User talk:Pppery/Archive 21

Editor experience invitation
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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tennodontosaurus


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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Jishnu Raghavan
Thanks for the sock reverts on this one. Just filed this. Been chasing film and television related socks for the last month and they are relentless. CNMall41 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Meatotomy.jpg
Hi Pppery, I was wondering if you could figure out what's going on with File:Meatotomy.jpg. It keeps showing up as a broken redirect, but the local description page does not contain a redirect. I suspect the history merge you performed with File:Open meatotomy.jpg has something to do with it, but this just has me stumped. ✗ plicit  15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No idea. But it's currently struck out from that list, and so not a broken redirect, right now? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hello, Pppery,

I regularly review the Move log and tonight I noticed that you moved a lot of articles from weird page titles that included acronyms to more natural page titles that reflect article content. I don't know how you found all of these random articles! But this was a necessary task that probably hadn't occurred to anyone to take care of before now that helps make Wikipedia more user-friendly to readers looking for information so I just wanted to thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've been using Quarry to run a regular expression on all page titles in the database. I started doing this a year ago and have erroneously declared the task done several times since, only to stumble across a title that evaded my search months later. The trigger for the recent batch was Low-Frequency Array (LOFAR), which I RM-ed rather than moving myself in order to have a precedent I could use to speedy rename the category. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Misanthropic Wikipedians
FWIW, I was typing a rather long edit summary when declined it. I agree with his decision as this search shows many Wikipedians self-identify that way. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay .... * Pppery * it has begun... 19:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

RfD closes
Hello, Pppery. Since I know you like to do it manually, apparently, per Rfd top/doc, unlike other Xfd top templates, only the result should be in the first parameter of Rfd top and the comment/signature should be after the template. This makes sure it appears correctly on the main RfD page. Thx, Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 08:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing toolforge links
Hey hey. Is removing toolforge links a good idea? Stuff like Sigma is important enough that it will definitely be migrated by someone, and may even get turned back on in the meantime, at which point the links will work again. I don't think we should go mass deleting these toolforge links quite yet. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like most of Sigma is now migrated and the Sigma links (except for afdstats) are working again. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really mass-deleting - I made a total of 10 edits, thinking at the time that the tool would remain down for longer than a day. Anyway I've reverted most of them now. I've kept the changes that replaced Sigma links with Xtools links providing the same function, since it's probably still preferable to link to a better-maintained tool rather than a tool that literally had to be turned off to see who screamed. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting
 ❄️Happy holidays!❄️

Hi Pppery! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. I always appreciate your technical work at TfD and elsewhere. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk

&#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I am in fact in the northern hemisphere, and I've almost finished figuring out why snow isn't being produced properly from floating islands in the sky, so it's nice to see snow. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A joyous Christmas to you!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Pppery: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jerium (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message Jerium (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
 ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello Pppery: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;and  winter solstice  if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC) ''

Deletion of Four traditions of geography category
Consensus isn't a vote, and I gave extremely valid reasons why that category should not be deleted as well as peer reviewed literature. Those reasons were never addressed. I created a Wikipedia page for the traditions to demonstrate their significance when mentioned by a commenter it needed one, and provided citations. This is a high level category with peer reviewed literature to back it up. This deletion impacts many high level categories in geography, and reorganization without being original research is not easy. Significant conversation is necessary, and that did not happen. Based on that lack of discussion and reply to the material I gave, I argue no consensus was reached, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact some people were not willing to change their opinion, propose a solution, or respond to comments, involving the organization of these pages just demonstrates stubbornness or lack of interest on the part of the editors voting.

