User talk:Pppery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Identified as a precious editor.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has redirect autopatrolled pseudo-rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Fayenatic London 20:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
For becoming an admin and immediately using your tools to get rid of the WT:CFDW backlog. Bravo. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 02:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFDs and relistings[edit]

Hello, Pppery,

First, congratulations on the RfA! I wasn't even aware of RfAs going on so I'm sorry to have missed participating in this.

I had a question I hope you can help me with. Tonight, I relisted 7 or 8 different AFD discussions. They were crossed out on the 8/10/23 AFD daily log but not pasted into the 8/17/23 AFD page so I cut and pasted them in. But what I'm concerned about is whether this has happened with other closers and that AFD discussions have gotten "lost" and not reposted. I've noticed that you frequently find AFDs that have fallen through the cracks so could you do a query or whatever you do to make sure that all AFDs that are still open are on a daily log from the past 7 days? I posted a comment about this on the XFDcloser talk page but I'm not sure how well that is monitored. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have two processes for finding bad AfDs. One is to look for subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that lack {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} or any other standard AfD formatting. The second is to look through User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD, which just lists all articles that have been in Category:Articles for deletion for the longest. So, no, I can't help you, or to be more precise don't feel like creating yet another maintenance list here when my current processes are working - especially when there are XfDs that haven't fallen through the cracks but have remained open since April so hastening the disposition of corner-cases is futile.
The one exception is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraheze (3rd nomination), where your July 28 relist failed but I'm involved substantively so can't do another procedural relist. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, this is even more of a mess. Apparently, the discussions were relisted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 16 even though it became August 17 UTC hours ago. So, they are now listed on two different daily logs. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unmaintained scripts. Yet another thing wrong with Wikipedia (see also Wikipedia:Bot requests#Restarting User:Reports bot). It's frankly demotivating, and one of several reasons why I prefer to edit manaully... * Pppery * it has begun... 04:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a suggestion, but perhaps a note at WP:VPT would be the quickest way to get third-party action on this? - jc37 05:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just stumbled upon User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention which lists outstanding AFDs so maybe that is a resource as well, so that no AFDs get lost in the relisting issue. I'm not a MOS stickler but that apostrophe really bothers me but I don't think I should move this page so it says "AFDs"! Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, the problem is that Cyberbot I is also unmaintained (when it stopped editing entirely a month or so ago it took 2 weeks for the owner to restart it), and thus things like this will never get done. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just tried relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitar Ason (2nd nomination) which seems to have gotten lost but it says that the old log page (from July) doesn't exist! Do these daily log pages get archived and protected or something? I guess this can be done manually. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably XfDCloser is complaining that it couldn't find the entry on the old log page with a poorly-written error message. But I have little motivation to investigate further. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fast History Merge of Battle of Kufit[edit]

I was doing the following steps:

  • 1. Tag the article for history-merge.
  • 2. Copy the recommended mealy-mouthed notice from the article template to the copying editor's user talk page.
  • 3. Decline the draft with an explanation that a history-merge was requested.

But when I declined the draft, it added the AFC decline to a redirect. I had not expected that, but you had already done the history merge.

You must have been in the category of history-merge requests when I tagged it. The community and the crats said we needed technical admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, actually I have Category:Candidates for history merging on my watchlist, and happened to check my watchlist at that specific moment. Ironically if I had seen it a minute or two later I would probably have left the history merge request for another admin, since the existence of later edits to the draft I am supposed to move the history away from makes it messier to history merge (since those edits would then be parented to nothing and appear to create the draft, which is unideal) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As the following is unsolicited feedback, I appreciate any consideration: regarding this comment, it sounds somewhat unkind to me. I suggest it might be more collaborative to reword it a bit. Again, thanks in advance for your time, and for your efforts in working on administrative tasks. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I declined your G4 speedy deletion proposal. The article is too different from the deleted version, and of the sources in the current revision, a couple of them look like they may meet WP:CORP requirements. You may want to take this to AFD again, for a third time. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an area where reasonable admins can disagree. I did look at the speedy deleted version, and didn't see the new version as different enough, but also knew that this was an area in which a second opinion would be useful (especially given the promises I made at RfA to stay away from controversial content-related admin actions) so I tagged it for speedy deletion instead of pushing the delete button myself. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. When another admin nominates something for speedy deletion, that certainly biases me toward deleting it, and I waffled back and forth in a conflicted state of mind, ready to hit the button even after studying the history. However, in the end I decided that the sourcing wasn't the same in the two versions, and it was clearly a fresh start by an editor who wasn't in the prior history, so I couldn't bring myself to delete it. Certainly if it's deleted again, it needs to be salted. Hopefully this third AFD will be the last. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I understood the idiom as innocuous, but - and this is merely a suggestion - but since idioms and civility were not tangently a part of the recent case, I might suggest treading a bit more lightly concerning the editors in question. YMMV of course.

