Hosta

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Regarding Template:Database report

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

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Copyedit vs. cleanup

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Category:Articles with Online PWN identifiers

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I still didn't get it

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Collapse of convo

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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

PDB Gallery

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Edit request for Jonathan D. Gray

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Planets

• Special:Permalink/1061374889
• planet#History

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)Reply[reply]

• Special:Diff/1078426841/1078894432. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good show. Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Robert Clinton Bogard

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)Reply[reply]

Tagging Pages for deletion

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Then mark every one for deletion then. 🤷 TatiVogue (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any other Wikipedians by ancestry categories I've missed? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

G14

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)Reply[reply]

No objection. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some help needed

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)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]

• Thank you very much, I am glad you know your way in this jungle. Can you also have a look at the closed discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 13? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CFD closures

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

WP:VPM

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Your improved version

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I confused you with User:Ahecht, who wrote that he did color corrections.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD text transclusion suppression

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Sierra Leone Constitution

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 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

So ...

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I now understand. Hope you can bring maintenance to Wikipedia. LikeRealTimes (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerrit open changes

Hello!

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hello!

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Feedback Request Service

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? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all you help. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to comment an RfD

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)Reply[reply]

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

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)Reply[reply]

Invited

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module chart

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

New page reviewer granted

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)Reply[reply]

Gasper Crasto

Hi there! Sorry the edit summaries I left when editing the Gasper Crasto article weren't clear. Looking at the history, you'll see I made two edits in a row: one to remove Category:Biography/Sports and games articles needing expert attention (which should not be manually added to an article), and another to add the {{expert needed}} template that properly adds the category to the article. The article needs more work - I'll add more descriptive tags instead. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understood what you were doing. The point of my ping there was to remind you that there's consensus {{expert needed}} shouldn't be used without an explanation, and thus you should have removed the tag or added one, nothing more. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2022

Hey. I will clarify that IP was my cousin's account. As a result, I will still apologize and you expect that it won't happen again. Noobguy33 ^(supernoob) (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chu shogi diagram TFD notice removed

The TFD notice on {{Chu shogi diagram}} has been removed as I could not find the proposal at TFD. Techie3 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was intended to be part of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#Module:ChuShogiboard. I've now added it there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

academia.edu/download/*

Pppery, User_talk:GreenC_bot#Flagging_non-dead_link_as_dead probably has some relation to Wikipedia:AWSURL/oldstock. I made a proposal to convert these academia.edu/download/ links to cloudfront.net URLs - GreenC 06:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why did you delete my tf2 soldier edit?

can you give me any reason what ı did wrong ı search that information ı dont' use any copyrigthed photos or anything else can you explain this to me? Volkan1881 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Courtesy link: Soldier (Team Fortress 2)
Because the article you provided cited insufficient sources to prove that the article is notable and instead relied entirely on Giant Bomb, which is a user-generated source that does not count toward notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok then teach me how ı rules of editing fictional character pages I try so hard and you delete it in two minutes!!! Volkan1881 (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I didn't delete it in two minutes; it was more like two and a half hours between your unredirection and my revert. Second, WP:IWORKEDSOHARD is not a valid argument. Third, ı [sic] rules of editing fictional character pages are to cite reliable sources, as I explained above. Wikipedia:Everything you need to know * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ı thought wikipedia editors always helping each others Volkan1881 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Laski

I'm a little unhappy with what's going on at AfD with Michael Laski. You've closed the AfD, so I'm writing here, but this is probably also relevant to Scope creep, Hey man im josh and Laski22. I'm also going to ping Liz as a neutral admin heavily involved in AfD who might be able to shed light. What appears to have happened is

(1) An IP editor decided that there wasn't enough about Michael Laski to justify an article, and converted the article to a redirect

(2) The redirect got disputed and reverted back and forth a few times until Hey man im josh said "Redirect is disputed, take it to AfD"

(3) The IP editor started the process and it arrived at AfD under the name of Laski22 (who has only edited on this and the related party page)

(4) Laski22 then immediately withdrew the AfD, ending the discussion before anyone had had a chance to discuss anything.

(5) Although Laski22's withdrawl on the grounds that Google books "turned up more than expected" is effectively a keep, Scope-creep restored the redirect (it would have been wrong to do this during an active AfD, but of course the AfD had been closed by this stage; it was all so fast it's quite possible Scope creep had no idea an AfD had even been opened). But the point remains, we now have an article that's technically survived AfD but immediately been, effectively, deleted.

