User talk:Pppery

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Welcome!

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

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

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

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

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

DYK

For the record it would be easier to simply drop a line on my talk page asking if I did a copyvio check/hook length check rather than pinging every DYK review I've done over the last few days. Every hook I reviewed was copyvio checked (with some flagged and noted for being probable copyvios) with Earwigs during their review and the hook lengths were also eyeballed for length. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I'm a little puzzled. Looking at your contribs it is clear that you went though almost every DYK I reviewed recently but you only flagged some as "incomplete" while others you merely commented on, and one you even approved even with a QPQ pushing a month and a half (also, the reason we introduced QPQ a few years ago is that we have a perpetual backlog of hooks, if their is no time limit someone like me who has been volunteering on and off and DYK for nearly a decade could conceivably use hooks from years ago and never review again). Have I done something to offend or upset you? I've worked with DYK for years on and off and from the tone of some of your comments I'm must admit I'm concerned. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you did not offend me. In fact, I don't recall having any interactions with you prior to yesterday. I didn't flag as incomplete because the review mentioned a copyvio check (... Earwig ...). Nor was I specifically focusing on you. I was going through Template talk:Did you know/Approved, starting just above the special occasion area, and scrolling up, flagging any incomplete reviews I noticed. Pppery 14:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of "(disambiguation)"

Since in the discussion at Talk:Haswell (CPU)#Requested move 11 February 2017, you expressed an opinion regarding the use of disambiguators, these two current discussions, Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 February 2017 and Talk:Edward Wynne#Requested move 10 February 2017, both of which focus on that subject, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

US stations

Hi Pppery

I'm not sure about the station entries you're adding at WP:RMTR. Although I sort of agree that the disambiguator is not necessary, there's a fairly strong precedent for including the line in parentheses in every case, even where there's no ambiguity. See, for example, Category:IRT Second Avenue Line stations, Category:IRT Lenox Avenue Line stations, Category:New York City Subway stations in Queens, New York, etc. Practically all of them have a disambiguator. I think this might be better handled as a multimove request at WP:RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I don't really see why a full RM is ncessary here, since the removal of parenthetical disambiguators that are not needed is usually considered uncontroversial. BTW, I had moved East 105th Street myself since there was no competing title. Pppery 15:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I see it as controversial, mainly because so many articles are titled this way. It really is every station on the New York City subway. There's also a question of WP:USSTATION, which in general advises that the word "station" should appear somewhere in the name. You may well be right, and the community may agree to support the move in an RM, but it's clearly been set up this way for a reason, and a wholesale change of this nature, potentially affecting every subway station, is not automatically uncontroversial I would have thought. I don't specifically object to the moves, but it's perfectly possible others may. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pppery. I'm posting here because I saw the requested moves you made. I'd agree with them, but only if there's a new uniform standard for NYC Subway station titles (for instance, Howard Beach–JFK Airport would be better located at Howard Beach–JFK Airport because it's also an AirTrain station, but it would also be better located at Howard Beach–JFK Airport station (IND Rockaway Line) or Howard Beach–JFK Airport station if we were to go strictly by WP:USSTATION, which is also disputed).

However, for the most part the consensus at WP:NYCPT has been against the page titles without disambiguators, if only because disambiguators allow consistency across articles about stations on the same line (e.g. from the current page title, you can see Howard Beach is on the IND Rockaway Line). Additionally, these page titles are NYCPT policy so they have been very hard to change: the only agreed-on changes in recent years have been the removal of spaces between endashes in the title. The mass RM is needed to uphold the policy standard, but I suggest that you read the lengthy discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) for a similar move that was rejected. Thank you, epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Epicgenius, TonyBallioni, and Kew Gardens 613: RM discussion started Here. Pppery 18:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

'Flint Water Crisis' - Disagree with name change

I have followed the crisis closely and it has been regularly been referred to as the 'Flint Water Crisis' - if at all it has rarely been referred to as the "Flint, Michigan Water Crisis" - even if it has, the most common term is the former. Rather than undo-ing the change I suggest an alternative title: "Flint Water Crisis (Michigan)" or something similar. Thoughts? Pajokie (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)pajokie

(edit conflict) Strongly oppose that title as an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguator. If you want to revert my move, just do it. Pppery 01:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There's an old saying

Possibly attributed to George Washington...