That aside, I just wanted to say that, you've been lighting up my watchlist for awhile now. It looks like that you having the admin tools has pretty much turned out to be a positive. I'm glad that it's seemed to turn out useful for you. - jc37 03:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please stop breaking the page Nextcloud[edit]

 – * Pppery * it has begun... 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, about this![edit]

Yours, Ema--or (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's okay for you to implement the closure even if you were involved in the discussion, as the closer is the one assessing consensus. Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get that you see it that way (and you already told me this back on August 8), but I am not convinced. This definition of involvement is near the line, and different users can interpret it differently. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's up to your discretion. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical Query[edit]

Hello, Pppery,

You are such a technical whiz, Pppery, I'm hoping you can help me with a weird glitch. Gunnel Adlercreutz is appearing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user even though it isn't tagged for speedy deletion. I looked through all of the content on the page and can't see anything that might be causing it to appear in a CSD category. I purged the cache on both the article page and the category page but no luck. Sometimes strange stuff like this can happen when pages are merged but I can't see evidence that this happened. Can you see anything that might be causing this article to appear as if the page creator was requesting it to be deleted? Thanks, in advance, for your help. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Liz, the category had in fact been manually added to the article, I just removed it via HotCat. It was present in the article due to a bug with the AFCH gadget, which moved the category that was linked in one of the comments on the draft, down into the category section of the page. This is because the AFCH script cleans up the draft when it's accepted, and as part of that, replaces links to categories with the actual category. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on your RFA[edit]

Hi, I see that I missed your RFA – one which I certainly would have supported. Congratulations in being awarded the mop and toolkit.

I applaud your getting stuck in, and your expressed intention to initially confine your admin work to areas that you know well. I also note with approval your willingness to take a break when you need it. If you haven't registered it already, WP:DGAF is a crudely-expressed motto but it's an approach that has helped me to stay balanced. You know you do good work here; just carry on with it, when it suits you.

It's particularly good to have another admin sharing the workload at CFD. Feel free to ping me if ever you would value some advice from an old hand in that area. – Fayenatic London 10:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It's been a year since I suggested you run for RfA, and that seems to have gone well (or, at least, ended well). I'm back asking you to be the change you wish to see in the world (or, at least, wished to see a week ago). WP:BN and the instructions are thataway. HouseBlastertalk 02:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I know. It would be a shame that the existing group of Iadmins are unable do to their one job, but I guess I will step up to the plate eventually. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secret Six close[edit]

