User talk:Pppery

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:

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Hi Pppery, I feel sad you are on Wikibreak but it's fine; at least to ease up some offwiki stress. I am also for a while thinking about beng discouraged about Wikipedia. I know it's difficult to be here also, but you're doing perfectly and more than okay. I usually enjoy your work in the technical aspects and WP:RM; those are run-around impact I have known you for. That I will encourage you to come back, being cheered, I award you the Administrators Barnster as a way of missing you, your high impact and otherwise. Feel free, stay safe, and always happy. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still active for now, but it is my plan to resign adminship in a few weeks - I want to complete WT:TWA/Portal#New version incoming first, which is dependent on some stuff beyond my control over on Gerrit. And then, who knows? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've missed whatever led to this, like I missed your RfA while I was on holiday last year. For the record, I would have supported the RfA. I find you highly competent, dedicated, and with sufficient self-knowledge to limit your participation when appropriate. I think you appreciate the positive aspect of WP:DGAF – if on occasion a majority is not persuaded by your arguments, well, at least you put them forward as best you could, and this is a collaborative project where the majority matters; who knows, one day you might see their POV more clearly; so you move on, and concentrate your effort where it's appreciated – or even if it's unnoticed, you can be content that you are doing good stuff.

So I hope you will reconsider, and hang on to the toolbox. I'm certainly glad to be sharing it with you. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 (even though I don't share the toolbox). I am very grateful that you are an admin, Pppery. Your work is appreciated. Of course, if you need a break, take it! The toolkit will be waiting for you to return :) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Category:Sexual-related controversies in film

Hi! Is there any particular reason you renamed Category:Sexual-related controversies in film to Category:Sex-related controversies in film? My (admittedly WP:INVOLVED) read of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Category:Sexual-related controversies in film is that we reached consensus for a rename to Category:Sexuality-related controversies in film. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to read the discussion properly, oops. I'll tell the bot to fix it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it; I have certainly done worse. Thank you! House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Sorry if I have ticked you off watching other admin talk pages, I just read that you are feeling discouraged and wanted to apologize for my bad behavior. I know that I should've just let you discuss and not impede your discussions. I hope this WikiLove makes you feel better. (By the way, I'm also thinking of leaving/going on a wikibreak for my own reasons, nothing to do with you.) Thanks for all you do here, and please note your contributions are appreciated, no matter if you stay as an admin or not.

thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But you didn't tick me off per se. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Well, sorry anyway. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 deleting a very short userpage

You removed a speedy-delete tag from User:WikiWiz31 as there is no obvious mention of it being a sockpuppet. While a page just saying 'hi' is harmless, the block log states that the user is an unnamed LTA (and WP:G5 covers sockpuppetry as well). Due to the contents of the page, are very short userpages created as ban violations, like that one, supposed to be kept, or not? Xeroctic (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order for me to delete something as G5 I have to be able to prove that it was created in violation of a specific block. That can't be done based on just a vague block log like that because I can't read the blocking admin's mind. In this specific case, after a closer look then I normally take when reviewing G5, I think it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver, but in any event you're creating makework for others by CSD tagging pages that require nontrivial effort to evaluate and there's no real reason they need to be deleted in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

draft art New Ho Queen

Hey sorry i wasn't finished with it and was going to work on it later can i get it back. i promise i will have it done this week Freedun (yippity yap) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. The entire content of the draft I deleted was just New Ho Queen so there's nothing to get back. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh lol i thought i had more. ig ill just restart thanks Freedun (yippity yap) 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Atter

Hello. Could you review the speedy deletion for Atter again? :3 Blockhaj (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I know enough about to be comfortable using my own admin tools on. Another admin will review it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying radar: any suggestions?

Hi Pppery, I don't know what to do to such user. I am about taking them to WP:AN for a partial block or so (this is something you can do, though I thought of being WP:INVOLVED). Do I revert the move? No! I think I will suggest that at AN. Any opinion/help I can get from you? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no good solution to this problem I can think of either. And even my original suggestion of reopening the move request probably wouldn't solve whatever the problem is since if it closes as moved again nothing will appear to have changed from Heather Fix's perspective.

