Sample Page

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 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

🥭 Mango ^{[ talk | edits ]} 10:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. Would you be able to update my username on the AWB CheckPage? (Diff from AWB approval: Special:Diff/1320082377) I halfway expected the bot to recognize the updated username, but it hasn’t done so in a few weeks, so I was hoping you might be of some assistance. Thanks in advance. – Quinn ΘΔ 13:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m not sure what you meant in this edit summary. This task was removed from the working page, tags are off the category, and the discussion is closed. Is there something I still need to do? — Beland (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don’t need to do anything now. it was a note for the future that if you add entries to the retain section of WP:CFDW you need to specify the outcome of the discussion as I did there, or else the bot won’t process it * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 20:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I guess sometimes it can detect the outcome from the closure, which would explain why this hasn’t been a problem before. — Beland (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for flagging that! — Beland (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the fact that you didn’t use {{CFD top}} when closing the dicussion confused the bot. Also note the bot doesn’t like “no consensus” as a result, it needs to be “no consensus to <do something>”. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 20:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, a couple notes about your recent Amtrak station moves:

• I think it might be best to move the Amtrak station back to its former name and have Randolph station be a dab page. Along with the similar names currently hatnoted there, there is Randolph station (Erie Railroad), plus a number of similar names in Chicago (eg Randolph/Wells station) and San Francisco (eg Randolph and Arch station).
• When you move articles about a station, make sure to update the relevant adjacent stations module, as those modules often affect the link on many pages. For the Randolph and Berkeley stations, I’ve made the relevant edits here, here, and here.

Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I just did the Randolph one because it was WP:MISPLACED, not because I had a particularly strong opinion on primary topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 07:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to move it back so I can set up the dab page? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see what’s stopping you from moving it back yourself. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done – I wasn’t sure if I would be able to make the move without advanced permissions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and a very happy new year to you!

You closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 23 § Category:Crime in Jerusalem as no consensus. May I ask your reasoning? This discussion had little traffic, but not a single vote in support, a couple comments and an oppose vote (by me) in which I tried to look for and restate the consensus of previous discussions. I thought this maybe could have been a kept, except if we consider that all discussions that attract only a couple opinions are no consensus.

Anyway it matters little and I am in no way asking you to revert or change anything. Place Clichy (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve summarized it basically the same way I did; the nominator made their case for moving, you made your case against, and nothing else happened. Hence the discussion contained no agreement to do anything, and there was no consensus. I don’t see how I could have closed that as keep other than by declaring you to be correct and The Nth user to be wrong, which would be putting myself more in the role of a !voter than as a closer. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 04:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Place Clichy (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that the nominator of that template performed a copy/paste pagemove, nominated the original page for deletion, and you deleted it. I reversed all of your admin actions and closed the TFD. Just wanted to let you know.

As a minor point, I know you hate using scripts but it would be really nice if you could close the discussions you’ve enacted. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. And for trivial delete closures I prefer to let AnomieBOT handle the bookkeeping. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 22:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that GreN00 is another sock. TSventon (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report that at SPI. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of {{BAB notice}} per a recent TFD has left about 40 templates without documentation or categories. See Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates. This template was clearly used and useful, so it should not have been deleted. It looks like the !voters did not pay enough attention. Can you please restore it? I’ll be happy to move it to a better location so that it is clear that it is a shared documentation template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think I have the authority to unilaterally overturn the consensus the community came to here. And I’m not at all convinced that they didn’t understand what they were deleting either – the nomination was a delete-by-reference to a discussion that included Template:Indonesian roads notice, Template:BHRS notice, Template:TNH notice, etc. which are all essentially the same type of template, so despite the somewhat confusing copy-paste I still don’t think I can declare all of them wrong and you right like that. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 20:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please restore the content of that deleted template to my sandbox? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The content was

{|cellspacing="8" cellpadding="0" class="hintergrundfarbe1 rahmenfarbe2" style="width: 100%; font-size: 95%; border-style: solid; margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px; clear: both"
| style="width: 50px" | [[Image:Zeichen 330 - Autobahn, StVO 1992.svg|50px]]
| '''This template is part of the [[Wikipedia:Autobahn infobox template|Autobahn infobox template]]. '''

Please read the instructions for usage there before changing anything on this template.
|}
[[Category:Autobahn infobox templates]]

. The only significant contributor was Doco. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 05:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That allowed me to restore the required categories to the affected pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed a mistake in this large CfD after it was closed. It was supposed to merge Category:Villanova Wildcats cross country coaches (which is still tagged) to Category:College cross country coaches in the United States and Category:Villanova Wildcats cross country, but the nominator accidentally wrote Category:Villanova Wildcats coaches, which has now been mistakenly deleted and its content merged into incorrect categories. Can this be reversed and the intended outcome implemented? Mclay1 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Sigh, it shouldn’t be my responsibility to cross-check that CfD nominators listed what they intended to list; CfD closures are hard and tedious enough as is. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pppery:, can you please tell me what the correct process/template is for nominating articles for speedy deletion that evidently should belong in the sandbox as they’re a complete mess? Thanks. Jkaharper (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The correct process would be to move the page to the draft namespace (and tag the residual redirect for speedy deletion as R2). * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 01:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Valery Fyodorovich Plotnikov needs this too. I think this user should be discouraged from creating new articles in this state. —Jkaharper (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. I’m not sure what happened here, but Template:HOIOpenTasks was deleted before substing was complete. I don’t have access to deleted content to do the substing myself. If you restore the template and its subpages, I’ll be happy to do the remaining substing and then CSD tag the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Substed the remaining uses. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 02:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Feel free to message me on my talk page if you ever see me making mistakes in my gnoming. I know it happens, and I won’t be bothered at all. I like to get things fixed, especially when I break them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you can help me understand. Why isn’t Draft:Crpike (amoung others) not eligible for G13? Hasn’t been edited by the creator since 2009? Same question with Draft:HMCS Protecteur (AOR 520). Hasn’t been touched by creator since July. The recent edit there was removing a link to a another page that was unrelated the creating this draft… Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