It is generally best to keep silent
and be thought a fool,
than to open one's mouth
and remove all doubt.

I'm totally bemused by your hyper-focus on a simple discussion about future strategy, nor why you would want to affect so many pages with a unnecessary protected edit accomplished no additional publicity for the discussion. Between the Vpump and the TFD. As I noted in the VP, the many probably don't realize there exist a better and best choice than the column templates... which I've used extensively btw, over the years. God knows, I'm the last person anyone around here would call a deletionist, especially for a template tool! For Pete's sake, I headed up the old interwiki templates dissemination and co-ordination project back in 2008-09ish, and helped categorize most back then. Also invented the doc-page documentation system with CBD and Tim, though the implementation was improved a bit by the template programmers crowd a few weeks in. Most good template documentation started from those projects! So Relax. That TFD snowball is just to get a consensus without a RFC! And to improve performance in PAD computers. Kids have them integrated onto a space 14" below their nose, these days! // FrankB 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not hyper-focusing on that one tfd, my actions there are something I do with most tfds in which the templates were not properly tagged. I made that protected edit request because it says at WP:TFD#Listing a template, a tfd tag should be added at every template, and it should only be noincluded if the template is substituted (which this one isn't). Pppery 22:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Full stop - Your Name

I see that you had reverted my edit. I've undone your revert, and am here to prevent any edit wars. Here is the link to my rationale. The talk page also clarifies my reasoning. Please read them carefully.

Good day.

LoMStalk 17:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@LordofMoonSpawn: "Your Name." is a technically valid title that was in fact the former title of the article. Therefore, {{correct title}} is inaproppriate. Pppery 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the move log: the person who renamed/moved the article was incorrect to do that. Why? Because there are guidelines to naming an article, i.e. policy dictates that we may not use . or .. in a title. And since Your Name. is the official translation used by the producers/distributors, and we're restricted by that specific policy, that should be reflected in the article. Hence the use of {{correct title}}.

Linking WP:NC-SLASH again, and emboldening the relevant sentences for your convenience.

Page names consisting of exactly one or two periods (full stops), or beginning with ./ or ../, or containing /./ or /../, or ending with /. or /.., are not allowed. In most such cases DISPLAYTITLE will not work, so {{correct title}} should be used. As a result of this, the abbreviation of Slashdot, /., does not redirect to the page.

I hope the above clarifies any confusion.

LoMStalk 23:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@LordofMoonSpawn: "Your Name." does not "[consist] of exactly one or two periods (full stops), [begin] with ./ or ../, [contain] /./ or /../, [nor end] with /. or /.." Also, policy is not a technical restriction.

policy dictates that we may not use . or .. in a title. I see no such policy at WP:NC-SLASH. The text you are quoting prohibits titles designed to look like unnecessary long file paths like "a/b/../c", or "a/b/.". Pppery 00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. My brain was substituting consisting with containing. I was in error.

You can revert my edit. If you don't, I'll do it later on, since I'm preoccupied right now.

Good job for correcting me.

LoMStalk 01:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The Outcasts (2017 film)

I see you removed the year. It's been fixed now but it's important to look at what other articles exist before removing part of articles' titles. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit glitch

Thanx for the fix.[1] I just wanted you to know my change was inadvertent. My browser is glitchy today, and I didn't even notice what happened. Alsee (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

National emergency number of Australia

Regarding this request: I ended up settling on Triple Zero (000) as the title, largely due to the subject being referred to that way throughout the article (i.e. 18 times), and it being presented that way in some of the sources (especially official ones). However, as an American, I'm largely unfamiliar with the topic. If you think another title is more appropriate, let me know, and I'll either implement it or start a requested move (depending on the suggested title). Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Why did you notify me about this discussion, when I had already participated in earlier versions of it. Pppery 12:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for asking. This was for the formal Request Move discussion. For neutrality's sake, I contacted every single editor who edited the article or its talk page over the course of the last year. Boy, did that turn out to be more work than I thought! Thank you for your understanding. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to WT:CSD