I do consider myself INVOLVED as an admin here, and even if I weren't that block would violate a promise I made at my RfA. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So I should leave the page? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea what to do here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it like that maybe until another editor sees that. I will also keep an eye on them maybe one day, they will respond. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed to Yamaha RX-King 135 and Yamaha RX-Z move to List of Yamaha motorcycles redirect page Bluegirlage30 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Expert in Bible"

"Expert in Bible" is just not grammatically correct. I was fixing a typo because the Bible is a proper noun and as such it needs a "the". I might be wrong but I still feel my edit was appropriate. CharlieEdited (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your version populated Category:Miscellaneous articles needing expert attention (a backlog I try to clear) and linked to the nonexistent WP:WikiProject The Bible. Mine populated the correct Category:Bible articles needing expert attention and linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. That's more important than the grammar of the template itself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. CharlieEdited (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your work on cleaning up the archiving process for the DoubleWiki (and for triaging and cleaning bugs in PageTriage) :)

Sohom (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hl1

Not sure if it's a glitch or cache issue but the discussion doesn't seem to have been closed. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally intentional, as I saw no reason not to let AnomieBOT clean up after me. I've closed it now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, other than the fact that you get into a circular argument where the reason for deletion is the TFD, but the the closure of the TFD indicates it was already deleted. Thanks for closing though. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of important publications

Seems like there are a lot of them (philosophy, mathematics, physics, a recently created one on data science, economics, ...). Are you planning on going through them all one-by-one? --JBL (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't planning to nominate any more. I PRODed the cryptography first one when cleaning up links after the closure of the computer science AfD, then realized this was a much bigger issue then I was preprared to tackle so disengaged. When that was contested procedurally I took it to AfD as I usually do when a PROD is contested. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, there are a lot, and many of them were kept at prior AfDs, and I think they all should be deleted. Sigh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh yeah I feel you :). (I also do not feel inclined to tackle them -- luckily "cruft from the early days of Wikipedia that sits around generally ignored" is probably not causing too much damage to anything.) --JBL (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I feel very strongly that Wikipedia lacks grandfather clauses, and that the community collectively (including myself) is guilty of not doing more the purge old stuff that doesn't belong. In practice, well, that's a lot of work and only very rarely do I feel motivated to do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just refactored List of important publications in physics into a meta-list. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "list of important publications in geology" has been deleted. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

block reason

Thank you! What was I screwing up there? Valereee (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing the IP pointed out a few lines above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Fossorials has been nominated for deletion

Category:WikiProject Fossorials has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with malicious spam links

Hi, saw your recent participation at WT:BLIST and thought you might be the right one to ask. I recently warned an editor for adding what appears to be three malicious URLs, embedded within inline citations, which you can view in this series of edits. I made the mistake when I checked one, and it immediately redirected to a phishing site of some kind. Think I closed out in time, so if you're going to test, be sure to use some kind of protected method to check them out!

I assume they'll need to be blacklisted, but I've never dealt with this before on Wikipedia. Wasn't sure how to properly warn users and where to report. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually not a regular there. I'm a regular at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, but only because I bedrudgingly stepped up to the plate after requests languished for months. From a quick glance this looks to me like a mundane content dispute, and none of the URLs appear malicious to me (although they're probably not reliable sources, but I don't wish to get involved with this any further. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, gotcha. Disregard then. It might have been an advertisement or something on the page that took over my screen when I went to the first URL. I'll ignore it for now. Didn't need any assistance in regard to a content dispute, but I appreciate the quick glance. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is appreciated

I’m sorry you’re feeling discouraged. Just wanted to say that your work is appreciated. I hope you re-engage at some point, but take the time you need for yourself. Nice use of the Great Stone Face. ;) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a proper way to do a sandbox "pull request"?

First of all, thank you for completing the history merge I requested. Your comment in the edit summary that it's [n]ot strictly needed with only one author, and I suspect many admins would have declined this has me suspecting I've asked for something strange. My thinking was that since my sandbox copy had a few intermediate edits in it and I only made it to figure out how to do the changes I wanted to do without turning the template documentation into a WP:BADHOUSE at any point, I'd ask for the history to be merged and then ask for WP:U1 so my changes and the reasons for them would show up in the history of the page itself and I wouldn't have a page sitting around in my userspace that's just an exact copy of another page that I don't need anymore. Basically like a pull request. I was just trying to minimize the amount of Investigation required for anyone looking at the history in the future to understand my changes, but is this considered Bad? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 04:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looks like you basically answered my question with your edit summary on the rejection of my other histmerge request, so thanks. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What you've done is fine generally, but I don't see why it needs to be followed up by asking for a history merge. Unlike in git where merging is no harder than making a commit on MediaWiki history merging is a rare, complicated process, which requires an admin and only a few people regularly perform. And requesting it for every major edit to a template you do is disproportionate.