G13 counts all edits, not just edits by the creator. And the problem with HMCS Protecteur is that, even ignoring Explicit’s edit, the previous edit was July 26 where as 6 months ago is July 11, so in the counterfactual in which Explicit hadn’t edited it it still wouldn’t have been eligible for G13 until January 26. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 00:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! Thank you for clarifying. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pppery,
In your message stating that you had granted me rollback, you noted that rollback is only for cases of clear-cut vandalism only. However, tools that require rollback such as AntiVandal have revert functions for other types of editing (like unsourced edit) that gets tagged as rollback. In that case, does it count as rollback? I am very confused here. If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 03:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rules here are kind of confused at best, with multiple people interpreting it in multiple different ways. My thinking personally is that it doesn’t actually matter what tool you use – the provisos about only for vandalism only apply to reverts with no or an uninformative edit summary. But see Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review/Archive_1#Review_removal_of_rollback_on_User:Robvanvee for an example of people thinking the other way. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for clearing that up. Considering AV gives edit summaries, I might use it, but I’ll only use vanilla rollback for clear vandalism (as I can do it straight from recent changes). thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 03:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery. I think these templates should be merged, and I would like to know what you think:

1. {{Magic word}}
2. {{ParserFunction}}
3. {{Magic word link}}

The syntax is almost identical, although {{ParserFunction}} does not want the hash character in the input, and {{Magic word}} does not support parameters and does not have an internal database of URLs (so it does not always link properly). —Grufo (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Magic word and magic word link could probably be merged. I’d prefer to keep ParserFunction separate – it does one thing and one thing well (linking to systematically named sections of one specific page) rather than trying to be complicated and all-knowing. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 04:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pppery, it can make sense. Does it have to pass through TfD or can it be done boldly? {{Magic word}} has an additional parameter to omit the link, but it should be easy to track down the pages that use that parameter (which, by the way, does not make much sense). —Grufo (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since magic word was created by a banned user I doubt anyone cares, so you’re welcome to try to do it boldly, but if someone objects you may have to go to TfD. And re the parameter to omit the link, agree that’s pointless, just use {{tlf}} for that instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 05:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you (in general I have learned that avoiding TfD is always the best option, since whatever that place decides cannot be undone without a lot of effort). I will try to do it in the next hours/days. Best! —Grufo (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Grufo (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any easy was to keep all of these renames as redirects like I requested for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_31#Category:Plantation_owners? ^SMason_Garrison 22:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There would have been if I had seen the request before I processed the discussion. But since I somehow didn’t (despite catching a lot of other subtlety in that discussion), there isn’t any technique I can use to do it now other than manual creation. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Bummer that’s there’s not an easy way. ^SMason_Garrison 20:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About a month ago, you denied my request for rollback, and after a short discussion, we decided to wait a bit longer before I was fit for the job. It seems like I am, and I am about to make a second request. Could you review my next one? We said that after enough time passed, you could accept, but at that time it was too early. Theeverywhereperson talk here 06:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s best that someone else review the request. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer’s Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2025. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! –MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for deleting Draft:Ariyan Mehedi (record producer), Draft:Ariyan and Draft:Ariyan (composer). Do you think that Draft:Ariyan Mehedi (film score) is substantially similar enough to also get a WP:G4 or is the MfD more appropriate? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s G5-able anyway. Probably G4 too. And I’m working on adding some title blacklist rules. I used G4 there because that was easier than convincing myself G5 applied on the basis of a lock for “long-term abuse” that didn’t give a reason, but in this case the lock points to a specific account so that was easier. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 07:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed in my watchlist that you recently moved a few stragglers of the List of National Academy of Sciences per this discussion. I’ve been off-and-on curating the NAS list pages. So when I saw this, I checked the pages listed here: [[1]] and about half weren’t moved to the corresponding lowercase parentheticals. I updated that page so the ones that have been moved have the lowercase and ones that haven’t have uppercase. I’m not familiar with the moving process (or if I’m able), but it seems like those pages may not need another move request to fix the last few from NAS, and wanted to see if that’s something you are able to update? If not I can also submit another move request instead. Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to move the pages yourself. You don’t need a move request for it. I started a request there because I wasn’t confident they should be lowercased, not because I technically needed to. The move request there included those specific pages because they propped up on a report I was using to check for overcapitalized titles and the others didn’t – I should have been more thorough I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 00:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will move them then. I think the ones that didn’t show up all have multiple words in the parentheses, so that could be why they didn’t show. Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So want to discuss your decision to redirect this. The issue is that people continue to try to use it the way it used to work… {{Coords}} works differently. See the bottom of Gömör County, Diocese of Nitra or Cham-Furth Depression. I haven’t found one current use of {{WikidataCoord}} that is correct. I strongly recommend we convert the remaining uses and delete WikidataCoord… Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So do we turn {{WikidataCoord}} into a wrapper template instead of a redirect? If we use {{Coord|format=dms|display=title}}, would that do the trick? If people happen to include the qid or other parameters, I think they will be ignored, which should be fine. We could also turn it into a subst-only template that replaces WikidataCoord with appropriate code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I maintain that deleting it is the best way forward… There are currently no uses so I don’t see the benefit of keeping this now unused template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I had looked into this in-depth before Jonesey95 had gotten involved then I might have been willing to push the delete button, but not now; the fact that {{Coord}} had different default parameters than {{WikidataCoord}} wasn’t made clear in the discussion so I missed it at first.