The usage of Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale and the WP:F7 are discussed at WT:CSD. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

JavaScript RegExp problem

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RegExp is not one of my skills in that area. Sorry. Pppery 19:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, numbers are not supposed to redirect to timeline pages anymore

But I'm not an admin, so... Serendi^podous 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How about WP:RMTR? Pppery 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

...for fixing the Signal/One mess. Some backstory here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

... strange that reverting one of your edits would be considered "fixing" ... Pppery 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I probably should have reverted it myself, but couldn't figure out at the time why the page wouldn't dismbig from signal. Anyway, my thanks is sincere. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Yes, slashes in titles can be confusing. Pppery 23:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Chesterton

Good idea, that works if the most notable individuals have direct links (as in this example, G.K., A.K., and Frank).

What are the rules for which people are sufficiently notable? --pmj (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please note that Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature says A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page and A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. I for one find your current sig distracting and hard to identify. It also increases he line spacing where it is used, or so it appears. Please consider changing it. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you intend to consider this, and change or respond? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question - your signature makes it pretty much impossible to easily get to your talk page on a mobile or tablet. Please change it before I get consensus to change it for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please respond to this. Jonathunder (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And I've changed my signature to {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk), to be reminiscent of the fact that my recent edits have been about removing code duplication from templates and modules. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Although I stayed shut I objected to the previous sig and I object to your new one - Both are as equally bad as each other, Can you not just have a normal sig like the rest of us ?. –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Loop in template language

Thanks for your edit on Template:Births and deaths by year for decade.[2] I never knew this arcane template language had a loop construct! We learn something every day on Wikipedia… — JFG ^talk 23:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

DAB cleanup template

Hi, Pppery! Just wanted to let you know I undid your edit to the above referenced template as it was causing an error in all dabs tagged with it. You can see an example here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: It turns out that I made a stupid mistake in that edit of forgetting to provide a separator param, so the first numbered case was interpreted as the separator. Fixed. Pppery 14:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Pppery I have no idea what any of that means but thanks if you fixed it! :) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your tagging of the page as poorly sourced, which later got tagged with citation needed tags to the poorly sourced page, Russell Young (tennis).

Unfortunately, user keeps removing all the {{fact}} tags.

User also keeps adding back wholly unsourced info and unreferenced claims with no evidence.

What can be done here? Sagecandor (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't this complaint (the last three sentences) belong on Talk:Russell Young (tennis)? Pppery 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Did that too, what else can be done? Sagecandor (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

bold but not reckless
... you were recipient no. 1467 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, does time fly! Pppery 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Template Post-nominals broken in Wikipedia Android app

Hi, there appears to be a problem with the Post-nominals template in the Wikipedia Android app described on the talk page. I suspect it may be due to one of the recent changes to the template. Since I am not aware of any way to test a template change on an Android phone in a sandbox, I'm inclined to back out your last change temporarily as a test to see if it caused the issue. And perhaps the change before it. If these changes are not the problem, I would revert my reverts. I am also not sure if templates are cached somehow, or take effect immediately, so I'm inclined to let the reverts remain for a short time, perhaps for an hour. I don't want to surprise or offend anybody by the revert(s). Should I proceed with the revert, or do you have any other advice? Thanks. CuriousEric 14:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pppery, thanks for your prompt investigation and solution! CuriousEric 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Search links

Hello Pppery. The search link used in Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings seems to be broken. Is this a result of your recent edit of the search template? The link used is {{search link|abberant||ns0|ns14|ns100}}. Can this be fixed. Thanks and regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it was my fault for forgetting that equals signs need to be escaped. Pppery 11:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Orenburg1 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the sandbox with the previous (stable) version before "code duplication" was removed. How sure are you that the code was duplicated? Did you do a diff? I seem to remember that it was necessary to duplicate except for minor variable name. (Thank you for taking an interest in Template:Search link.) — Cpiral§Cpiral 21:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cpiral: Yes, and that's exactly what I mean by "code duplication" . Code duplication with minor variable name changes is still code duplication, and one of the features of the template that I used is the ability to repeat the same code many times with exactly that sort of minor change while the code is only stored once in the template. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. But I still ended up having to revert it per the edit summary. So let's use the talk page of the template or its sandbox or its test page if we have interests in {{search link}}. Thanks. — Cpiral§Cpiral 06:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal. Smerus (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

wd broken?