History merges are generally used for restoring attribution after a page is moved by cut-and-paste, and requested by someone other than the person who did the cut and paste.

For the case of your edit to the documentation, to use git terminology it makes more sense (and requires less effort from admins) to do a squash merge with one edit showing the changes you made without a reference to a userspace sandbox so admins don't need to get involved in everything you do. I granted that really because I couldn't think of any justification to decline it, despite the unusual process.

For the /sandbox edit, since a template's sandbox is generally kept around forever in parallel with the main page, no history merging is needed or useful at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra explanation, I'm just more used to Git than to MediaWiki so I needed an explanation like that. And when I actually think about it, "this edit is several edits from this other page rolled up into one" is a bit of a pain in the ass to run into, but as page history investigation goes, definitely one of the milder ones. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 05:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

I noticed your conversation about creating a Gibraltar template at Template_talk:Post-nominals and how there are no advanced requirements to create one. I'm prepared to create a template for another country, but I wanted to know if you were aware of any template restrictions before making one. – Handoto (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the process should be the same. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing revert

Why did you do this? Was there some reason I shouldn't inform this user? Did I do something wrong here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They've been sitebanned for months. Leaving notifications for them is pointless clutter. See the talk page history. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jewel Palmer

Hi, I see you're online, hope you don't mind the direct ping. Draft:Jewel Palmer was created by three blocked socks. Rather than delete it, I thought it would be better to move it to draft. A fourth account has now tried to blank it, and then posted this request following my revert and warning. What's the right thing to do here? Is it another sock, or is the request a matter for oversight? ANI didn't seem like the best place to post this. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a deletion policy perspective there's nothing to do here (G5 never applied because the page was created before the first known block). Nor do I see anything oversightable there from a quick glance (but you are welcome to contact oversight anyway if you want to - I'm not an oversighter and generally think more stuff is hidden from view then should be so). It's certainly possible that Billybluebase is a sockpuppet, but it's not necessarily true (the other possibility is they asked someone else to pull this prank, for example). And if they are indeed a sockpuppet then the page can be deleted per G7. Personally I see no reason not to let the blanking stand - that doesn't require any explicit action and you seem to be the only person pushing for that content to exist now. Also cc Ponyo who did the block so probably knows better. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted broken redirects

Regarding Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618) and the other deleted broken redirects to Polish–Russian War (1605–1618), I was thinking of either recreating the rest of these or asking for their undeletion. Would you like to undelete any or all of them before I just recreate them?

SilverLocust 💬 20:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted most of them. The remainder were Talk:Polish–Muscovite Wars (1605–1618), which I saw no point in undeleting since it was just a round-robin remnant and if an admin had done the move they would have just deleted it, and a few were the only creator was AnomieBOT and it makes just as much sense to let AnomieBOT create it again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for your very competent adminning and other contribution. SilverLocust 💬 20:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCR Graduate School of Education

Hello, I noticed you redirected the CSUSB College of Education page to the university article. I'll be working on it in my sandbox. In the mean time, does this page, UCR Graduate School of Education also qualify for deletion? Thanks! House1090 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It survives a quick glance (among other things, cites actual sources). That doesn't mean it's notable, of course. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do you recommend before I publish the article again then? I don't want to switch it over and have it get deleted lol. Thanks for the help! House1090 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything. The content is still in the page history. The general idea is to have three secondary sources that each provide in-depth, independent coverage of the organization (not it's own website, not trivial mentions, etc.). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined history merge

Hi Pppery -- I requested a merge to fix a copy-and-paste split without attribution, following the instructions here which point to WP:HM. To me, this split seems to fall under: "When to request a histmerge: A history merge is required for attribution purposes [...] where there are multiple editors at the old page. [...] While this is not an exhaustive list, any pages meeting the below criteria may be eligible for a histmerge: There are several editors in the page history at the original location"

Could you please help me understand why that doesn't apply here? (And if you can, please redirect me to the correct process)? Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A page's history can only be merged to one other page. I can't history merge Aeroflot accidents and incidents to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1940s, Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s, Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1960s, Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s etc. all at the same time. Hence we leave the history in the source page and merge it to none of them usually. The split still should have been attributed, and the way to remedy that now is WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution.