This mess has convinced me this merge wasn’t a good idea in the first place since the effort involved in retraining people adding the template to do it differently exceeds the value, but Wikipedia has no process for expressing those second thoughts so the merge stands and I have no idea what to do now. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 17:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I’m confused what the problem is? {{WikidataCoord}} has zero transclusions. What is the danger/harm in deleting it? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The danger is people with old memories adding more transclusions; many transclusions were added in the few days between you adding a CSD tag and me processing that tag. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 17:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I totally get that, but wouldn’t the red linked template jump out as an error better than then the current incarnation which throws the coords inline instead of in the title? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (assuming the merge won’t be undone) I think that now. My past self didn’t know they had different default behavior, which is why I did what I did then. At this point the person you need to convince is Jonesey95, not me. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So Jonesey95 given the above, and the fact that {{WikidataCoord}} is currently unused, do you agree it is safer to just delete it? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of two editors who monitor and clean up Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates. That report typically shows less than 24 hours of new insertions of deleted templates, because we clear it out most days. It’s a pain in the neck. People insert deleted templates every day and do not notice it, and we clean it up. If people are still using this merged template, and it doesn’t work, I’d rather see it replaced by a substing bot, as we do when people insert templates from other wikipedias, like {{Cytuj stronę}}. It’s clean, and no humans need to get involved. If you two decide to delete it instead of following the TFD outcome, I can live with it, but I’ll mutter a mild hex on you every time I have to fix a page that shows up on that report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly don’t want to be hexed by Jonesey95… No but seriously, I don’t want to make more work for you and you make a good argument, so let us see if we can find a better solution. Can you tell me more about this substing bot you speak of? How can we make that happen? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Using a little subst magic (which I never get right, so I will leave it to others), we make it so that any invocation of {{WikidataCoord}} is turned into {{Coord|format=dms|display=title}} when it is substed into a page. We then put {{Subst only|auto=yes}} into the page’s documentation, and AnomieBOT will come along and fix it for editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will add this to my todo list and see if I cannot figure out how to make this happen. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So nearly a week later and {{WikidataCoord}} still has no transclusions. Been checking daily. Seems like this is a non-issue. At this point I’d think it is safe to just leave this alone. Can be deleted, but also don’t really see an issue leaving it. Problem resolved? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pppery, I have learnt WP:GAMENAMEing through the current subject, I used to think (name) are used to avoid disambiguation.

In this current article, when i created the article itself, I was unaware that there is one more draft existed, with the same name. So, to name it I have added (Actor) in the title. Sharing you with two drafts below.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ananth_Ram ( Draft-1). 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ananth_Ram_(Actor) ( Draft-2).

I understand Wikipedia guidelines and I want to avoid ” (Actor) ” in the name. Also, following the guidelines, I am ready to work on any one draft, which ever you or the community pickup. according to the guidelines.

So, please help me in removing one draft and So, that I can avoid the WP:GAMENAMEing in the title and also continue with the other draft. – Filmybuff (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve misunderstood my comment. The GAMENAMING I was worried about wasn’t the creation of Draft:Ananth Ram (Actor) – it was the moving of it to mainspace as Ananth Ram (Actor) while Ananth Ram was salted so only admins could create it. You don’t need to delete one of the drafts (although you are welcome to tag either draft with {{db-g7}} if you want it deleted). What you need to do is either request the page protection be loosened at WP:RFPP or submit one of the drafts for AfC review (and if the AfC reviewer thinks it should be accepted they will request the page protection be loosened and admins are more inclined to accept such requests from AfC reviewers). * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery Out of knowledge gaining, I still think Page protection is that lock symbol, which is used for bigger figures or people in controversies right? and how is it related to this subject.

Yes sir, I will follow your instructions and add AFC review to my current draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ananth_Ram_(Actor) this one, thank you – Filmybuff (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is represented by the lock symbol, and is used for lots of things. One of them is pages subjected to frequent disruptive edits, which tend to roughly correlate with “bigger figures or people in controversies”. Another is pages related to specific topic areas under an extended-confirmed restriction, which again tends to roughly correlate with “people in controversies”. The third use, which is relevant here, is WP:SALTING of articles that have been created enough times that the community wants to raise the barrier to having an article on a given subject. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 17:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of 1952 Dallas mid-air collision. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Zaptain United (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do a favor and remove TheAafi from AWB CheckPage. I was passionate to use it years ago but I don’t recall when I used AWB the last time. Thank you. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 03:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about the large number of sports nominations. There were a very large number of one article categories. My initial nominations initially were supported so I had thr sense that there was a feeling in the community that we did not want to have one article categories under the sports team. Later on more opposition developed. I was advised to stop nominating such articles. Since then I have not nominated any additional sports articles. Each of the sports cases involved having to figure out which parents existed within the tree of that college. I am sorry if this was disruptive. I really thought there was a general feeling that one article and other very small categories did not help navigation. I was not teying to be disruptive. I am sorry if this was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you nab that, as well? It’s Jordanene7. Ta. Graham87 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 01:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question about hatnotes. I noticed that in the past you removed one that linked to a Wikipedia policy in the Blue Lock article (twice).[2][3] I agree that it is unnecessary, mainly because unless they are a regular editor of the site, it is unlikely that the average reader would be interested in finding information about a site policy when searching for “Blue Lock”, but WP:HN does not seem to indicate anything about this. I ask mainly because recently an editor re-added the same hatnote.[4] I just reverted them by saying that it’s not necessary, but that might not be enough of an explanation if they added it back again, so I would like to know if there is a more compelling reason why this kind of hatnote should not be included. Xexerss (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WP:Avoid self references. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Xexerss (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wasn’t sure who to message regarding being whitelisted on the JS Wiki Browser. Would you be able to do this, or who should I contact? Thanks. ThatOneTechNerd (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser. JS Wiki Browser uses the same whitelist as AutoWikiBrowser. In practice I tend to be the only person responding to these requests, but they should still go through proper channels. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I have added a request. Thanks! ThatOneTechNerd (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to extended-comfirmed protect the page. DudeJay17 (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don’t see any disruptive edits at all from autoconfirmed users so ECP isn’t warranted. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your user name at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T412428, which is of interest to Women in Red. Do you have any idea how long Phabricator bug reports take to reach a conclusion? I can see that the report has not made much progress so far. TSventon (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Phabricator has no specific Service-level agreement and tasks unfortunately tend to languish forever – not getting any response for this long is not unusual. I know that this is not what you wanted to hear. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am looking for any comments that improve my understanding of the process. I am not looking for reassurance that this report will be dealt with swiftly, as that seems unlikely. TSventon (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:U6 says “few or no edits”, not “no edits”; the requirement for “no non-userspace edits” only applies to the bot that tags pages. A user who has only vandalised articles is a non-contributor and I would expect six edits to not be too many for “few”, or is it specified somewhere? Peter James (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re completely right there – I didn’t look closely enough to see that the edits were vandalism. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 20:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pppery,