I'm unfamiliar with policy, how do I go about requesting this be undone? GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 04:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see plenty of conversation there, in which you exhausted everyone else's willingness to reply without convincing them. You seem to think this reflects badly on them, but it anything it reflects badly on you for WP:BLUDGEONing. Anyway the process you are looking for is WP:Deletion review. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If people maintain their opinions and fail to reply to an argument based on peer reviewed outside sources, or consider the need to organize categories that satisfies both Wikipedia consistency and outside literature, I don't know what else to do. I don't believe most of the editors are particularly familiar with the content area. I strongly disagree with the sentiment of the explanatory essay you linked, as it encourages submission and silence to the mob majority, and silences dissenting opinions. If 1,000 editors express an opinion that is counter to the outside peer reviewed literature, they are still wrong, which is something I've experienced in a separate talk page recently. In that case, almost a century of peer reviewed papers were ignored based on the personal opinions of editors. In this case, this is one of the most well established methods of subdividing the field of geography that is taught to undergraduates and part of the required reading for many graduate programs (on Google Scholar, the main paper for the Four Traditions of Geography is cited over 600 times). Reorganizing the geography categories without this needs considerable work to avoid being original research, and no one addressed this. The other categories have an even weaker claim to legitimacy then the four traditions, and are certainly less consistent/verifiable within the literature, as I pointed out but was not addressed by others. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and if you have a strong reason for disagreeing with a topic based on outside sources, it is your ethical responsibility to argue the point. If this seems tedious, it is mostly out of frustration as a geographer trying to explain to others something extremely elementary to my discipline, like a biologist trying to explain that RNA and DNA should have different categories under Category:Nucleic acids. I believe that at the very least, after being reposted twice for continued input without receiving any feedback besides mine, requests for more outside opinions were necessary before deletion. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 06:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I refuse to engage further with your continued repetition of the same points - I feel there was a consensus to delete here, you don't, and it's becoming increasingly clear that neither of us is going to convince the other one of their position. So take it to WP:Deletion review if you really insist. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the problem, you feel there was a consensus. People are not looking at any sources, arguments, or discussion and are entirely acting on their feelings and first thought alone. The internet is famous for people digging in on positions and being inflexible, and if people will claim that attempts to change minds or argue a point are bludgeoning, I don't understand how it is even possible. Three or four people, likely deletionists if they hang out on that page, are not a broad consensus of something established outside Wikipedia. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Four Traditions of Geography
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Four Traditions of Geography. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Coldplay/doc and Template:Coldplay songs/doc
Hello! Which categories of deletion do these two pages fit into? I want to delete them because the documentation is very small and already included on the original templates. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think they fit into any speedy deletion criterion. If you really insist, take them to WP:TFD * Pppery * it has begun... 15:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Salaar - Cease Fire page is being manipulated
Salaar Cease fire page is being manipulated by an editor Tousif.15 because that editor is biased towards another movie which released same day and so he is literally decreasing the box office numbers of Salaar and upon many requests to state actual figures and providing many credible sources he is deliberately creating issues whereas on the other movie Wikipedia page he is increasing the BO numbers without providing a single source. Is that how editors misuse their power here? You recently edited that page so i am posting this here. We have decided to take action against him and if you aren't involved in all of this then go through that main edit request and update the Box office numbers. VarunKumar35 (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I made one edit to correct an obviously missing word, but have no further interest in involving myself in this dispute. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then you are involved anyway since you have rejected the other requests by making duplicate request excuse and deliberately ignoring the main request that lead to all that. We're done talking here and I'll make sure biased editors are banned. On a mission now. Take care. VarunKumar35 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Frat rock disambig
I've been quite busy and away from Wikipedia for a while, so I missed out on the discussion about the deletion of the Frat rock disambiguation. For a long time it automatically was linked to Garage rock. It is generally regarded as not only a subgenre of Garage rock, but also the perhaps the earliest tangible form of Garage rock. It was certainly not orphaned. The Garage rock article carefully discusses its significance in the history of the larger genre. I cannot understand why the disambiguation was removed. Now it will be harder for people to make the necessary connection. Is there any way the disambiguation can be reinstated? GloryRoad66 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I deleted the page Frat rock (disambiguation) because it was a disambiguation page with only one valid entry. The entire content of the page at the time I deleted it was: . This wasn't a valid disambiguation page because it contains only one entry, and hence met the speedy deletion criterion WP:G14 (Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.). Frat rock continues to exist as a redirect to garage rock which already explains the relationship between the two genres, appearing to make the disambiguation page redundant. I'm not following your logic as to why that deletion makes the relationship harder to understand. * Pppery * it has begun...  03:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to know that it still redirects--that was my main concern. Otherwise I'm fine with the delete.  Thanks.  Have a Happy New Year!  GloryRoad66 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the recent talk page history
Is there any reason why we might choose to leave BHG's talk such a mess? People keep doing what they must do, which is notify an involved party. We keep reverting those changes. Perhaps an editing notice/warning. Perhaps full protection. It's nothing to me personally, but it feels wrong. BusterD (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The best technical solution is probably just to pblock from the talk page. No social solutions will work because it's done via Twinkle which can't read. * Pppery * it has begun...  04:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather avoid any kind of block because this account is linked to me professionally. Mason (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I see nothing overtly wrong with Mason's edits and can't justify even a selective block. This issue is an extension of BHG's incredible pace as a category editor. Anytime we lose an editor with a million edits a year, there will be consequences when that editor becomes inactive for any reason. Mason, would you mind removing (in batches, perhaps) your own automated notices to her talk page after your edits have created them? You might link to this discussion when questioned about it. Pppery, do you think this would be a reasonable solution? As an alternative, are we required to remove such automatically created threads? It's possible this needs a more centrally located discussion. I'm open to solutions from you folks (or any helpful page stalker). Even as a retired editor, BHG's talk page sees more activity than almost anybody else's on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be possible to add a check to twinkle to skip adding the notice. In the meantime, I can try my best to uncheck the notice, as I think it's technically not mandatory to notify the page creator. Mason (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Photo of desk with rocking chair and bed.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Photo of desk with rocking chair and bed.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — MATRIX! (a good person!)&#91;citation unneeded&#93; 11:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hello, Pppery,