Hello, only 3 editors contributed to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_10#Category:Secret_Six and there was no policy-based reason for keeping. "It's important" is not a reason for keeping. Instead of closing, could you relist the discussion to get an actual consensus?--User:Namiba 13:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would vote to keep as well, it's a useful category, so I think this was the correct outcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You made your case, and it failed to convince any of the other participants. The generally accepted standard for WP:SMALLCAT is five anyway, which this has more than. Take it to DRV if you really insist. I personally think we relist discussions far more than we should - it often accomplishes nothing but dragging things out without bringing them closer to a resolution. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for being entirely unhelpful. Three people participated. Two people made ideological claims not based on sources. I think you are letting your own ideology cloud your role as an administrator. It isn't the role of the admin to project your ideology onto discussions, but that is exactly what you're doing. Perhaps you should re-read Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus.--User:Namiba 19:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you were fine until ASPERSIONS. If you're going to accuse someone of something, please point to the evidence. Most of what I see in Pppery's response would appear to be within closer discretion. - jc37 19:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see either of the keep comments as ideological claims not based on sources - one of them even explicitly cited sources. Anyway, this line of argument is not going to convince me to change my close. Take it to DRV if you really have to. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain what consensus emerged from that discussion? Your belief that relisting discussions "accomplishes nothing" seems to be coloring your decision here and I'd like further explanation.--User:Namiba 20:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see from User:Fayenatic london's post above that you were just given admin status, so perhaps you aren't familiar with how CFD works. Relisting is mandatory when a consensus hasn't developed.--User:Namiba 20:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Namiba: that does not fit the case. There was no support for the nomination, and the second Oppose pointed out that the nominator's rationale was mistaken – 7 is already "more than a few". – Fayenatic London 20:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here we have the exact same scenario but it was relisted. A category was nominated, the creating editor opposed deletion, and a third editor supported deletion. I don't know how a consensus can be built with a discussion of just 3 people and 1 of the 3 disagrees with the other two. Asking for a category to be relisted when a discussion has limited participation has been the norm for the entire time I've been on Wikipedia and I sure would hate for newly-minted administrators to impose their ideology to destroy that.--User:Namiba 21:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, you can find examples where two-against-one discussions are relisted. You can also find examples where they are closed in favor of the two, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music on Film-Film on Music (I nominated, two other users refuted the nomination, it was closed as keep). And I don't think three users is limited participation at CfD's scale.
Let's suppose I were to overturn my close and relist this now. Amakuru said above that he would !vote keep. Do you really expect enough uninvolved users to show up to produce a consensus to merge, or are you just trying to waste everyone's time proving a point.
I've said twice already that I'm not going to overturn this close, and you have not come any closer to convincing me otherwise. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closed mindedness and opposition to discussion are not good qualities in administrators. I've said my piece and it seems clear that you have not been interested in discussing this at any point in this conversation. I hope you will act in better-faith in the future than you have here.--User:Namiba 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riize cut and paste[edit]

@Namiba: Regarding Riize's article, I actually did copy and paste for a draft that existed at the time. I had been working on that draft since May/June earlier this year. The draft was rejected saying the subject was not yet notable around the start of August, but then a new article started for them immediately after that was seemingly approved, but lacked alot of the information I had. So I copied and pasted the draft to the new article. Is there a way you could merge the histories? - K-popguardian (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is why edit summaries are important-your edit that added +2,489 bytes looked a lot more like natural article growth than an overwrite to me. I guess I could move the edits before yours to another title and fill the gap with the draft edits, but something doesn't feel quite right about that to me. I'll revert my decline and leave this for another admin to evaluate. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick histmerge. It looks the content was also copy and pasted into and out of 4-Me-aMT briefly. I think this should be merged in as well, ideally? Thanks for taking a look. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see nothing worth merging there - it's just one edit by one person and the history is attributed enough as is. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I seem to have messed up the formatting here, and rather than continuing to guess at it I figured I should ask someone who actually knows what he's doing. Any suggestions? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think ** needs to be inside the #switch ({{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}=| ** [[WP:CSD#G1|G1]]: [[WP:PN|Patent nonsense]], meaningless, or incomprehensible ** [[WP:CSD#G2|G2]]: Test page }}). Other than that it looks fine. While we're at it, the "Other reason" entry should probably be removed, not only because we shouldn't be encouraging nonstandard deletion reasons, but because there's also a built-in "other reason" entry above the standard dropdown. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, thanks: the list formatting was wonky in preview mode, but it seems to work fine in practice. Agree re: "other reason", though it's probably worth spacing the changes out a bit. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey mate, I was wondering if you might want to chime in on this since you were involved in the recently concluded discussion for its counterpart? Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen that discussion, but don't really have anything to say, other than that it really should have been closed as no consensus rather than relisted since it's already been open for almost a month. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB permissions[edit]

hello! not sure who to go about this, however I recently had my account renamed (prev: Dawnbails) and I've lost my AWB permissions as a result. I was wondering if you could change the username in the AWB list to my new one? thanks! darling (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an RfC officially deprecating this interlanguage page? My concern is that it still shows up prominently in interlanguage links and still gets occasional use. Another problem is why are there two embassy pages? One called Wikipedia:Embassy and another called Wikipedia:Local Embassy? One could be merged into the other maybe... Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, no RfC, just a clear reflection of reality - it looks like nobody used the page in ages. {{Historical}} is a reflection of reality, not a cause of one. I think Wikipedia:Embassy was intended to be a local page fulfilling the same role as m:Wikimedia Embassy (explaining the Embassy system), whereas Wikipedia:Local Embassy was supposed to be the English Wikipedia's part of that system. But now nobody cares, and we should stop holding on to dying traditions. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I went ahead and redirected that page to Wikipedia:Local Embassy. The whole embassy system is confusing and I'll probably have to ask on Meta why Wikimedia projects have two embassy pages. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 17:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moom deletion[edit]