I’ve come across a few of the categories that were part of a discussion you closed, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 25#Articles currently being merged. These aren’t simple content-related categories and I’m not sure how I should handle them or if the CFD bot, User:JJMC89 bot III, will properly handle them either. So, just checking to see what you thought or had any suggestions. For example, I’m not sure if a category has been emptied, if it matters to rename it. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Take no action. The bot will do the right thing in an hour or two. As a general rule, it’s best not to interfere with the implementation of discussions I closed; I know what I’m doing and how to implement them. Well, usually anyway – I fucked up pretty badly today and left things in a half-broken state for eight hours when I didn’t need to. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 07:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, G4 was not applicable to this page as the new article was different from the deleted one. The previous deletion relied on an RfC that no longer has community consensus. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree – the page is fundamentally the same list of destinations that previous AfD consensus was not to have. Take it to deletion review if you really insist. I will not be reversing my deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 15:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Lufthansa destinations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor just removed the “Category:American people of Scottish descent” from Donald Trump whose mother was born and raised in Scotland. I looked at the discussion referenced in the editsum, and I don’t know how British descent is not defining in Anglo-world countries applies to Americans such as Trump. His Scottish ancestry through his mother seems more defining to me than his German ancestry through his paternal grandparents (his father was born and raised in the U.S.). Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question in the header, “containerize” means “convert to a WP:Container category“, or in this case “remove all articles, leaving only subcategories”. I can’t respond to the rest of your comment here; my role as closer is to determine what consensus the participants in the discussion came to and implement that, not to have an opinion on its wisdom; you’d have to ask the participants directly. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to thank @Space4Time3Continuum2x: for asking, and Pppery for answering, I’ve been on Wikipedia for years and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered “containerize” in this sense before. Now I just need to hunt down “lemways”. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m kind of curious about a string of recent edits. I decliened your CSDA1 on Muhammad Nagar railway station, but then I noticed your last 50 contributions were almost all involving redirects or disambiguations on pages that start with Muhammad. It seems like you are systematically going through articles titled Muhammad something or other and doing . . . something . . . with them. So I’m curious. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going through every pair of articles titled “Mohammed something” or “Muhammad something” and ensuring that the “Mohammad” form has a hatnote to the “Muhammad” form and vice versa. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That makes sense. Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I’ve turned this into a much more formalized project at User:Pppery/Names. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw here you were able to give mentorship to a user without EC, are you able to do the same for me? I would like to switch over from using my main account for certain reasons.

Would it also be possible to move all my current mentees over to this account once that’s done (well, minus Jimbo Wales and Chaotic Enby because I really don’t want to mistakenly send that to 4,000+ users again…). If not, perfectly fine and I can move my mentees (or at least the active ones) over myself. Cheers! – LuniZunie 05:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the new account as a mentor (please go to Special:MentorDashboard on that account and configure your settings as desired). Admins have no tooling for mass-reassigning mentees from one user to another (the only tooling we have is to reassign all mentors to random other mentees by removing them from the mentor list; the same things happen if you resign as a mentor, and even that doesn’t work right half the time). We also can manually remove users from the JSON list, which doesn’t trigger reassignments, which is what I did in the case above. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 22:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. – LuniZunie 22:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:Needs sources 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 February 16 § Template:Needs sources until a consensus is reached. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 10:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pppery, i am very contradicted with this whole system. I have re created the article since it was deleted a few years ago due to the lack of notability and references. However coming to the present i have found that the individual has acted in a few films in crucial roles and won a reality show too more or less a notable one too. I don’t understand why it is nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolien.Swart (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article at an incorrect title because the title it should be created at is protected from creation is textbook disruptive behavior. That’s why I nominated it for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 05:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i apologies, but how can i keep the article. The article is well structured and i have put in all my effort, the subject in-fact is now a notable figure. Can u please give me any tips. Nicolien.Swart (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the socks are sophisticated enough to know how to avoid a CU which is troubling if we only take CU evidence into account. And I don’t care if they read this as they are aware of what they are doing. The account names and editing behavior puts this squarely in that farm. And, Nicolien.Swart, before you start claiming WP:AGF, please see WP:PACT. —CNMall41 (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I hate to bother you but WP:URA is doing a drive in March which I am preparing for by tagging unreferenced articles. I made a request for AWB/JWB two days ago but it has not been looked at. As the drive is coming up soon, would you mind having a look at my request? Thanks very much, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. It’s still a week and a half until March. A look at the history of that page shows I’ve been checking it much more often than that, and also less often than every two days. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 00:54, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know you as the main Admin that accepts and declines requests on the permissions page. I send in a request for AWB that got declined earlier this month. Do you need to wait 90 days to send in another request, and I see people get a free trial after a bot says they have had a declined request in the past 90 days.

Thanks,   ~ DatPolishHamster  19:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific waiting period required. But you have to convince me (or another admin) that you intend to use AWB responsibly, and I will of course not forget that you had made a prior request and keep that in mind. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I actually sent a rollback request. Thanks,   ~ DatPolishHamster  19:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sea captains from New York (state) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review of Isaac (camera phone) and Isaac (camera). However, the best title for this article is Isaac (camera phone), not Isaac (camera). So I’ve reversed your redirect of Isaac (camera phone). Can you please redirect Isaac (camera) to Isaac (camera phone)? Thanks! KAP. KAPcooney (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Not sure why you needed to ask me to do this and couldn’t have done it yourself. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It wasn’t clear to me how to do the redirect and I didn’t want to break things. KAPcooney (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you closed Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakana (3rd nomination), which was raised by User:Star Mississippi (I have no problem with that action), but we now have [5] and [6]. Does this mean that I need to consider raising another ANI, since these two diffs appear related to the prior ANI? You may observe that I had been reverted on Lakana before I had even finished putting the references on the talk page comment at Talk:Lakana#Sailing rig. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I see this @ThoughtIdRetired