Was doing some lint stuff and noticed that {{Infobox power station}} is throwing some mighty errors with regards to Module:WikidataIB. I see you and Ans have recently edited the module. Not sure if it's an error with the template invocation or the module itself, but I thought I'd let you know, since you've got a bit more familiarity with recent changes to the module. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: The answer is "a bit of both". I fixed the Module error, so that call doesn't produce lua errors. However, it is not being parsed in the way you expected. When |qid= isn't passed to the template, the empty string isn't recognized as a valid item id by the module, soit gets ignored for that purpose, and (since no |eid=} parameter is specified), the current page is used (as you want). However, that empty string is then treated as the property id (because empty strings aren't filtered out by the module). This (as far as I can tell) was the case in the module before my version too. How to fix that I have no idea ... {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So I guess this could be fixed by not having the template invoke the module directly, but rather call {{wd}} or other similar template? Primefac (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It already calls {{wd}}. The anomalaus behavior here is for the references. Module:Wd, Module:Wikidata and Module:WikidataIB are three different modules. The template directly invokes the latter, and uses {{wikidata}} (via its redirect {{wd}}) to call the former. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. Your sig is doing something strange, btw, unless the fake-template thing is intentional. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It is. I am deliberately showcasing a fake template call in my sig as a symbol of my edits to remove duplicate code from templates and modules. It symbolizes the removal of the duplicate letters from my username, even though it's longer that just "ppp" would be in this case. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Threw me off for a second until I saw the code. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Paris Burning?

Hello:
Thanks for fixing my template here. I don't know what the problem was; I used the template at WP:RM, but when I put the proposed name at new1 it showed in preview as a question mark. I notice though that you used a different template; where would I find it? Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pppery. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

SDS-PAGE credit

Hi Pppery, by deleting the redirect the following article would be not only written but also created by me, that's why i asked for speedy deletion. In de.wp that's a sufficient reason for speedy deleting a redirect, is this not possible here? All the best, --Ghilt (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghilt, you're welcome to create a page at SDS-PAGE. You don't need to delete the page first. Primefac (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi Primefac, that i know, but deleting the redirect makes me the article's creator and lets it pop up on the 'pages created'. I've written a few hundred articles so far, and in four language versions... cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And in the meantime, we'd be short a redirect. If you sandbox the article you want to have replace it, I am happy to move it to the proper location when it is finished. This will delete the existing page and you will be credited with creating the page. Primefac (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks, --Ghilt (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: i guess i'm ready (User:Ghilt/SDS-PAGE), --Ghilt (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Someone declaring intention to [re]create a redirect as an article is not a criterion for speedy deletion of a redirect here, so I'm glad that the deletion was not done. Should someone ever request deletion of a redirect so that they can "create" an article of the same name? Shouldn't they just start editing, replace the redirect with actual content, and say that they "created" the article (in the edit summary and on their talk page)? Oh, no, the new "creation" should "pop up on the 'pages created'" counts and lists. (Someone should have linked this - I can't find mention of "pages created" on Wikipedia, except for some posted links that showed me the [current] URL formats for two wfmlabs tools: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Ghilt/all and https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/created.py?name=Ghilt&server=enwiki&ns=,,&redirects=none .) So this is about credit. Well, no one owns any article. Typically the one(s) who contribute more to an article, earlier, deserve more credit for it.

The replacement article got created in user space and then got moved into article space on top of the existing redirect (instead of copy-pasted), thus establishing "creation" credit according to the mentioned tools (which presumably look at the oldest entry in each revision history). However, the move-over-existing had the same effect that the deletion would have had - all history of the old redirect vanished forever. (Probably little or no value there, except maybe the earlier date of the initial "creation".)