Hello Pppery, Moom was deleted about 7 hours after my post, and it got one response, but it was not for the target of Múm, the Icelandic band. Let me know what you suggest - either I can recreate the page as a redirect to Múm, or you can reopen the RfD for some days. Múm was in the hatnote of the Moom article in the past, so it can be seen as a redirect candidate since the article about the British band was deleted. Jay 💬 06:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead. I did see your comment, but the consensus to delete was clear and sufficiently strong that IMO the late retarget proposal would not have come to a consensus even if it were relisted (and I personally think we tend to relist too much anyway). There's no reason we can't have a separate RfD on the appropriateness of the Moom->Múm redirect if necessary, without the baggage of the past. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP Louisville FocusNoms speedy[edit]

What's interesting is that this deletion is just simple housekeeping on this temporary, defunct project file (worked on by just myself and a now-retired user), so I can't see it makes sense to go through any extended process. The cruft in the project isn't that bad at this point. I honestly thought I could just toss it in the waste can, so to speak. Oh well. Maybe some other defunct project files can get deleted easier. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 23:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not vandalism[edit]

[2] OK, I understand the point, but rollback should not be used to revert stuff that is not vandalism. Bedivere (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Pppery,

Sorry if I messed up this page merge. I get frustrated when editors empty out existing categories in favor of brand new categories they just created which vary only slightly from the original category. But I guess my solution just caused a mess. Thank you for fixing it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Carino's Italian redirects to Johnny Carino's but Talk:Johnny Carino's redirects to Talk:Carino's Italian. It may just need a round-robin swap on the talk pages but I see you've done a histmerge, so I thought I'd better bring it here in case a more complex solution is needed. Certes (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed that. It just needed a swap, except I'm an admin so can delete the trivial redirect without swapping. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes there is evidence that Draft:Duodecimal was created in error[edit]

As I explained on the draft's talk page We have the existing article Duodecimal so there is no need for a draft redirect. And duodecimal (base 12) is not hexadecimal (base 16) so this redirect makes no sense. Meters (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how that establishes it was created in error. You'd have to establish not only that the redirect is unneeded, but that the creator would agree that the redirect is unneeded. With rare exceptions, I interpret that subcriterion as only applying to cases where the creator has, either explicitly or implicitly acknowledged their own mistake, i.e 24TeamBracket-NoSeeds where someone created a page in mainspace and moved it to template space one minute later.
I have no idea what the creator was trying to do, but I'm not convinced every edit they made was an error sufficiently obvious for G6 as you seem to think. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, how do you suggest that we get rid of these useless and incorrect drafts? Meters (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do they need to be gotten rid of? Do they cause any harm? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, in my opinion. We now have erroneous drafts (yes, maybe the other two can be considered not to have been created in error, but Draft:Duodecimal is a clear error. It's pointing to the wrong article, and the other two contain glaring errors: in Draft:Pentadecimal Senary is defined as base 7 when it is actually base 6, and Draft:Octal starts off with "The bass 20", which is presumable supposed to be "The base 20", and base 20 makes zero sense.) clogging things up. They are drafts that actually point to the existing articles on the subjects.
Why would we want to keep these? If you're not interested in speedying these as errors, or drafts that are attempting to duplicate existing subjects, or any other reason then just then just say so and I'll take this elsewhere. After seeing this [3] series of edits (twice) by the IP to one of his draft targets I'm wandering if this is intentional disruption. Meters (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have deleted Draft:Duodecimal as R3. I am not interested in speedying the others - I'm still not convinced any speedy deletion criterion applies other than G13 after 6 months, nor that they need to be speedy deleted faster than 6 months. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected page[edit]

Hi, I saw that you commented the edit requests on this page ( ).

Great that you noticed it.

I would also like to point out that some of the points present in the page are still part of the personal attacks that originated the page protection. You can see that the edit restoration (and following protection) was done for the last set of attacks but if you see past edits there's more of that.

These claims are the ones that mention a 8th and 4th positions through the page multiple times. You can clearly see by clicking on the cited sources that there's no mention of these informations and there's nothing about that on the internet in general. In fact no consensus was reached to add these informations and it was always done by the same anonymous user.