I don’t have the on wiki time this morning and don’t want to block and run, but my inclination is ObsidianSoul should be p-blocked from the article. The DRV was fine, the conduct since has not been and they’ve been warned multiple times. Star Mississippi 13:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I closed that discussion as a procedural action because it was a pointer to another discussion that had closed. I don’t wish to involve myself further with this, so if further sanctions are needed they would need to be raised at a different venue like another ANI. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 18:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem with either answer (I’ve been busy off Wikipedia since my first post here). I am mulling over a course of action. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Accra International Airport (AIA) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Electricmemory (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ppery, you recently redirected a redirect to a dab. I want to add a cat via Capricorn but I am not sure which *disambiguation option to mark. I am split between “alternative disambiguation page” and “disambiguation page”. 8rz (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would use {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that “sign your name” is an unlikely search for someone looking for directions about what is required when one signs their name on Wikipedia. It sounds like the sort of thing I would do and I’ve been here nearly 20 years.

I went to the article about the song to add a hatnote about custom signatures, but it turns out that is a section under WP:SIGNATURES. I’m not sure what the easiest way to give directions on developing custom signatures is.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect my thinking was that Wikipedia generally uses the term “signing your posts”, not “signing your name”, although I no longer remember directly what I was thinking in July. And, well, I’ve known for a long time I have a much higher standard for when a self-referential hatnote is warranted than most people do. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m quick to add hatnotes, especially when I have hard time finding what I’m looking for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t respond, so are you willing to let the hatnote go back?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I don’t think either of us will convince the other of their fundamental hatnote philosophy (mine being that WP:ASR is the default rule, and cross-namespace hatnotes should be rare exceptions). * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting rid of that Sladkiy Son page. I knew it was unreliable and bad, but I was on edge waiting for it. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 16:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this module has been superseded by Module:IA Citation. It’s a better design, it can be used with any number of specific-source templates with the data definitions separate from the engine. I would like to delete Module:AIA Guide, but it still many links in “What links here” and I am not sure of the procedure for deleting Modules. Since it’s a brand new Module no longer invoked and you and I are the only editors I was hoping you might be able to quickly delete it without going through the deletion process. Thanks for any help of guidance. — GreenC 02:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know you as the main RfP admin, usually accepting or declining requests for permissions. The RfP has been piling up, with over 50 requests, with over 40 not answered yet. The new page reviewer right has over 20 (exactly 22) requests, with 0 being answered. Some requests still unanswered were from February 12.

Best, ~~PolishHamster^yeah 20:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider myself to be qualified to review requests for autopatrolled or new page reviewer due to lack of content creation experience. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. There’s still TAIV, ROLL, and PCR requests that are starting to pile up.

Best, ~~PolishHamster^yeah 22:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pppery:: Thank you for the diff merge on Revolutionary Communists of America! In the future, is there a better place than Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests to ask for diff merges? 🙂 SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{histmerge}} is probably the right venue for history merge requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 06:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page of the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen has, over time, been altered and edited in ways that appear to be malicious. I am the Editor-in-Chief of the paper, and I see how this misrepresentation has serious consequences both for the reliability of Wikipedia and for our newspaper. In Norway, Klassekampen is widely read and well known. However, the misleading editing of our Wikipedia page affects our ability to secure interviews with international sources and undermines our journalistic credibility and freedom. The editor responsible for what we regard as slander and false information uses the name “Svantetos.” You can review the edit log to see this individual’s editing history. Svantetos misrepresents debates that have taken place in the newspaper, making it appear as though the paper consistently takes one particular side. As a result, Svantetos includes references and links, but they do not actually support the claims being made. Consequently, our coverage of highly sensitive topics such as transgender rights, antisemitism, and Russia is not accurately represented on our Wikipedia page. One recent example: Svantetos’ latest edits imply that we had a commentator who wrote antisemitic columns for years, when in fact he was dismissed immediately after publishing an article that we considered antisemitic. Similarly, a book by Torkel Brekke is cited as evidence that we have printed several antisemitic articles over the years, whereas the book discusses a single article from the 1970s that might be considered antisemitic. Brekke’s interpretation has been debated in our newspaper—and few others have agreed with him. We are a serious news outlet, and this campaign by Svantetos is damaging our reputation. We consider it an attack on both our brand and our ability to carry out our work properly. It is also a significant problem for Wikipedia, which risks misrepresenting one of Norway’s major and well-established newspapers. Please let me know how to address this matter and how we can protect both our reputation and the integrity of our Wikipedia page. Best regards,

Mari Skurdal
Editor-in-Chief
Klassekampen ~2026-13961-03 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Svantetos. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in involving myself further with this. Please take it elsewhere. My protection in June 2025 may have been a mistake, but even if it was it expired long ago. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 22:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean exactly? Where do I take this now? ~2026-15272-21 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Accra International Airport (AIA) 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 March 8 § Accra International Airport (AIA) until a consensus is reached. Electricmemory (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion was split on the Qualis RfD nomination. Can you justify going with the Qualis (CAPES) to Qualis move outcome? Jay 💬 08:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I totally misread that discussion. I’ve reopened. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 15:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the edits i had done on mirani clan are sourced can you please tell me the reason you removed and add them back? Mir yosuf (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because you aren’t allowed to edit in this topic area. And I decline to proxy edit for you. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 15:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for whitelisting that azurefd.net site I requested for Grain Majors. The new article is now published, and I appreciate your assistance. JBrenn (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was embarrassing… You are correct; I meant to add this to my common.css page instead of MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css. Thanks for reverting and for fixing that… ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Haroonur Rashid (disambigation) 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 March 12 § Haroonur Rashid (disambigation) until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a Reddit link to the user infobox, however it appears it is causing issues with the infobox displaying correctly, would you be able to help? Laredo312-Oviedo512 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Example of what is broken? I looked at your userpage and the template testcases and nothing is obviously displaying incorrectly to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page for Robert Pollock to put his legitmate birthday and youve changed it two days ago. Funny how you seem to think you know more than his legitmate SON. Wow. But okay bro, great job mate. ~2026-15133-97 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. Is there any way I could have known at the time who you were? * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 01:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I wanted to get some clarification from you regarding the AutoWikiBrowser request I submitted. You marked it as “done,” which I assume means it was approved, but it’s not showing up in the approved log. Could you please clarify what that meant?

