not to use it if you have .. a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. Jay 06:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, someone could have told me beforehand what the right venue was for my intended action here (which was to undelete the redirects). Should have I at least mentioned User:Mathguy2718 (discussion starter) and the rest of the participants like Jts1882 in the DRV, is what you're saying; can I just adhoc add/edit them in to the posted DRV? CheckNineEight (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

When I wrote "it is not helpful to have the redirect for green-non-sulphur bacteria pointing to an article on green sulphur bacteria", the Chloroflexota article opened with "The Chloroflexota are a phylum of bacteria largely described as green sulfur bacteria" version 15 June 2026. This was changed in September, although I don't think the change is appropriate. Earlier versions of the article (e.g. version 25 January 2026) had a better opening paragraph which makes it clear that Choroflexota it is a diverse group including green non-sulphur bacteria among other groups. There should be redirects for non-green bacteria, although whether at lower rank taxon or disambiguation page is unclear. This is not the place for that discussion, though.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you so much for closing those overdue open discussions on CFD. I think I just tagged over 100 associated empty categories but that couldn't happen until the CFD discussions were resolved. It was a service to the entire platform. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Help with Verity (meme)

Hello. I'm here because I saw you on the recently active admins list. Can you help? A non-admin is trying to close an RM for Verity (meme) by cutting and pasting the article to a new title. I'm not sure what I should/can do about this. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 03:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this at the time. It looks like Dekimasu has reverted the cut-paste move, which is a fine solution. The other would have been endorsing it and requesting a history merge * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Category moves without redirects causing a lot of red links

User talk:JJMC89 bot III says to contact you. The bot has been moving userbox categories like Category:Grammar user templates, leaving a lot of red links to category pages, such as the one at Category:Language userboxes. Is this expected? I'm not as familiar with category moves as I am with template and other page moves. It's a lot of red links. Who finds and fixes them? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is expected. After the bot does the move, humans have a separate step to review each entry at WP:CFDW (or WP:CFDWL in this case), deal with any backlinks, and remove the entry. It can take a while for cases where huge number of categories are renamed at once as was done here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know that this step won't be missed. It seems like it would help to use {{Category links}} around the old category name in order to help the cleaners find links, although with this quantity of renamings, we might run into WP:PEIS issues. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Tell Andrybak that. My normal procedure with CfD closes is to copy whatever format the nominator of the discussion themselves used into the CFDW page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

For the record, the semi-automated process of creating this giant nomination ran into technical difficulties, so the nomination itself at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 August 12#All categories for userboxes had to be created manually. Archived discussion about it at User talk:Qwerfjkl/Archive 83#User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD skipped creating the nomination and notified zero users on a giant nomination. I'll keep Template:Category links in mind, if I ever run into similar issues in the future, thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

As was always planned with this giant nomination, the leftovers after the processing by the bot and CfD coordinators will be handled semi-automatically. The hatnotes with bad links can be found using searches like intitle:"userboxes" insource:/user templates\}\}/ (it will give more results after JJMC89 bot III goes through aforementioned WP:CFDWL). —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Box sets

Skyshifter has asked for a deletion review of Category:Box sets. Because you speedily deleted the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 17:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Isha Malviya

I have requested it's unprotection but was asked to consult you regarding this. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Tonite Let(')s All Make Love in London

Hi there. You have recently changed two redirects, so that:

1. Tonite Lets All Make Love in London. now redirects to Tonite Lets All Make Love in London (previously to Tonite Let's All Make Love in London (film))
2. Tonite Let's All Make Love In London now redirects to Tonite Lets All Make Love in London (previously to Tonite Let's All Make Love in London (film))

I'm OK with 1. but disagree with 2. The article whose title includes the apostrophe is for the film, the one without the apostrophe is the album. Or have I missed something? Masato.harada (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as a general principle of disambiguating topics by minor spelling variations. However, my real goal in that series of edits was to prevent WP:MISPLACED scenarios. Hence I wouldn't object if you were to request at WP:RMTR to move Tonite Let's All Make Love in London (film) to Tonite Let's All Make Love in London * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not suggesting a disambiguation page. How about changing the redirect with the apostrophe to point to the film, as it should; leaving the redirect without an apostrophe as is; and deleting the full stopped redirect (which seems redundant to me, with no main namespace pages linked to it). That would leave:

• Tonite Let's All Make Love in London redirected to Tonite Let's All Make Love in London (film)
• Tonite Lets All Make Love in London redirected to Tonite Lets All Make Love in London
• Tonite Let's All Make Love in London. deleted

? Masato.harada (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I object to any situation in which "X" redirects to "X (film)" regardless of what "X" is. See WP:MISPLACED. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So how do we solve this? At present, Let's redirects to Lets, i.e., the film title redirects to the album article, which is incorrect - see 2. above. Masato.harada (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Hence I wouldn't object if you were to request at WP:RMTR to move Tonite Let's All Make Love in London (film) to Tonite Let's All Make Love in London. If you want Tonite Lets All Make Love in London. deleted (of which I have no opinion) that would need a discussion at RfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Re: your protection of File:Question book-new.svg

Would it be more appropriate to just ECP the page instead of relying on a futile spam blacklist if Russian YouTube spam is the main concern? The recent history logs for the page still yielded a lot of vandal/spam edits despite the semi-protection in place, and most especially when that protection was lifted. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

See User talk:Pppery/Archive 36#Your protection of File:Question book-new.svg * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Already did, but the recent revision history suggests the unprotection made the situation worse. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to re-request protection at WP:RFPP. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

There, just posted my request. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Roger Stewart

Ho pppery. I submitted an article about Roger Stewart the environmentalist. It was rejected for not being objective and lack of citations I have corrected that and wish to resubmit. How should I do that? Thanks rgarrity1 Rgarrity1 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I have doubt you truly corrected Draft:Roger P. Stewart which needed to be rewritten basically from scratch as it hyped the subject without any sources, but if you truly have then nothing stops you from recreating that draft the same way you submitted it the first time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Renaming userbox categories

This is regarding Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 August 12#All categories for userboxes. I think I might have caused some confusion by creating subcategories of Category:User templates by topic prematurely, before the corresponding red links were removed from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large.