I think they should be removed.

And also, the mention at the end of the page about the online course may look like a promotion so it's better to remove it too imo. (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming you're not Lucio Scatola evading your block, then feel free to make requests for specific edits on the talk page and someone (who may or may not be me) will handle it in due time. I have just as little inclination to intervene in favor of your side of the dispute as I did yesterday to intervene in favor of the other side. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, clear.
I will try to make the edit request.
Just to understand: if the statements are poorly sourced, like it seems to be, why isn't possible for you to verify them and, possibly, do the edit?
Not a polemical question. (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's possible, just not something I have the time and motivation to do right now. I am not obligated to do any specific task on Wikipedia * Pppery * it has begun... 21:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect WikiProject Integrity 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/2023 October 11 § WikiProject Integrity until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just curious, who is this edit summary of yours directed at? - wolf 03:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "you" was VintageNebula, who added a RM that was opened relatively recently to the page. But of course I didn't expect them to adhere to my idiosyncratic definition of fairness, so perhaps a better phrasing was "if this RM is listed for an out-of-sequence closure ..." * Pppery * it has begun... 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. I just added a request to the top of list yesterday, so I wasn't sure. Fyi, VintageNebula is a new user with only ≈25 edits, so maybe they didn't know any better? Anyway, thanks for the clarification. - wolf 04:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah hey it's me; my apologies! Wasn't my intention to be unfair or dismissive towards the other long-standing closure requests. I'm new and not entirely familiar with the norms, I thought it was ok because the discussion stopped for several days. I'll learn from this for next time. 🌌 VintageNebula (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, for someone "not entirely familiar" with WP, you sure seem pretty familiar with WP just the same. And now thanks to this gripe that Pppery has with you, he's flooded the close request page and it'll take forever for an admin to mine. <sarcasm>Nice work, guys.</sarcasm> - wolf 01:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not a gripe. I've been listing all 7-day discussions that have been open for more than a month since mid August, and would probably have gotten to those RMs eventually anyway. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't make the page any less flooded with discussions that are only few weeks old, and doesn't the fact that you a point of telling of some "newbie" in the summary while doing so. - wolf 02:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module:Adjacent stations/PKP Intercity[edit]

Hi! You've recently ubdo my edits in Module:Adjacent stations/PKP Intercity due to Lua errors. Ofcourse I do understand that it is my responsibility to clean up after myself. I am not an experienced editor. I did look trough few articles on What links here module special page after I had published my edits and I fixed all error I found. Apparently there were a lot more. Could you instruct me where I would be able to find list of all errors after I will make my edits? Best regards -- Antoni12345 (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All articles with Lua errors are listed in Category:Pages with script errors, although it may take an hour or two for the list to update after a template edit. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks! — Antoni12345 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:WikiProject Nigeria participants[edit]

Hi Pppery, Good morning! Hope you're fine. Why is the Category:WikiProject Nigeria participants suddenly missing? It's disappearance is not even in logs again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that Category:WikiProject Nigeria members is about to be renamed to that category, but the rename hasn't happened yet. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! Thanks. I was not even aware of that discussion. I wonder though. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what happened here. I thought User:JJMC89 bot III had moved all of these WikiProject Members categories and these categories that appeared on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories were just leftover since they were empty. I'm sorry for the extra work you spent, restoring them and then moving them to the correct, to the Participants page titles. I don't know why JJMC89 bot III hadn't gotten to them yet since the contents had been moved over, just not the category pages. My apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of these categories, like Category:WikiProject Environment participants, are actually Redirect caategories that still are tagged as Redirects. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JJMC89 bot III hasn't gotten to them because people are manually checking that all templates are updated before feeding them to the bot. Others are doing moves manuallty without using the bot. And yes, the redirect problems will all be addressed by various people in due time. And some of the categories are currently empty because the cache needs to update to recognize a template change. Why don't you just disengage here and let this be handled by others who know what's going on? Having to spend an hour cleaning up a mess that took a minute to make (and on top of that caused permanent damage due to a years-old unresolved bug) is seriously demotivating. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, this is a low priority, but as a member of WikiProject Kentucky, I'd like to see the most recently edited articles in the Kentucky orbit. I saw that you added a project to the HotArticlesBot run list in August, and so I'd like to inquire if this can be done for Kentucky too. If you do it, you can simply copy the settings from WikiProject Louisville, which I had requested to be added in the past. Thank you in advance, and again this isn't an immediate need. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 22:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! Thank you so much! Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 22:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for fixing Template:Chronological[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your help with the Chronological template. Obviously, I didn't do what I was suppose to when I created it ten years ago and it has been something that has bother me for along time, but I haven't felt like I had the full understanding needed to make the appropriate additions to make it a proper maintenance category. I am sorry that you had to fix my problems and I am grateful that you did so. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User with two accounts littering the wiki with pompous language[edit]