Thank you for drawing my attention to the broken redirect situation about the animals in the Bible article after it was moved without leaving a redirect. I saw those broken redirects not from the AnomieBOT's list but from a Quarry query I run so I didn't see the scope of the situation. Thank you for restoring some, I've taken care of the rest of them. I try to urge page movers to leave a redirect behind when they move an article so that the bots can fix the incorrect redirects but, in this case, it was my oversight as well. I appreciate your careful eyes. Thanks! Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And this message interrupted me cleaning up another mess caused by careless page moving. Oh, well, that's Wikipedia. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 23:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Visa policy of Russia
Please return the editorial before you return. It was fine. Please review the article carefully. There's nothing criminal in it. Thank you. Hurfon (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. You're probably just another sock stirring trouble. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 15:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Glynn Ray Simmons
Hi there. User:G.W. Schulz created the article, and is currently blocked for a COI. The article is also a duplicate of Glynn Simmons. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You requested speedy deletion under WP:G5. That criterion only applies if someone is blocked, and then creates a sockpuppet and uses it to create pages in violation of the block, not if someone creates an article and is later blocked. A draft duplicating an article is not a reason for speedy deletion - feel free to redirect it to the article instead. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 18:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Nadwi/Nadvi
Hello, Hope you’re fine! The Nadvi and Nadwi are the same page, is it possible to have two surname pages with just a spell difference? Kindly help me on this. Thank You — Quadri mobile   (T · C 05:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You requested a History merge, which doesn't make sense here. What you want to do is instead redirect one page to the other, assuming they are in fact duplicative (which isn't clear to me). * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pppery The surname is used by associates of an Institution in India, and with both spellings some used Nadvi and some Nadwi, just a difference of (v or w). So i can make anyone of them a redirect to another? — Quadri mobile   (T · C 05:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in the content issue here: do whichever you feel makes sense to you. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 05:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

DaLi
Hi, this page, which you speedily deleted, has resurfaced as DaLi (singer). — Biruitorul Talk 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Papa2004 * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits by sockpuppet of LOCK177
Mr. @Pppery, can you revert a edits by a sockpuppet of LOCK177 on article page RCTI like in Special:Diff/1185395353...???? Thanks. 36.78.196.11 (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh? The linked edit is by LOCK177 before they started socking, so there's no grounds to per-se revert it. And I have no idea why I specifically was asked this. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 22:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

2024
Do you often ping regulars over inadvertant isolated mistakes? Piece of friendly advice: Don't do that. Fix the mistake and move on. — Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted. I've been pinged myself for similar mistakes before so thought that was expected. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible Article Creation
Hi @Pppery,

I hope this message finds you well. Recently, there was an interesting Wikipedia article about Dutch Indonesians that caught my attention. Unfortunately, it was created by a user involved in sockpuppetry, leading to its reversion.

I'm considering recreating the article under the article creation clause for a proper review. I believe it could be a valuable addition, given its relevance. What are your thoughts on this, and do you have any advice or insights?

Cheers, Kaliper1 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No particular insights to share. I have no opinion on whether this could be a valid topic for an article, just noticed the trouble stirring while doing some NPP. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 03:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Thanks for the reply! Kaliper1 (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The Rollback Barnster

 * Thanks. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 21:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)