Maybe if the tools were smarter, they would deem the first (or last) editor who makes a redirect into an article its real "creator". Why credit a "creator" on a mere redirect at all? A redirect is a lesser creation, isn't it? Not really an article. How many editors were cheated of their credit when they converted mere redirects into real articles without asking for special service? Classes of articles, classes of editors. Every "real" creator deserves full credit. Now you have to do this for everyone. Get crackin'! [mildly annoyed satire] -A876 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If you had a point, I'm not sure you made it. Policy change proposals are thisaway. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's try second-person. Your first reaction was rational - if someone wants to upgrade a redirect into an article, go ahead and do it. Next, the real reason emerged: It was a childish request, along the lines of "turn off that light, so that --I-- can get credit for turning it on". And then you did it anyway. •Was the move from user space (erasing the existing redirect), instead of the available copy-paste, valid within existing policy? (I'm not going to try to research this one. Either there is a principle or there is not.) •You opened a door - everyone who wants "creation credit" for upgrading a redirect can fairly make a similar request of you (move my user-space article on top of a redirect so that --I-- get "creation credit"). •You established that upgrading a redirect into an article deserves "creation credit" - thus you have retroactively made thousands of upgrades unfairly deprived of their deserved "creation credit" – are you prepared to rectify each one by deleting all history prior to the upgrade? (obviously not the way to go) I know, it was nice of you, and no good deed goes unpunished, but there are grounds to re-think this one. -A876 (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I offered a solution to a problem they had. This is no different than if someone were to create a draft, submit it for review at WP:AFC, and the reviewer then deleting the redirect upon acceptance (I actually expected them to do that). While I agree there was no need to do it this way, there is also no harm in doing so. It's only when someone maliciously performs such tactics that I get annoyed. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And no, I don't think that we should go around histmerging every deleted redirect that became an article, or deleting the revisions of a redirect-turned-article before it was the article. I did not "establish" anything, and I have zero power to unilaterally make policy decisions. Anyone looking at this particular situation as any sort of precedent should be sent to WP:OSE for why their arguments aren't valid. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi A876, and sorry for my late participation in this meta-discussion. Now, i don't really get what's your problem. And no, granting me the deletion of the redirect while moving the article from my namespace does not guilt Primefac of the deprivation of thousands of others at all, but rather the setup of the en.wp. IMHO, it's all about motivating people to contribute in their free time. Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't ever do that again

Don't ever remove functions that are in use. You make a mess of infoboxes using that function. If you'd don't understand what you're doing, don't interfere. And if you ever mess about with one of my sandboxes again, I'll take you to ANI and see that you don't have the chance to repeat your meddling. --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Give me an example of one page that uses the emptyor function from Module:WikidataIB that I removed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Peter Donnelly
• Matthew Stephens (statistician)
• Peter Coles - there's three examples for you. Now do your own research in future and don't mess with things you don't understand. --RexxS (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well that {{emptyor}} (the template) is in use on those pages, but that does not mean that {{#invoke:WikidataIB|emptyor|...}} (the module function) is used on those pages as I've reimplemented the template using Module:String. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It will be when you've self-reverted your meddling. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Which I won't do, as categorizing this as "meddling" is totally incorrect. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pings

Thanks for letting me know about the idiosyncrasies of using {{ping}}. Now that I'm aware of it I've noticed a few occasions where I've probably messed it up, so I left a note on the user's talk page rather than twiddling my thumbs. Much appreciated. nagualdesign 01:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Qingjian Realty

I think that Doprendek wanted to move Qingjian realty to Qingjian Realty and was requesting a technical deletion. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is the wrong venue for such a request. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

... especially since (s)he could have just moved the article in the first place. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, {{db-g6}} is a valid reason for speedy-deleting a redirect (Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves), so while the exact template subtype was "wrong" it was still a valid request. I've moved the page in question. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Poet|Artist

Hello, you recently changed the article name of Poet Artist stating that it is a “non-technically restricted name” however, this title IS technically restricted, and per WP:TSC it can never be used in article names. With the currently article name that you changed it to, you can’t actually link to the article.Alexanderlee (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The very fact that I was technically capable of making the move shows to me that it is not technichally restricted. And I can link to the page just fine. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you’ve proved me wrong that you can indeed link to it, however that doesn’t change the fact that per WP:TSC, that character cannot be used. “There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles. The following characters cannot be used at all: # < > [ ] | { } _” so I’ll be changing the article name back to Poet Artist when I can. Alexanderlee (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That section of WP:TSC is just reiterating the restrictions that the software enforces, not trying to set any rules on its own. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

would you mind joining the conversation over at the talk page? thanks Alexanderlee (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nooo listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nooo. Since you had some involvement with the Nooo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Revert graph template