I was thinking of going to WP:ANI with this, but I figured asking an admin might be better, as this isn't a major dispute. A user with (apparently) two accounts (User:Evanwilliams1121, User:Creativityhuman) is going around to predominantly healthcare articles and (almost always) rewriting text in violation of Avoid affected, pompous, or excessive language. Most of their recent edits have been reverted by myself and others. Even after being called on it, they just keep coming back and doing more of the same. Other egregious aspects is they mark all their edits as minor and don't explain their changes with an edit summary. It seems to me they are using the Wikipedia for a kind of creative writing exercise or using an AI tool to come up with alternative text. Can something be done about this? I have a hard time seeing this user is WP:Here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your consideration. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 19:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead and take this to ANI or ask a different admin - I'm not the right person to handle this since, among other things, I pledged to refrain from using the block button in my RfA. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My stupid hack[edit]

I assume this referred to the existence of Template:Automatic_archive_navigator_editsection itself, which is indeed a grotesquely stupid hack. If I was a Lua man, I would just incorporate the suppression of those magic words as a flag into the normal module (and a very good one I'd have to be since it's transcluded on 19 squillion pages)... jp×g 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. And the reason for that edit was that the examples didn't use your hack. And it's also stupid IMO to encourage edits to archives, but whatever. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discord check[edit]

Hey Pppery. I was giving admin role to new RfAs in Discord today and checked on yours. An account using your name joined some years ago and never chatted or auth'd. Since you're sysop now and I don't want any risk of impersonation, could you confirm if it were you? I can also boot the account if you don't plan to use it or if it wasn't you. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's conceivable that at one point I may have created an account on discord many years ago and then forgot about it, or it could be impersonation. In any event I have no plans of becoming active on discord right now, so you can just boot the account. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! -- ferret (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please could you take another look at Pakhli? I've restored the redirect again after the article reappeared courtesy of an IP in the same /16 as the previous ones. Like your reversion, mine also undid some useful-looking edits by Farleftguy, who is new to Wikipedia but obviously knows their way around. Thanks, Certes (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would not be at all surprised if Farleftguy is a sock of Khan of Naral - the behavior seems similar enough. I'll probably file a SPI for both the account and the IP in a few hours. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I also had suspicions but don't know the history well enough to go straight to SPI myself. Certes (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currency tracking: cleanup tag[edit]

I created Currency tracking from a redirect article to be a disambig article, so if it needs a cleanup, I am responsible and will do the work on it. Could you elaborate your reasons for the tag?

Yes, I realise that most disambig articles are of the form

  • A (Cyrillic)
  • A (Greek)
  • A (Latin)

to disambiguate a simple A (pretending for the exercise that there is no primary topic); the article clearly does not comply with that model.

The other method that might apply is a wp:Broad-concept article but I really can't see that being relevant: the only "broad concept" that applies is "currency", interpreted so broadly as to be trivially relevant. What we have here is a case of the same words being used to mean different things. Do we have a mechanism for that? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It needs cleanup as the descriptions are far too long. See MOS:DABSHORT. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always look for the complicated answer! tyvm. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Holiday music 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/2023 November 10 § Holiday music until a consensus is reached. olderwiser 17:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blue Spirit. redirect or disambig[edit]

All, or almost all of the pages that link to "Blue Spirit" do so for the animation studio, not the section for an episode of ATLA. Surely it makes more sense for it to be a disambig page than something that redirects people to the mostly wrong target? (Hohum @) 19:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An entry on a disambiguation page is required to be supported by an article on the English Wikipedia that mentions the claimed use. The disambiguation page you created failed that requirement, instead relying only on the French Wikipedia which is not an acceptable substitute since you can't assume readers speak French. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, it's better to have a bunch of links from other articles definitely going to the wrong place? Can we come up with a better solution? (Hohum @) 19:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have unlinked all of the articles linking to the wrong meaning of Blue Spirit. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help merging Glitch Productions[edit]