Thank you in advance for your response 🙂 Losipov (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The canonical list of who can use AWB is at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON, where I added your name. I’m not sure what you mean by “approved log”. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 17:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Makes sense. There’s a log that shows request approvals by month, and I didn’t see my name on there. That’s why I asked.

In any event, thank you very much again for the approval 🙂 Losipov (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for granting me rollback permissions! I’ve noticed that clicking rollback undoes edits automatically, without having to save changes with undo. Can I do rollback for only a single, vandalistic edit (instead of undo) to speed up the process by valuable seconds, or should I only use it for multiple vandalistic edits? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback always reverts all edits by the most recent user to edit the page. It works just fine even if there is only one such edit. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 00:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re your prot of File:Question book-new.svg: I’ve deliberately not been protecting it, along with a number of other pages. There’s a LTA who creates lots of accounts when able to, then leaves them dormant with no edits. Months later, they start using them; make ten or so innocent edits to gain autoconfirmed, then spam that youtube link to as many pages as possible before they get blocked. See for example Special:Contributions/Aintnontoboss, Special:Contributions/ABDURAHIM OLLOXNING QULI, Special:Contributions/PotatoChipas, Special:Contributions/マヨツナ, Special:Contributions/Liam lin1. There is no pattern to the usernames that they created; I guess that a bunch of them will be logged by the same IP address, but by leaving them as sleepers for several months, any CU info goes stale.

There are several pages that they target, not just that file; if you protect one of them then at best they’ll spam just the others, at worst will select a different group of pages to spam, which makes them all the more difficult to spot.

What I would like to do if possible is blacklist the full URL for that youtube link. If this isn’t possible, set up an edit filter to detect it. —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to blacklist that link via MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. But the maintainers of that page seem to think doing so would be futile – MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Russian YouTube spam. Anyway, if you want to unprotect then do so; you seem to know better than I do. Context for my protection is Special:GoToComment/c-Salvidrim!-20260314063100-File:Question_book-new.svg. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, Salvidrim! – the semi-prot was ineffective anyway, since (as I noted above) the LTA gains autoconfirmed status before they start spamming, in order to avoid the CAPTCHA that is required for an unconfirmed user who tries to add an EL. —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I guess I should have checked if the accounts were actually autoconfirmed, I didn’t even consider that option when seeing a bunch of redlinks spamming youtube vandalism. Thanks for the insight, Redrose. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 11:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 14:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pppery, I was wondering if you had the WP:TPE right? If so, would you please help me? I’m looking for an editor who has the WP:TPE who would be willing to look over my proposed color code changes for the Tennessee Titans over at Module:Gridiron color/data. My request is found at Module talk:Gridiron color. Would you be willing to please help me implement my proposed color code changes for the Titans over at Module:Gridiron color/data? My edit diff for these proposed changes at Module:Gridiron color/data/sandbox is found here. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an admin (which includes template editor) so I could implement the request, but you’ve already put it in the queue for someone to look at and I don’t appreciate you trying to draw special attention to it. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 01:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How do I check the status of where it is in the queue? Also, I left a talk page message for Paine Ellsworth, but they have yet to respond back to me. If you have time, would you please just do it for me? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The relevant queue is at User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable but that’s just one part of the full queue at User:AnomieBOT/Edit requests table. —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesEditor23: Re your comment about Paine Ellsworth, I see that over the last six months you have left similar messages at: User talk:Gonzo fan2007/Archive 2025#Please help me?; User talk:Xaosflux#I need help!; User talk:Dissident93#Edit requests over at Module talk:Gridiron color; User talk:Jonesey95/Archive2025#I need help!; User talk:Zackmann08/Archive 16#Please help me at Module talk:Gridiron color?; User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Please help me?; and now here at User talk:Gonzo fan2007#Please help me?; User talk:Pppery#Please help me?. This is tantamount to WP:FORUMSHOP. Some of them have advised you that it’s in the TPERTable queue. —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m having trouble with XFDcloser on this discussion which you listed at WP:CR; when I select multiple results and try to type in the fields presented, that results in the dropdown options changing and no text appearing. Is that happening for you too? I’d like to gain familiarity with the tool. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can reproduce the problem that typing in the “multiple results” fields doesn’t seem to work as it should, and it doesn’t seem to be specific to CfD. This bug should probably be reported at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser. Personally I tend to eschew the use of most scripts and prefer to close manually, but that’s obviously an idiosyncratic position. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For patience and for showing me the CfD ropes. Iseult Δx talk to me 00:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 01:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you stated that you blocked those users who added unconstructive edits in this article, but I’m not sure if you really blocked them or not, as I found nothing that they’re blocked (Maybe I’ve never seen those unregistered users being blocked?). Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the underlying IP range they were using. This doesn’t show up as a block on the temp account. You can’t see what the IP range is (other than by looking at my block logs) since you’re not a WP:TAIV. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For cleaning up the trash at Spore (2008 video game) and ensuring that the revision history is usable – thank you! nil nz 22:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. History merging/cleanup is so often thankless tedium, so it’s really nice to see someone care for a change. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 23:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again(?). You closed the FFD discussion about this image as “deleted”. In the light of the closing rationale on the following discussion, i.e. use of a cast photo reality TV series is (kinda?) acceptable only if it is NFCC-compliant—Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: cast photos of reality TV shows (even asked its closer Beland about some clarity)—have you considered un-deleting the image and then re-nominating it at FFD? George Ho (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand this comment entirely? Why do you want me to relist a discussion you initiated which had a unanimous consensus to delete because of a discussion deciding that certain non-free images weren’t allowed. That doesn’t make any sense, and I decline. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated the FFD discussion solely, if not primarily, due to my concerns about WP:GETTY/WP:NFCC#2, not WP:NFCC#1/WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFC#CS, which I addressed at the broader discussion. George Ho (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea what you are trying to accomplish here. Take it to DRV if you really insist. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion now reviewed at this discussion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 March 25#File:Survivor 47 Cast.png. George Ho (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pppery. Earlier today you have closed the move discussion on George (archbishop of Cyprus) with no consensus. I value your rationale and I will respect your final decision on this matter, but I still want to make a last appeal for you to reconsider your decision. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, arguments that are rooted in Wikipedia policy are valued more in determining consensus than personal opinions. In my move request, I cited three Wikipedia policies in support of the move and neither of the two objections really addressed these policies. The first objection simply stated that the original name would be more appropriate without referencing any policies and the second objection concurred. When I asked them about the policies the first user did not explain their rationale while the second user never responded. I think that WP:TALKDONTREVERT would give a greater to my arguments when determining consensus as no one explained why the three policies do not apply, but I am not an expert in wikipedia policies and if you ultimately decide that there is still no consensus, I will accept that and try to reintroduce the move request in three months as suggested in WP:THREEOUTCOMES. I am grateful for your attention and I would like to reiterate my trust in whatever decision you will eventually make. John Adams 362 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve made your case and failed to convince anyone else other than a drive-by temp account. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are interpeted by participants of the discussion, not by just you. And evidently they don’t see things that way. Nor do I, honestly; the form {name} of {place} is often used is a really weak sentence to rely on for guideline support – the things this is supposed to be consistent with are different in a significant way, and WP:NC() does not actually say what you claim it says there. And the fact that people with dozens of times more experience that you don’t see things your way is also telling. I decline. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, and thank you for providing an opinion regarding these policies. I still stand by my opinion, but I will not contest your decision. Again, thank you for your time reviewing the discussion. John Adams 362 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you merge the Draft:MacBook Neo revisions 1340825648 through 1341522170 onto the main article: MacBook Neo since I initially created it as Draft:12.9-inch MacBook first before I moved it to Draft:MacBook Neo, after that the mainspace article was already created by User:Vistadan. see logs for Draft:12.9-inch MacBook and MacBook Neo, and the page history of Draft:MacBook Neo and the oldest revision: 1341516699 on MacBook Neo. Also, after the merge, can you also delete Draft:12.9-inch MacBook (redirecting to MacBook Neo) since it is not needed, and keep Draft:MacBook Neo as a redirect to MacBook Neo. ~ŤheŴubṂachine–840≈ 16:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fcom1212, we have already discussed this on the MacBook Neo talk page. The MacBook Neo article was already created before you moved the Draft:12.9-inch MacBook draft to Draft:MacBook Neo. Nothing from your draft was used on the MacBook Neo article, so again, nothing needs to be merged. I hope this is the last time I have to explain this. Thanks, vistadan 21:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m inclined to agree with vistadan, and there are also (admittedly minor) WP:Parallel histories problems here. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 23:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Perry,

