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)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirects you have created have 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 August 11 § Template:AccountUser0/Badges until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 06:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)