Hello! I was wondering if you could please help merge the draft histories between Draft:Glitch Productions and Glitch Productions, as a user copied and pasted the draft into the mainspace. - K-popguardian (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately there are WP:Parallel histories here, as both the draft and the article have unrelated versions in April-September 2022, which makes a standard history merge not practical. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Tifa art[edit]

Sorry about that, forgot I'd uploaded that over his old image. Though to be fair, Niemti/SNAAAAKE isn't likely to come back as is. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm obviously not a disinterested party here, but the no-consensus-means-overturn rule for speedies on DRV hasn't ever really been applied to pages that have gone through deletion discussions. Certainly not for G4s that haven't been temp-undeleted and then examined specifically for similarity.

Not asking that you reinstate your close, just hoping to prevent a dystopic "no consensus for drvs of afds means we have to overturn, so long as someone's reposted it at least once!" future. —Cryptic 02:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. I'm still going to let someone else close, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your motivation for tagging How are you? (initiative) with CSD:G5, and appreciate you not outright deleting it. However, while the novice editor is not XC, the article itself seems well sourced, and not directly related to the conflict at all. It is questionable whether it falls under the content ban, but even if it does, we should still apply judgement in each case based on the content. Owen× 15:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh. It's not at all questionable to me that an article that explicitly links to Russo-Ukrainian War is "related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed". But whatever. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair point; I changed the wording to a more neutral one, so now it's a generic reference to the war as an event, without pointing at an aggressor. Owen× 15:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Pppery, I noticed you added an RfD template to the Paupers deck challenge, but I couldn't find this redirect's entry in the RfD logs. Am I overlooking something? – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops. I've added the log entry now. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To promote WikiLove[edit]


ThatOneWolf has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ThatOneWolf (talk|contribs) 04:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agriculture footer[edit]

Hi Pppery, you reverted my edit with the claim "These are invisible tags that don't affect the display of this navbox ".

Unfortunately, they definitely do affect the display. In Firefox, they cause the labels to appear like this, broken across multiple lines:

"Agrivoltaic Aquaculture Cattle Dairy farming Fur farming Goat farming Grazing

   Convertible husbandry Rotational grazing

Hydroponics Insect farming Livestock


Mixed Paddy field Pastoral


Pig farming Poultry farming Ranch Orchards Sheep farming Terrace Wildlife farming"

That seems to me quite disastrous as a bit of "invisible" formatting. When I formatted it, it appeared correctly like this:

"Agrivoltaic Aquaculture Cattle Dairy farming Fur farming Goat farming Grazing Convertible husbandry Rotational grazing Hydroponics Insect farming Livestock Pasture Mixed Paddy field Pastoral Bocage Pig farming Poultry farming Ranch Orchards Sheep farming Terrace Wildlife farming"

I don't know how your tag system is meant to work, but it is not working properly at this moment. I would suggest you remove the transclusions or whatever they are and just format the list the usual way, so that it works; or else find some other solution that works properly. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to have fixed the visible formatting. I have good understanding of either why it broke or why that fixes it * Pppery * it has begun... 19:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Pppery,

I'm not exactly sure what has happened here. This is a recently created category that contains nonsense content but it is filled to overflowing with talk pages. Has some template been altered to fill this CSD-tagged category with talk pages? This category can't be deleted until it is emptied but I don't think anyone manually added all of these pages to it. I'm hoping you can figure out what happened to cause this category to be filled as you are brilliant with this kind of detective work. Thanks, in advance, for any help you can supply. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some template somewhere is checking if "Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in FOO" exists and populating it if it does, where FOO turns out to be the empty string sometimes. I didn't investigate what template it was, but in any case WP:NULLEDITing the page removes it from the category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason for speedy deletion of newly formed group "Al-Aqsa vanguard"[edit]

Sir, I would like to the reason for the speedy deletion of newly formed group "Al-Aqsa vanguard". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam6897 (talkcontribs) 00:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because non-extended-confirmed users aren't allowed to create articles in this topic area. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Bitung clashes[edit]