It is technically possible to duplicate history in a very hacky manner, but by convention it's not done and the one time I tried to propose doing it the idea was shot down. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect -- thanks very much! --Rlandmann (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quarry queries

Hello, Pppery,

I noticed today that you run a lot of Quarry queries, as do I. However, the queries I run were "forked" from other editors' queries a long time ago and I don't understand how to code in Quarry although I've spent some time in the past learning how to code in other languages. Now, two queries that I ran for years without any problems won't run and give me error messages. I was wondering if you'd be willing to look them over and make any necessary corrections.

If you are too busy, I understand but I thought I'd ask in case you'd be willing to help. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, willing to look at it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind

Can you please hide/delete this log action as well as this revision?102.156.13.95 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you hadn't hidden the revision yet. Was that on purpose?102.159.169.241 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I assumed for some reason you were linking to the same revision Kinu had already hidden. Done that now too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redo your changes to the help-links

Hey 👋,

thank you for engaging with our Growth features and using the new CommunityConfiguration to adjust it. Unfortunately, your last edit to the links for the help panel did not fully take: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AGrowthExperimentsHelpPanel.json&diff=1236433907&oldid=1235040140

Could you redo it, and make sure to actively select the desired page from the dropdown? We know that this is really not ideal and are working on improving it.

We're now prioritizing some more robust error checking T360921 to make sure this does not happen again by accident, and more generally T358659. We noticed this because it triggered a lot of log-spam (T370941), but that's a bug that we're taking care of on our end.

I'm very sorry about all of this 😔

--MGrosse-WMF (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thank you so much! 🙏 MGrosse-WMF (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Runnerdude1500

Yes, I saw when I came back after reviewing some other reports that they had returned and they were being rude. I've blocked them for 24 hours now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I would have gone with indef rather than 24 hours, since it seems like a clear spam/advertising-only account, but different admins can disagree. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giro–Tour double

Hi,

Regarding your edit here, would you object if I revert? I created a set of redirects (Grand Tour double, Giro–Tour double, Tour–Vuelta double, Giro–Vuelta double) that all shared a section target on the page "Grand Tour (cycling)". I was aware of the redirect Giro-Tour double, and intended to retarget it to the same page. "Grand Tour (cycling)" seems a more relevant page to target: these redirects are actually about winners of multiple Grand Tours, rather than non-winners of the Triple Crown. Merckx's 1974 wins and Roche's 1987 wins are in the section "Grand Tour (cycling)#Winners of multiple Grand Tours in a single year", but are omitted from the section "Triple Crown of Cycling#Winning two grand tours in one year". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection - I care only that those go to the same place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've retargeted both to "Grand Tour (cycling)#Winners of multiple Grand Tours in a single year". I'm curious - do discrepancies of this sort appear on a maintenance list? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been running an ad-hoc database report at https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/82116 to catch them. There's a bot that creates redirects with hyphen-minuses if the redirect with dashes doesn't exist, and if that bot is the creator it will retarget the redirect itself as necessary. I don't think anybody else cares. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302

I noticed you opened the RfD for the user's nonsense redirect Quinton de Penis. After G10-ing another nonsense, Ben Brown (traitor), today, I see they've created since the RfD joke redirects Jamie Olive Oil, Ollie Poope, Communist plot football, COVID's Mum, and the racist Weejio. Clearly at the very least they need their autopatrolled removed. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the time and motivation to deal with this right now, and even if I did I would not feel comfortable unilaterally removing someone's rights. Feel free to take this up at another more appropriate venue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I really admire your contributions to Wikipedia and your resilience! Thank you for your incredible work. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Miligram" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Miligram has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 5 § Miligram until a consensus is reached. Tevildo (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the history splits I've requested