Hi, I reverted your change for mw:Template:Graph:PageViews - all graph templates follow the convention of first explaining what the template does, and afterwards show how the template is made. Most of the time, how something is made is not as important for the viewers. --Yurik (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't change things without discussing first. Graph templates follow the same convention as Lua modules - first the documentation, followed by the code of the graph itself. Both are important, but documentation is more important than code. It doesn't mean code is not important for those maintaining it. If you think they all should change, please start a discussion instead of deleting. Thanks. --Yurik (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Graph templates follow the same convention as Lua modules. AKA Graph templates arbitrarily deviate from the standard convention for templates, which is the result of the code first, then the documentation. The reason that lua modules look the way they do is that lua cannot be interpreted as wikitext usefully, whereas the markup of graph templates can. I'm not deleting anything; the code is still there, just on the "edit (source)" page instead of the main template page, where it doesn't belong. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominating templates for deletion

Hi, when nominating a template for deletion, it's normally good practice to leave some sort of edit summary stating that you're nominating it for deletion. A lot of people go by what they see on their watchlist (without going through the diffs of each change) and if they see an edit by an established editor without an edit summary they're likely to assume it's a relatively minor technical tweak rather than something as consequential as a deletion nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC) ....And you're also expected to notify their creator, as with any other XfD. – Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It would have been clearer to explicitly mention that you were talking about {{!Cite}}, which I didn't notify the creator for since they hadn't edited for 5 months. Good point about forgetting an edit summary there, though. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's {{!Cite}} and the immediately following half a dozen other templates created by the same editor. True, there's no need to notify retired people, but four months of inactivity is probably not enough to consider someone retired (provided they haven't indicated on their user page that they have retired). I think this is precisely the category of editors that the XfD talk page messages are meant for: if they were logging in every day, they would have presumably noticed the nominations anyway, wouldn't they? The crucial thing is that there are people who do not edit, but who receive email notifications if someone posts on their talk page and who will come out of the thicket if it's about something they're sufficiently interested in. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop

dealing with user sandbox+ project, directly. Please discuss first. Please restore page names. Thank you.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You say without providing any reason. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a multi-language project to support equity in contributing. Our team has responsibility for its functionality. Thank you.   ManosHacker ^talk 23:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You do not own this set of templates. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know. I will be happy to demonstrate it and cooporate to make it better. Do you have a skype account to share my screen on?46.198.215.34 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not willing to take this dispute off-wiki. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Then please install user sandbox+ to your sandbox and try it out yourself, and I will assist by answering questions onwiki. Build personal and project libraries, more than the global library. Create and (or at least pretend to) move articles from user space to main space. Try all advanced options like starting a page directly to main space or edit in wikicode editor. If you have complete picture, we will save time and effort and the tool will finally get proper english optimization (which I know it needs).   ManosHacker ^talk 01:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (sigh) You seem to be conflating the content side and the technichal side. I'm not required to go throught the motions of useing your template just to rename confusingly named templates or convert {{#if:{{REVISIONID}}|...|...}} to {{if preview|2=...|...}}. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please consider that you continue to break functionality with your bold edits. You do not know the depth of the tool and the impact to functionality with what you are doing. In libraries like Template:Article page template class/Article template library, param4 cannot have a space before (after |). Please ask before making changes. Now param3 has to be whthout space after | too, and the help during the creation of custom libraries must also change to reflect this, as well as the matrix template itself. Please make proposals to take them step by step.   ManosHacker ^talk 03:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:In creation, not Template:In use, but also revised to meet the tool's needs (also a time bug of original template is bypassed). Please ask first, the template targets people who create new articles.   ManosHacker ^talk 04:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've only tangentially looked at this, but it sounds like some things are breaking. Rather than edit-warring over the main template, any proposed changes should be sandboxed in order to demonstrate functionality and backwards-compatibility with old usage. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33