Can you point me to a consensus somewhere that specifies that articles created in contravention of the ECP restriction should be automatically deleted? As far as I can tell the ArbCom decision says "permitted but not required", meaning it is up to discretion, and this article doesn't seem to me to be worth throwing out just because of who made it. Am I understanding this correctly? – bradv 06:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, for one, think we should enforce consistent standards rather than engaging in special pleading on the merits of every single article. There's also a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Suggestion: Expansion of G5 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The big difference to me between deleting an article outright and merely reverting the additions is that in the latter case the material is available in the history if someone else wants to take it over. Also, in the latter case, presumably they would have been warned that their content might be removed, either on the talk page or via the page notice. In this case there was no such warning available to the author of that text. So deleting the article outright is completely unfair. – bradv 16:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see nothing unfair about consistently enforcing the rules - on the contrary unfairness comes from arbitrary/selective enforcement. Yes, ideally we would have an edit filter warning about this beforehand, but that doesn't matter now. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, this clearly needs a broader conversation. I will raise my concerns in the discussion you mentioned. – bradv 18:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think draftification might be sometimes appropriate; that way an ECP editor if they want to take responsibility for the article can do so. Galobtter (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't creating the article in draft space be just as much of a violation of general sanctions? Thus draftification wouldn't actually solve the problem. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dodgy speedy cat renaming[edit]

Hi. I'm contacting you as an admin involved in the speedy category renaming page. I haven't touched that area.

A user called User:Russian Rocky proposed that a category about a place in Ukraine should be moved to the Russian spelling (Mukacheve to Mukachevo).[4] This should not be speediable IMO as it is strongly POV. I don't watch the category but I do watch the article on the radar station which should be under the Russian transliteration as that was the name used during the Soviet era when it was operational. However renaming places to their Russian name is dodgy and should have been picked up on, really. Secretlondon (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like they renamed the articles to the Russian spelling before submitting the speedy request. Secretlondon (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks to me like the speedy rename was correct as the article has been stable at Mukachevo since 2017 and the category names should follow the article names. If you think the article should be titled Mukacheve, feel free to file a RM for that and the categories will follow. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Your recent edit to the {{Airntd}} template repopulated a lot of the same redlinked "Soviet aircraft" and "Russian aircraft" categories that caused the whole thing to have to be reverted back in September.

I don't really remember all the details of what went down in September — I brought them to Jonesey95's attention at the time, but wasn't otherwise involved in sorting the problem after that, so I don't know all the details of why it had to be reverted rather than the categories just being created — and thus I'm not sure what to do with them now. They obviously can't stay red, but I don't want to create them if that'll screw other things up again, and I also don't want to just revert your template change arbitrarily because I don't know what other steps you may already have taken this time to prevent complications.

Accordingly, I just wanted to ask: is it safe to actually create the categories this time, or is this an unexpected snafu that's going to have to be sent back to the drawing board again? I'm obviously willing to create them if they're safe, I just don't want to mess things up by assuming anything without checking first since it was a big ol' shitshow just a couple months ago. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need - I've fixed the template to no longer populate these redlinked categories, and still populate the "Soviet and Russian foo aircraft" parents if the more specific parent doesn't exist. For reasons that are beyond me, this split is happening piece by piece at CfD instead of all at once, which occasionally causes problems like this. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pouring has been accepted[edit]

Pouring, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft deletion: CLEF Coalition[edit]

Hi @Pppery, I created an article titled CLEF Coalition aiming to collate info from the web about the partnership so internet users might be able to find out about it from Wikipedia with many different sources other than the organisation's own website. It was rejected for not having enough independent sources. I have been able to gather more independent sources and wanted to add them to expand the article's credibility and resubmit. Unfortunately, you have deleted the draft in the meantime. Could you please clarify what I need to do here and how I can proceed with resubmitting? Many thanks. Schwedinnen (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article you wrote was clearly just advertising and not a credible attempt at writing an encyclopedia article. You need to start again, writing in a non-promotional tone (not saying things like "CLEF demonstrates the power of collaboration", "One of CLEF's guiding principles is to invest in proven solutions", etc.) Aren't these things every company would claim to do? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response @Pppery - the goal is not to advertise, thank you for making the nature of the writing clear from your perspective! I am very happy to create a new draft with the intention of writing an encyclopedia article with independent sources. Can I simply resubmit a new draft once it is done? Thanks again for your help. Schwedinnen (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor experience invitation[edit]

Hi Pppery :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]