So, I saw that you (mostly correctly) declined some history split requests I made. Looking again, I linked the wrong revisions on a bunch of them so I just added the requests back, this time with the correct revisions. However, I disagree with your rationale for declining the Xuastvanift split. As far as I can tell, the revision I linked in that request, Special:PermanentLink/1169404108, has nothing to do with Xuastvanift; it only mentions the kanji. Can you reconsider that one? Nickps (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that the next revision (Special:PermaLink/1182731253) is about both topics. I could split as you proposed, but that wouldn't accomplish anything - the Xuastvanift article would still have content about Kanji in its history, the draft would be doomed to be G13-ed, and the Kanji content in that revision would become effectively orphan. I could split the next edit out to the Kanji draft too, but that would leave an irrelevant navbox and category on it, and leave the navbox and category orphan in the remaining article. I could delete it outright I guess, but that's just wrong. Since none of those work the split really can't be done in a way that solves more problems than it causes IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's fair. The problem is that the redirects make no sense though. If an editor decides to make a draft about, say the kanji 峡, they will be confused when they end up at the completely irrelevant Jūzenji. I guess I'll have to take them to RfD then. Nickps (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the RfD if you're interested: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 11#Kanji draftspace XNRs. Nickps (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Joe Biden participants has been nominated for deletion

Category:WikiProject Joe Biden participants has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover request

Hello, I wanted to make a comment about a page mover request but I cannot edit the page currently. I don't know if there's an alternative way to comment, without being logged in, but I saw you'd replied to a previous request and are an administrator.

Anyway: I noticed Jruderman requested page mover ability. I'd strongly encourage whoever reviews his request to assess his recent history, particularly in the 2024 CrowdStrike incident page, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TESCREAL (2nd nomination), and also to see his talk page. He is very clearly unfamiliar with the processes of Wikipedia. After no consensus was achieved for the CrowdStrike move, he wanted to unilaterally move the page and multiple people had to explain why that isn't appropriate. I think he is wholly unfamiliar with how consensus is achieved, when pages should he moved, and, to be honest, how Wikipedia "works" in general. I hope his request is investigated thoroughly, particularly the pages I mentioned/linked and the talk page advice others have tried to give him. He needs assistance or ADOPTion, but I'm worried giving him page moving ability is far too early. Thanks. 91.223.100.49 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix the template?

Hello @Pppery,

Although my change in the sandbox worked for my particular case I did not make it live as I don’t understand the problem with the test cases - have asked on template talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:To_USD_round#Seems_to_be_something_wrong_with_test_procedure - hope you can explain there Chidgk1 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Birthday Committee/Calendar/Today

Hi Pppery, you made this edit last year, and I'm wondering if it worked, as, from what I see, user pages are still being added to the category. Nobody (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That edit worked. The user pages there come from the category on Wikipedia:Birthday Committee/Calendar/August/13 instead. And I no longer care enough to fix it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the issue, I got someone with AWB to fix it. Nobody (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real Malabar F.C

Hello, I don't really understand your removal of the speedy deletion tag. I read you edit summary but I don't quite follow. The page has been recreated over and over again by Bobanfasil sockpuppets, and isn't that alone reason to delete? Recreation by sockpuppets? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobanfasil. Jonteemil (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention anything about sockpuppetry. I can't read your mind. Deleted now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thought it was obvious but I guess not. No worries. Jonteemil (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, can you protect it from recreation as well? Jonteemil (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Category:Palestinian bedouins

Hi Pppery! Hope you are doing well. I believe you did a minor cut/paste mistake when processing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Category:Palestinian bedouins – it is currently half(?) listed in the HTML comment in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Merge then delete. Would you be able to fix this? (I would fix it myself, but I am not sure if I am missing anything :D) Best, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 03:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of speedy deletion tag

Hi, could you clarify the reason for the removal of the speedy deletion tag at Khashayar Farzam? The article was initially created and curated by the group of socks blocked in 2107 here [1] under name "Guptalab" . It was then recreated by a further group of socks, blocked here [2], also under name "Guptalab". So, my understanding is that the article was created by the sock of a blocked user. If I'm missing something here (which I may well be) please let me know. Axad12 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's my fault. I was mislead by the fact that the master account somehow wasn't blocked until 2024 and didn't look closely enough to see that there were older 2017 cases. Deleted now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speedy deletion navbox

Hello, I don't think your recent edit to the Template:Speedy deletion navbox did what you meant. I've undone the change for now, but I have no objection to your intended addition if it works correctly and doesn't break the template. Best wishes, Zinnober9 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Redid that edit correctly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-c4 and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused maintenance categories

