User talk:Pppery/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

The proof is in the pudding

Too soon? Looks likely. congrats! BusterD (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

just from the section heading, I knew it was going to be you :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Congratulations, and good luck! Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wanna send some early congrats as well... Looks all positive from where I stand Volten001 ^☎ 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say the same. With the crat chat looking certain to close as cons to promote, congratulations on your impending adminship! CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And how could I forget to make the most orginal joke ever, _{it has begun!} CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratuations Pppery on the pppropitious ppprouncement of your pppromotion to that most ppprestigious and ppproprietous pppantheon of ppproject pppeers and ppprotectors! I pppresume to ppprophecy that your ppperformance will be ppparticularized by ppprobity, ppprinciple, and pppurpose. Pppropserous pppursuits! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat

Your RFA has been closed as successful; well done. I would encourage you to read through the bureaucrat chat for thoughts regarding your RfA. You may also want to look at the admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with. Please let us know if you have any questions or issues. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats Pppery! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well done! I'm sure you'll be a great admin and will also learn some useful lessons from the comments made at the RFA. Welcome to the corps. — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats Pppery!! <3 SWinxy (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Pppery, for all I've learned from you! and Congratulations on a successful bid for the bit! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! House Blaster^talk 21:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! Legoktm (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! Don't forget about content 😝 — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! ULPS (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe I've logged 170 admin actions on my first day here. I don't intend to be anywhere near that active in the future, but it's nice to hit the ground running. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats, Pppery! :) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Another congrats from over here! SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding my name onto the list of people saying congrats. Glad to see you finally become an admin! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! 192.76.8.66 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Congrats, well deserved! RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much. 2607:FB91:601:CD4:C9E0:71EE:B013:6F64 (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

A baton for you!

The admin baton

Congratulations on becoming Wikipedia's newest administrator! You have a proven track record of picking up new tools, but if you have any questions or want some commiseration, I'm here for you. This baton is heavier than it looks, and it is not redeemable for any cash value. Here's hoping you can pass it along soon. Please see the traditional inscription below:

Tamzin started this tradition to recognize DanCherek for his bravery in ending the three-month drought that began with the conclusion of her own acrimonious RfA. It serves as a reminder that, despite dramas petty and grand, we work together to build an encyclopedia—and serves to recognize those who subject themselves to a nerve-wracking and often unfair process out of their dedication to this project. You, holding this baton, are saluted by all its past holders. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Coming full circle... And you braved the Crat Chat! Welcome to the club! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ohh yeah

gratz jp×g 20:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Con-gra-chu-ma-ca-tions

Well I was going to post this in the thread you already archived lol

I give you kudos for several reasons. First, you saw before this all started what most of the concerns were likely to be, and you were willing to step into the ring anyway. And once there, I think you handled yourself well. Question-answers were a bit shakey at times, but they typically are for everyone. This isn't an easy roller coaster.

And the threads that looked like they could go in a disruptive direction mostly didn't for various reasons. Though overall, it really just seemed like most didn't really want to attack you - which I think has a lot more to do with your character, and how you handle yourself.

Oh, and I think someone left this laying around, you might as well have it:

Such an odd tradition, so, of course I'm continuing it... lol.

All-in-all, well done. Good luck with the extra tools and responsibilities. And congrats : ) - jc37 20:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And nice to see you already working that mop. On-the-job helping clear the NAC-CfD backlog : ) - jc37 21:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't on the supporting end of your RfA myself but I still wish you the best of luck with your adminship. Congrats on your new "mop and bucket"! — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 01:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! Joyous! Noise! 04:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"He who does not keep peace shall lose his hand."

	The axe of responsibility
	Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's trusted champion. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

First, sleep. It's been an emotional week. Get yourself back. I suggest you reread the RfA in a week or so. Consider oppose assertions as valid and good-faith feedback. These people opposing believe passionately, just like you and I, in our movement. They want Wikipedia to succeed too. They don't oppose you. Those folks are in many ways your greatest asset. They will be watching you. I encourage you to embrace the critique dispassionately. My first RfA was a disaster, but I believe the valid good-faith critique I requested made be a better, less ambitious wikipedian. I encourage you to edit just as before, but better each day. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to read that your RFA was divisive. Mine was supposed to be a breeze but turned into a trainwreck. We should really put together a club of all admins who faced a crat chat. I bet they are some of our most devoted administrators! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	`function shittyLuafunc()` `print("Congrats on a tough RfA 🤗") end shittyLuafunc()` ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not actually valid Scribunto syntax - modules need to return strings or mw.log them for debugging, rather than print them :P. Thank you, anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting RfA

I wish you well with the new tools, and congrats on the most interesting RfA for a long time. As an almost exclusive content creator I recognise the value of admins who do the things I don't particularly want to do, or can't do myself. I sympathise on the edit summary thing as I see so many that are a complete waste of keystrokes, and found most of your replies to questions refreshingly candid.

Before RfA, carry water, chop wood. After RfA, carry water, chop wood.

Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations. I hope you keep the integrity of this encyclopedia up with your knowledge and insight. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 05:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

AFDs and relistings

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fast History Merge of Battle of Kufit

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)

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)

Feedback

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)

OK. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

RouteNote

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)

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)

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)

Note

[1]

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)

Noted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

please stop breaking the page Nextcloud

Moved to Talk:Nextcloud § Unsourced content

– * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, about this!

Yours, Ema--or (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1172718053#mw-diff-ntitle1

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. Qwerfjkl talk 21:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

Well, it's up to your discretion. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Technical Query

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)

(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. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RFA

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)

Nudge

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. House Blaster^talk 02:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Secret Six close

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Riize cut and paste

@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)

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)

4-Me-αMT

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)

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)

Alright, thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletereason-dropdown

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)

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)

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)

Redirects for discussion: 👨‍💻

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)

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)

AWB permissions

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)

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Embassy

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)

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)

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)

Moom deletion

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)

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)