Thank you so much for your attention to my draft and moving it to the right place. (Accidentally moved it) I really appreciate it. I have been trying to fix two issues with two references that have errors in them (Date/Title). But when I’m adding dates and title it doesn’t seem to work.

I would love any help on this, and any feedback you might have would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much in advance.

Best,

MWikiforce Mwikiforce (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the date error (the problem is that “DD-MM-YYYY” isn’t a recognized date format on Wikipedia). I don’t see any title errors. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 04:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO much Perry! You have NO idea how much I appreciate that! I’ve been struggling with it for days now! Did you see any other issues with the bio I should be looking to fix?

Thank you again! Feels good to be back writing!

Best,

MWikiforce Mwikiforce (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

– So sorry for angering you. – SimpleObjects-9ei ❄️/☃️/🥶 15:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded for your incredible work on Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools’ Day 2001–2003, specifically for digging up two pranks from April Fools’ Day 2001. I didn’t think anything would actually be found for that year, so I was very happy to see your contributions to the page. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the categories from this deleted page onto the parent page per the instructions at WP:T5, which EdwardUK forgot to do. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to do here – the only category on the doc page was Category:Buddhism templates which has already been added to the non-doc page. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but I am ignorant and I have to ask. You said that I am an involved participant in closure of Rhomaioi, which was reverted (I understand the logic, no issues here). However, given that we had reached a consensus for some time now what are the available options? Is this just a waiting process or some other action is required of us? Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 18:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to do anything – your request is already on the list at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog and a closer will get to it in due time. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 21:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your response was very helpful. A.Cython(talk) 21:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the deletion of the above file; as WP:G4 states, “This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.”, does this indicate that the deletion is solely due to the file’s name being identical to the one deleted in the previous discussion? In other words, if the same file were uploaded under a different name, would the policy still apply? Could you please clarify? Thanks. QuestFour (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @QuestFour: if the same file were uploaded under a different name, would the policy still apply? Yes. As you mentioned above, the policy includes the phrase having any title. —Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. One more question; in Talk:Harry Potter (character), an editor suggested starting an WP:RFC as a next step if the discussion(s) result in the file’s deletion. If an RFC was started, and the result was in favor of using the non-free file, will that consensus replace the file’s FFD discussion? QuestFour (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that the two FfDs have already established a consensus not to use a non-free image here, only WP:Deletion review could overturn that consensus, and hence there’s nothing more for a RfC to discuss (and hence the hypothetical RfC would fail point 2 of WP:RFCNOT). But that may not be the way others see things; I’m on the autism spectrum and hence am more prone to wikilawyering and likely to insist on strict adherence to procedure than the rest of the community. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 05:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who brought up the hypothetical rfc, I think such an rfc could, but likely won’t, result in “ok, let’s use a non-free pic (which one we will not specifically decide or suggest in this rfc).”

Following that, if QuestFour/whoever wants to use the twice-deleted pic[7] again, it could then be procedurally correct to first ask Pppery “Hey, I have an rfc backing me, will you please un-delete”? If Pppery says no, a deletion review can be tried, arguing “see rfc”, and if unsuccessful, it’s definitively time to drop this.