Hi. I see you created Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused maintenance categories and revised Template:Db-c4/doc to state the template adds pages to that category. However when I used {{db-c4}} today, it did not add any category. It looks like {{category handler}} needs to be added to that template, similar to how other speedy deletion templates add a category. Thanks, Zyxw (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. I somehow assumed {{Db-meta}} would add the category automatically. Now added. It was almost midnight in my timezone when I made those edits, but still I should have been more careful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 26 US

Hi, is there any chance that the Big Brother 26 (American season) can be updated to reflect the recent events because the page is fully locked. Thanks. MSalmon (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be using my own admin tools to make further updates to this page. The protection will expire in only 9 hours, everything can wait until then. Remember, Wikipedia is not trying to be a breaking news site. And this repeated pleading is exhausting my willingness to care. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Steptoe

Why was this page deleted? Bazinga2242 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article had no evidence of real-world significance (and hence notability). Articles on fictional characters should have reception sections explaining how the character was received in the real world, for example Jaina Proudmoore#Reception. If the sources don't exist to write such a section, the the article is pure fancruft that has no place on Wikipedia (and it wasn't deleted, it was WP:BLARed, which is a different process). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop

Just wanted to let you know that I'm sad to see you resign, and hope you will return to being an admin soon, though I can totally understand how Wikipedia may have been quite demotivating for you lately. Your contributions as an admin, particularly focus on typically-overlooked administrative areas, are things that the community will be worse off without. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I saw you a lot on my watchlist doing interface admin stuff. A surprising resignation. I hope all is OK! –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the ditto! This feels like a major loss. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. Your contributions to the admin corps, especially around out-of-process speedy deletions, will be missed. Hopefully this is just temporary and we'll be queueing up to say "welcome back" when you're in the the right head-space. Thryduulf (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Didn't realize I'd be joining a party down here, but I suppose I should have expected it. Thanks for all your hard work around the encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My brain hasn't quite accepted it yet. I just actioned some of your speedy deletion nominations, and it took me about 30 seconds to get past "Why didn't Ppp just delete these himself?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not see this coming. Thank you for your service as an admin, and enjoy non-admin life, although I would love to see you back one day. Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to request desysop if you don't want/need the tools - just don't use them. Like all editors, admins are volunteers - you can't be forced to block/delete/protect: if you don't want to look at the requests for admin actions, just leave them for somebody else to pick up. Except that, to avoid somebody fifteen months down the line saying "this user hasn't used the tools in over a year - let's desysop them", I would dip into a speedy deletion category every 6-9 months and find something that can 100% uncontroversially be deleted - such as a CSD U1 with no edits by anybody else - and delete that. Hey presto, painless job security. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are doing well. Your contributions on FPER and IPER areas would be greatly missed! – SD0001 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sad day Pppery. I hope everything's OK where it matters. (IRL) Hopefully still see you around. SerialNumber54129 11:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work as an admin. I appreciate everything you’ve done and wish you the best going forward. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing all of the above. Enjoy your time away from the toolkit; it is waiting for your return. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this much-dreaded news, I shall commence with my planned weeping and gnashing of teeth. SilverLocust 💬 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have a productive time away from the toolkit, and hope to see you back with it! --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what led to this, but I hope you're well. And thanks for all the admin work. Guettarda (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Just stopping by to express confidence in you again. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am only just seeing this and echo the above. Your admin contributions have been valuable and will be missed. Hope you'll feel positive about picking back up the mop and interface squeegee after a healing break 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

interface squeegee. I'm stealing that xD –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something amiss with User:Pppery/topicons

Hi, there's something amiss with User:Pppery/topicons. In some skins, it makes the page title read vertically instead of horizontally, pushing the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", and everything after that, several inches down the page. I use Firefox 129.0.2 under Windows 10.