Just to make sure we're on the same page:

• still needs to be renamed: Category:Political user templates – it's unusual, because it's renaming destination is a backwards category redirect
• don't need to be renamed, category redirects and hatnotes linking to these can be left as-is:
  • Category:Arts and culture user templates
  • Category:Geography user templates
  • Category:Location user templates
  • Category:Religion and belief user templates
  • Category:Wikipedia-related user templates

—⁠andrybak (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

You didn't cause any confusion per se; I hadn't gotten around to the point of doing any post-cleanup other than a quick script run to deal with cases with no backlinks at all. Anyway I've now set up political user templates to be renamed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

On the page Template:User templates, JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs) removed wikitext for Category:Language user templates: Special:Diff/1377606419, instead of replacing it with Category:Language userboxes: Special:Diff/1377317528/1378486536. Is this kind of removal by the bot expected? —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The bot isn't particularly well-designed to handle templates. In this case it removed it because it thought there was a duplicate below, not knowing about includeonly/noinclude tags. Not "expected" per se but ultimately sufficiently unusual to not need any bot changes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Retirement

I am retiring from Wikipedia. Wikipedia was built on the philosophy of curiosity leading to discovery. I believe this is why I was attracted in the first place. I'm stepping back while I still remember what the curiosity felt like. Thank you for your contributions! All messages on my talk page are welcome. CostalCal (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Filipino American sportspeople

RightCowLeftCoast has asked for a deletion review of Category:Filipino American sportspeople. Because you closed the discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 03:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Le sigh

Re Special:Diff/1378731356, just wanted to say thanks for the comment. Why I disagree with the outcome, I get what you mean... Oh well. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about Rollback

Hi, you have given me the Rollback user right and on the instructions it says I have to use an edit summary if a Rollback isn't for blatent vandalism. However Antivandal doesn't let me put the reason in the edit summary. It does allow me to choose the warning. So what should I do when I need to revert something but it isn't for blatent vandalism (ie: unreferenced addition to BLP) Strongshorts (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Strongshorts: You have been granted the WP:Rollback user right. This always carries out the revert in one click; there is no means to enter or alter the edit summary, which is pretty much fixed - it's "Reverted edit by Example (talk) to last version by Someone-else". Where do you see that you "have to use an edit summary if a Rollback isn't for blatent vandalism"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACKUSE Number 6 Strongshorts (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rollback#Rollback and edit summaries: The built-in MediaWiki rollback link does not give an option to provide a custom edit summary, though some user scripts and tools allow this. It therefore depends upon your installed scripts and tools. But the normal uncustomised rollback, such as the one that I was granted way back in 2010, is as described: it does not give an option to provide a custom edit summary. I have used it often enough to know that this is still the case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I know, I'm talking about Antivandal Strongshorts (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I found out how to put a edit summary on an antivandal Rollback Strongshorts (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DKinzler (WMF)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DKinzler (WMF) 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/2026 October 8 § Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DKinzler (WMF) until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hidden UTRS messages

In UTRS appeal #116486 you posted some comments which appear to be intended for the appellant, but you didn't reserve the appeal before doing so, so the comments will be seen only by administrators. JBW (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The first few were intended to be for admins. The fourth one started out as a remark to myself/other reviewing admins (even if we agreed with the appeal, what could we do?), but then the trailing language does read like it was directed to the appellant even if that wasn't clearly my intent. The last comment was more of a rant about the state of the world directed to nobody in particular. Feel free to reserve and repost any of my comments if you think they would be useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually I thought it might be something like that, which is why I said "which appear to be intended for the appellant"; that wasn't just a rhetorical form of words. If that wasn't your intention then I don't see any problem. JBW (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Kla Tham Party

Hi @Pppery, I noticed you reverted my edit citing 'unexplained'. I have now provided current 2026 reliable sources and edit summaries. Please do not revert updated factual data without discussing here first." Preime TH (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Generally if you're reverting someone's edits you should explain why. And the normal procedure is bold, revert, discuss not "don't revert without discussing". In this case I've exceeded the extent to which I care about the issue so chose to let your edit stand rather than attempting to discuss. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Update request.

Can you update the Workers United solidarity signatures statistics in the near future and please add the total number of edits on Commons by all the signatories? Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the stats. I'm not going to add any stats specific to other projects -- this is the enwiki petition, not the Meta one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok and Thank you, -- 05:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC) Ooligan (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Reporter's privilege

I was thinking of doing a fairly substantial overhaul of this article, but if you have in mind to do the same, please go ahead with yours. BD2412 T 03:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

No, no substantial overhaul in mind. I was just doing a quick cleanup. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)