If QuestFour/whoever instead inserts a different non-free pic after the rfc “victory”, I guess the way to challenge that (if anyone wants, might not happen) would be a new xfd, where the keep argument would be “see rfc”. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I would probably begrudgingly oblige in such a hypothetical situation, were a closed RfC presented to my desk. But I still would think the wrong process was followed and be unhappy about it. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 05:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like a true Wikipedian! Glad Påsk! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, this case is a little, but not very, similar: Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just started the RFC. I used the deleted screenshot only as an example, and I agree with the scenario concerning its restoration. As an RFC is more likely to receive wider input than a deletion review discussion, presenting said RFC there seems like a viable option. QuestFour (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, i wanted to edit an article about my hometown in English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangal but it was put into an EEP since i did not have a credible source, which was fair. Now i do have a credible source and i have added it, but the person i am talking with is refusing to use the direct citation from a book, they have used a citation from 2014, and i have found a book from the exact same person who published an article later in 2019, but they are refusing to add it per my request and keep closing my edit request for this article. Could you be a neutral party here and decide what the final decision is? Thank you for your time Sivasliman (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are very confused. The page was protected because editing of places related to Kurdistan is restricted to extended-confirmed users, which has nothing to do with what sources you provided. And I’m not interested in helping you here, as the edit notice says: “Please do not ask me to intervene in social matters that I have had no prior involvement in”. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 20:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time Sivasliman (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have placed extended-confirmed protection on 2026 Iran war fuel crisis per WP:CT/A-I. However, this article does not strictly fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and mainly discusses the effects of fuel shortage on various countries. As far as I know, there has not been any vandalism on the article. I believe WP:NO-PREEMPT should apply here. Please remove protection on the article or make it semi-protected. Thank you for your time. Mxzkqklt (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a closer look on second thought you’re totally right that it’s not actually within scope and I was overreaching there so I’ve unprotected. However were the topic truly within scope then WP:NO-PREEMPT would have been expressly superseded by Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict#ECP by default. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I think you should revert Special:Diff/1347830486 as it is absolutely breaking numerous pages… See Aritzo for example… Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Yokohama F. Marinos season, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kota Watanabe was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not my fault – all I did is copy content from elsewhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 14:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, when you are handling CU unblock requests for a block that wasn’t in the past 90 days, can you ask the editor at least one question and wait for their answer before you tag for CU attention? The specific reason is kinda beansy, but in broad terms: we’re highly unlikely to find anything at all, whether they’re still socking or not, if all they’ve done is made the unblock request. — asilvering (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 14:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery

Whilst I understand that brackets may not necessarily be correct, it might have been constructive to discuss on the talk page, before you took it upon yourself to rename the page, so that we can properly represent the name of the company.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD actions are normally encouraged on Wikipedia. You are still welcome to start a discussion if you want to propose the title be changed again – see WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves. And please see WP:Name (acronym) for why I moved. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 14:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am writing to you, to ask for the temporary account IP viewer rights. I requested it at WP:PERM/TAIV, but it looks like there is no administrator currently who is looking into that section of RFP. Please do the needful sir. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. Someone will handle your request there in due time. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 04:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Can you please move Avon (cosmetic company) back to Avon Products, I mistakenly moved the page on March 3, 2026, due to being confused at how the article was written. California Perfume Company changed its name to Avon Products in 1939, I did not know this since the article only said that it changed its name to Avon. I found some two reliable references that said that the California Perfume Company changed its name to Avon Products in 1939. I also found some other stories on the internet that also were using the name Avon Products, and I added them to the article. After you move the page back to Avon Products, can you please delete my Avon (cosmetic company) mistake. Catfurball (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through proper processes and don’t ask me to intervene in situations I have had nothing to do with outside of my areas of interest. If you want to request a page move use WP:RMTR. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 02:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: If you have lost interest in moving pages then you should remove Category:Wikipedia page movers from your userpage. Catfurball (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What? That user category is for people with the WP:Page mover advanced permission, not any specific interest. And I still make regular page moves, but have never been interested in implementing requests specifically directed to me rather than going through proper processes. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 15:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:John F. Kennedy receiving honorary doctorate from Lord Beaverbrook at University of New Brunswick, 1957.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tinterest (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, I noticed you deleted Draft:Kalirao and protected the title under G5 sanctions. I understand that as a newer editor, I don’t yet have Extended Confirmed status. Would you be willing to move the deleted content to User:YourUsername/KaliraoLegacy so I can continue to improve the sources privately? I am a member of this group and want to ensure I follow Conflict of Interest guidelines while I work on it. Thanks! KaliraoLegacy (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be a violation of general sanctions. What I can do, though, and have done, is email you a copy of the deleted text. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 14:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pppery. I appreciate you emailing me the text. I understand that General Sanctions prevent this topic from being hosted as a draft right now. I will keep the research offline for now and focus on improving my edit count and finding academic, third-party sources before revisitng this topic in the future KaliraoLegacy (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand using AWB to add hatnote for disambiguated similarly named articles. From my cursory review of those edits, they are make sense and the few lists you added hatnotes too where bulleted or paragraph lists where you put the hatnote on the top of the section, not the whole article. I don’t get how a hatnote for 1 lake in a list of thousands of lakes can belong at the top of the article, instead of a far more similarly named, specific article like the Virginia lake example I mentioned. Additioanlly, the list of MN lakes article is a table, not separated by sections where the hatnote can be specifically placed above the name to disambiguate. It was a simple and seemingly AWB mistake and I mean nothing personal by undoing it, clearly the vast majority of your other uses are above reproach. Thanks SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You corrected this while I was writing this, thanks! SamuelNelsonGISP (talk)

Hi,

I’m trying to prepare File:HambonesMeditations.jpg for a move to Commons and cannot undelete the version of the file in the history. It looks like you also tried to prepare it for a move to Commons and reverted yourself. Do you understand what is going on? Is the file corrupted? — Whpq (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T423065. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 00:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Whpq (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shortcut-style further links has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pink Bee (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pppery, thank you for taking the time to mark articles unreviewed that were reviewed by UPE socks. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 16:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]