These skins show the problem:

These skins are fine:

The problem is also evident at any page that transcludes User:Pppery/topicons - such as this user talk page. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pppery?useskin=vector --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. That definitely wasn't the case before, and I've been using legacy vector for years. I can reproduce it now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having this problem too, except for me it's with User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks, which places some links at the top in a floating div. WP:ITSTHURSDAY MediaWiki HTML change maybe? Skin: vector-2010. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've had this style on my user page for years, and I can reproduce it too. Looks like someone needs to file a Phabricator ticket. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

phab:T373617 is now open for business. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was quick work. I was wondering whether to escalate it to VPT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS talk editnotice

I see no namespace editnotice when I visit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MOS_talk:EM&action=edit. It appears that you have created the MOS talk namespace editnotice in the wrong namespace. Please fix this by moving Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/MOS talk to Template:Editnotices/Namespace/MOS talk. GTrang (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny and Her Boys

@Pppery Hi there, as you're the one you denied history merge of Draft:Make Mate 1 and Make Make 1. Is this same situation with Draft:Bunny and Her Boys and Bunny and her Boys because both were edited by the same editor? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 05:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer an admin so no longer have any say in the matter, but, assuming the deletion of the draft per G7 is correct, no history merge would be needed. But "both were edited by the same editor" is an oversimplification - "both were edited only by the same editor" would be more correct. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius: Butting in here to say that the G7 indeed was correct. You can actually verify that for yourself; non-admins can get a list of editors of deleted pages through the API (like this; API sandbox). Sometimes that's misleading since you can't see edit summaries unless you're an admin, but in this case nobody edited the draft at all except User:Aidillia. —Cryptic 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopista Regional del Centro

Hi, I was just wondering why you marked the article Autopista Regional del Centro as unreviewed (see here). I am the user who originally marked it as reviewed after tagging it with the appropriate maintenance tags and ensuring the article met notability guidelines. harrz ^talk 17:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it cites no sources. It's very rarely appropriate to mark completely unsourced articles as reviewed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. This is true and I did consider this however the topic is still certainly notable and I checked its corresponding article on the Spanish Wikipedia, which cites 7 sources that I can transfer over to this wiki - I will do this when I have a spare moment later today. harrz ^talk 17:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion: Marko Stout

Hi, Pppery! I wanted to let you know that I declined the G4 for Marko Stout as the article is not sufficiently similar to the one previously deleted via discussion. If you feel that Stout's notability remains unchanged, you will need to open another discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. I seem to have adpoted an idiosyncratic view of G4 and salting which frequently winds up in this situation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Manual edit requests

Template:Manual edit requests has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response at VPR

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Survey_(dark_mode_reporting) you said this involves spending a lot of effort fixing something that isn't really broken. I responded on how the current system is broken. Would you mind clarifying how the system isn't broken? Thanks, —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of pages in a category

Is there any way to get the history of pages that were in a category? I would have liked to see such a thing for Category:Wikipedia Office-protected pages. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For recent (in the last 30 days) changes, you can use User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer, with various caveats. I don't think there's any way to look deeper into the past than that other than the Wayback Machine or database dumps, though.

A better way to get the information you are looking for is to look for protection log entries by WMF accounts. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the implied question, there have been a total of 17 uses of the protection tool by WMF accounts since 2016. 3 are related to this case. One was a mistake (a WMF staffer whose also a local admin accidentally using the staff account), 3 are related to tech stuff rather any kind of office action. One was part of WP:FRAM. 6 were apparent tests of the protection system. One (Senford High School) was a removal of an office action. One was fallout from WP:FLOW. So nothing like this has happened since at least then. Raw results at https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/36672. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent instance I can find of anything vaguely similar is Lois Lee, which was full-protected (with content) in 2015. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful; I didn't know of this site (Quarry). So, the last office action – concerning content - was about a decade ago. What was the OA concerning the High School? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted in March 2012, and then salted as an office action from April 2012 to September 2017. See the logs * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing wikilinks

Hello friend. Do you think it's a good idea to mass remove links to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation? It's still a blue link and it will be unlocked/undeleted at some point. And it may also be good from a strategy/awareness angle to bring some clicks/views/attention to this unusual situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I care a lot about, but I think it's better we try to heal into a self-consistent state involving that article not existing, rather than deliberately sending people to the memory hole. Reverts are cheap, so when it comes back it won't be hard to revert my edits. I likewise would prefer that the article on the individual case be a redirect to an appropriate section rather than a visible sore (assuming that's legally allowed). I totally get the other viewpoint, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:HouseBlaster submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Editor Pppery is the definition of a strong back-end contributor. You have probably seen some of his work without realizing it; a few highlights include expanding the functionality of Template:XFD backlog to cover all XfDs, improving Module:Bad title suggestion, modernizing The Wikipedia Adventure, and a significant rewrite of Module:Authority control. He frequently steps up to the plate to take care of tasks nobody else is doing, including single-handedly keeping down the backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and for many months he was the only one processing the endless requests for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. They recently handed in the mop, and I speak for many people by saying I hope he finds editing without the tools rejuvenating, and I look forward to when you pick it back up