This all somewhat smacks of manipulating the AfD process: being told to go to AfD, therefore going, but then withdrawing the AfD before any discussion could take place. I'm not sure who's trying to achieve what, and I don't personally care tuppence whether this article is a redirect or an article, but I do care about doing things properly. I'm assuming there is still a keep/redirect dispute? This isn't a terribly satisfactory situation. What do you reckon would be best: reopen the AfD so redirect/keep can be discussed there, or discuss it on the article's talk-page? Elemimele (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I converted it back to a redirect, because the article is woeful as is the references. I don't see the need for an article on him. The two references are bare mentions and that is the best you can say about them. Such references cannot support a BLP or even a biographical of a dead person. There are woeful. If you want to revert, I will need to three secondary sources that are independent, significant and in-depth. Real deatail, not a bare mention, otherwise I need to delete it if it comes back up a 2nd time. I never an Afd. If I saw one, I would have sent it back for a second go and it would be deleted as the refs are woeful. Having written several articles on communist and still working on one at the moment, then tend to be notable, and with concomitant coverage. I don't understand why they're isn't decent sources. I hope that explains things from my end. scope_creep^Talk 08:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scope creep: I've no problem with your actions: I can see your point that the referencing is inadequate and the redirect might be the right outcome. My problem was more with the fact that someone (josh) requested, in good faith, a proper debate at AfD, but the debate was (probably accidentally) turned into a charade. I think creating a nomination because someone else has requested it, and immediately withdrawing the nomination (thereby undermining the person who requested it) isn't great practice. Elemimele (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree. Once it's posted to Afd it should always run its course unless somebody proves otherwise, which leads to withdrawn nomination. Do you want to send to Afd again? scope_creep^Talk 10:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pppery, would you be willing to re-open the AfD so we can put this lot in the discussion there, and get this done properly? I think that would be less confusing than a second AfD. Elemimele (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to revert my closure and re-open the AfD if you want to. Nevertheless, I maintain that my AfD closure was correct; the nominator had clearly withdrawn the AfD and I'm not responsible for things that happened several hours after my last edit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! No problem, I didn't wish to criticise anyone's actions (except possibly, and only mildly, Laski22: if you are reading this, Laski22, since you hadn't taken part in the debate at the article itself, and presumably started the AfD because Josh asked you to, withdrawing it wasn't a great idea. It would have been reasonable to !vote "keep" if you found new sources, and it would be helpful to Scope creep and others if you could give links to them. But no harm done! Please accept an extremely small trout with my compliments!) I've created a new AfD as I didn't know how to revert a closure without messing up whatever the Bots do with AfDs. Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPP letter to WMF

Thanks for adding you signature. We haven't asked for that yet because it's not final. I just changed it again. I don't want anyone to be upset because it changed after they signed... MB 04:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that shortdesc edit by me -- it was an edit conflict and I forgot to revert it once I saw the redirect move. Cheers, Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confused expression

I haven't the slightest idea what happened. [5] Thanks for reverting. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Dr vulpes. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Indigenous science, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Dr vulpes: Reviewed articles should only be unreviewed if CSD'd/PRODded, not when they're AfD'd. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Tamzin, thanks for reaching out. The reason I unreviewed the article was because I had just started a rewrite of it and the changes that had to be made were significant. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr vulpes: That makes sense, and I realized that after re-patrolling. However, the idea is that any article that survives AfD has gone through an adequate level of scrutiny for NPP. That may or may not be a legal fiction, but it's the consensus currently. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tamzin yeah that's what I kind of thought, thanks for letting me know :-) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for helping with the Indigenous science article, it was a lot of work to recover and fix that article. You've been a lot of help and really professional so thanks again. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and thank you for rewriting the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IoE AI

Please don't delete ne pahe named ioE AI i will make change then publish it again. Bot786 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too late. Someone else already did. I would strongly suggest reading the advice already given on your talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Velma S. Salabiye

Hello. I wanted to reach out regarding recent edits to Velma Salabiye's wikipedia. I mean no disrespect. But are you the original author of her page? Perhaps a colleague of hers? A relative? I only ask as I am the significant other of Velma's niece, who had a very close relationship with her aunt. Upon finding the Wikipedia for Ms Salabiye, the family was excited and asked me to fill in specific information that was missing. I appreciate any reply. Lightfoot92 (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no relation to her whatsoever, and came across the article when patrolling articles with malformed markup (your version says "aged Expression error: Unrecognized word "july".–Expression error: Unrecognized word "july"."). While I could, of course, have just fixed the markup, I reverted you because you added content without citing a source. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on what others have to say about the subject, not the subject or their family's personal knowledge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I was having sn issue with trying to remove the expression error and couldn't find a way to do so. Also, almost all Wikipedia pages about people tend to add specific information (parents, family, DOB and Date of Death, etc.,.), which was mainly all I was adding. Thank you again for the feedback. Lightfoot92 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping

Hey did you ever get the ping in this discussion? If not, I think something is wrong with the ping system. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did, just didn't see the need to comment at the time. I've done so now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semihemidemibarnstar

Lineagegeek (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reviewing my stub pages. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Articles about species are generally easy to review, because they're inherently notable. Do take note, though, of the edits I made to improve the formatting of those pages (such as by not using bare URLs), so that your future stubs are more fleshed out and need less NPP attention. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What stub pages that I made did you improve? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Festuca aloha, Festuca alpina * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made the page Agaricus_annae. I have noted what you have said. Any Feedback? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks better, but see my changes * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]