. Your work is sincerely appreciated. This nomination was seconded by User:Novem Linguae, User:TechnoSquirrel69, Hey man im josh, User:Queen of Hearts, User:Sohom Datta and User:Theleekycauldron

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Former Administrator

Pppery

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning October 27, 2024

Pppery is the definition of a strong back-end line contributor. His work includes expanding the functionality of Template:XFD backlog to cover all XfDs, improving Module:Bad title suggestion, modernizing The Wikipedia Adventure, and a significant rewrite of Module:Authority control. He frequently steps up to the plate to take care of tasks nobody else is doing, including single-handedly keeping down the backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and for many months he was the only one processing the endless requests for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. Recently he handed in the mop, and the hope is he finds editing without the tools rejuvenating,. His work is sincerely appreciated by all.

Recognized for

strong back-end contributions

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes on dab page

Hello, what's with the removed hatnotes on FA and RM dab pages. Let me know asap. Thank you. ScarletViolet t c 12:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think people are likely to look for either of those processes in mainspace, or that those who do are likely to be able to competently contribute to them? For featured articles the answer is "no" on both counts for both cases. RM is slightly more justifiable, and I didn't remove the hatnote (CFA did), but again the same logic applies. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on Wikipedia talk:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia talk:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water.

Uh-oh, did I misclick? I hope not. Awesome Aasim 01:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I think the XFDcloser tool broke. Awesome Aasim 02:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shenington Airfield

Hello,

Can you please explain why you declined the history merge at Shenington Airfield?

The whole point of the history merge was to fix the attribution, at Wikipedia:HISTMERGE it says "A history merge is required for attribution purposes, as attribution is lost during a cut/paste page move where there are multiple editors at the old page. In the image shown, it appears as if the user Thegreatrebellion had created the entirety of the added text at Syed Saddiq, when the reality is that there were contributions from over 200 editors at the previous page name of Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman. While this is not an exhaustive list, any pages meeting the below criteria may be eligible for a histmerge: There are several editors in the page history at the original location"

In your edit summary you say " the author seems to intend these as two separate articles", where did you get this information from? The editor hasn't been active since they created the article by copying and pasting and hasn't responded to the message on their page.

The info at Shenington Gliding Club, only consists of 3 lines about the club? How is a gliding club notable enough for a separate article?

Gavbadger (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Shenington Airfield explicitly says Currently, it is owned by Shenington Airfield Ltd, and leases use of the site to various organisations, predominatly the Shenington Gliding Club. is where I got that implication from. If what they intended was a move they wouldn't have done a circular link like that. What I'm seeing there looks like a bad attempt at a split (which should have been attributed per WP:CWW), not an attempt at a cut-paste move that needs repairing. If the eventual outcome is that the gliding club article is deleted or turned back into a redirect, resulting in only an article at the airfield title surviving, I will gladly move the history to the survivor, but right now that's not what I'm seeing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, i've tagged the gliding article for notability, i'll give editors a week to improve the article, otherwise i'll tag it for merging to the airfield article. Gavbadger (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request.

Hello. I want to explain my merge history request. I created a page that is a redirect, "List of WWE Women's United States Championship", as it will be used later on, but I realized after the page's creation that I had made a typo in the name. The page was meant to be titled "List of WWE Women's United States Champions". I went to move the page to have the correct name, but when I did, I noticed that another page had been created after the original page with the name that I had intended. Thus, I wanted to merge the histories of the pages for archival purposes as the latter page was created after the former. I hope that this clears everything up. Thank you for your time. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to merge the history of a creation of a redirect since nobody's attribution is being violated. I see no need to do anything other than delete the page with the typo if you want it deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of a way to make use of the page. I moved it to a draft page with the correct titled so that myself and other editors could work on readying the page itself. Thank you for your time. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]