User talk:Pppery: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:40, 12 November 2016

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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]

Pppery, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Pppery! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

National Highways (old numbering)

Hi, I noticed your interest in National Highway 11A (India)(old Numbering). You may also want to work on:

Kind regards – Fayenatic London 15:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrolling

Welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your eagerness to patrol new pages, but please review WP:NPP before doing so. Some of your CSD taggings (such as Havre de grace middle school) do not meet the deletion criteria. — Music1201 ^talk 21:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi Pppery and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it and decide to stay for a while. Just a note on your signature. It may be a violation of our policy due to the line breaks. Per WP:SIGAPP you should avoid breaking up your signature into more than one line as it messes with spacing on talk pages. If you have any questions on this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora:There are no newlines in my signature at all. I instead use inline CSS ( Pppery (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Just wanted to let you know in case other editors mentioned it to you. No big deal. --Majora (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although technically correct, your signature draws needless attention to yourself in discussions. It would be better to draw attention to your actual arguments. Please consider a change. — JFG ^talk 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:IACTs

Hello Pppery, it's not a big deal but I have reverted your change of my deletion request. The addition of a few background details was intentional to make it easier and quicker for an admin to decide the request. Please don't change such information, when it is provided by other users. Also, please make sure to always use edit summaries, especially for larger edits, or changes that may be unclear to other editors. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouncing user name

I dropped by again hoping to learn how to pronounce you user name. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I will think of it as Peppery (just missing an e). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 July 2016

My username is actually a corruption of Perry (given name) with the second r removed and two ps added at the beginning. Pppery (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf-Williams

Moved the discussion to the correct location. Thanks for pointing it out. Eagleash (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FOSB table

Moved to Talk:FOSB

CFDS tagging

As it is rather long, please merge your nominations at WP:CFDS when they share the same justification, using two stars and no rationale or signature after the first one, like this: [1]. This saves work for admins when they process it (because very long lines have to be trimmed, otherwise the bot skips them). Thanks – Fayenatic London 15:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Thanks for telling me that. In the future, I will merge my nominations, although it is somewhat technically difficult. However, this discussion (and the previous one about pronouncing my user name) should have been added as new sections to my talk page, rather than concatenated to an old one. Pppery (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to template

Hi there,

I see that you redirected History of SNL:2000-2010 to Template:History of Saturday Night Live. It's very unusual to redirect a page to a template. Why did you do this? --Slashme (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: I redirected that page to the template as an attempt to generalize the results in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 13#-present redirects, in which consensus showed that History of SNL:2000-present should be redirected to that template. To me, the same arguments apply to History of SNL:2000-2010 Pppery (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as long as it wasn't a mistake, I'll stay out of it. --Slashme (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to User talk:Rezonansowy does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 10:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Rezonansowy, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 10:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A7

Hi. Please note that being a member of parliament is a pass at A7 as it passes the notability criterion WP:POLITICIAN. However, such claims must be backed up and so I've tagged the two Mirza Abduls with BLP-prod as they are unreferenced bios of living people. (OK, I'm assuming they are living...) Peridon (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ubuntu CoA.png

Then just move it already, instead of wasting time on a pissing contest. It's a PD image so the "file history" is of no consequence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: Only some users can move files. I am not one of them. Pppery (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the tone of my post above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Anderson (American general, born 1872)

You made a bunch of changes with out checking dates or adding refs. The Edward Anderson of this article was born April 4, 1864 according to the source we have in hand. If you have a different source, please add it and a hatnote to support your changes. Thank you for taking an interest in helping us with this article.

At GLAM Pritzker, we are currently working on adding WWI American generals biographies to Wikipedia in advance of the anniversary of America's entry into WWI. Feel free to help with any of the others that catch your fancy. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TeriEmbrey: Sorry about that, in the process of converting that article to use the proper {{birth date}} and {{death date and age}} templates, I erroneously changed then number 1864 to 1872 in the infobox by mistake, which I then used as the basis for my disambiguation move. By the way, many other articles created by Cutelip have a similar issue of missing metadata. Pppery (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TeriEmbrey: Pppery (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Cutelip is a new editor. Please help her out! I try to catch the big glaring things, but don't catch all the smaller details. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tfm/dated

Regarding recent editation war on Template:Tfm/dated, my proofs that it is to be used in talk pages is are not bullet- ones, might be rather agruments:

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Tfm/dated is mostly talk pages
"Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing ...Tfm... on their talk page(s)." at Template:Tfm might have been misleading in my case
Do you like, how http://archive.is/mvAEG, section "Usage in quantum mechanics", looks? Is it OK to bother innocent readers?

--Mykhal (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mykhal:

The fact that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Tfm/dated is mostly talk pages is due to the fact that a template used on many talk pages is being considered for merging.
The instructions about notifying the author say to use a different template ({{tfmnotice}}), and thus are not relevant here.
The entire point of the {{tfm/dated}} template dispalying in articles is to let people reading the article know about the template's proposed merging.

Pppery (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ad 3) - I still wonder why Wikipedia article reader should be bothered by Wikipedia internals. I think you are not listening. --Mykhal (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mykhal: If you wish to change the fact that tfd/tfm notices appear on articles, the proper place to take the concern would be WT:TFD. Pppery (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed noinclude

Hi! I see you have reverted my edit on Template:CatalogueofLife species: I'm sure you did the right thing, but in this way the Tfm template appears in every page where the template CatalogueofLife is used, like here in Ligdia adustata. How we can fix it? --Fornaeffe (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fornaeffe: That was the entire point of me removing the noinclude tags. The tfm template is supposed to show on articles transcluding that template. Pppery (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it needs to be said

Especially since I felt bad about even asking, but this was an incredibly nice, cool thing for you to do. In the one comment I posted without a ping, it worked exactly as advertised with no issues. Thank you again and I hope you keep working on what looks like an amazing collection of contributions here. RunnyAmiga (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RunnyAmiga: Pppery says Your welcome! as he continues his over 2500 Wikipedia edits. Pppery (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting discussions

In the future, I would appreciate you not editing my contributions in edits such as this one. I don't know if you were trying to fix something, but it didn't make any difference in the display as far as I could see. For that reason, I didn't think it worth a revert. If the edit did indeed fix something, I would be interested to know for future reference. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was intentionally not making any change to the display. It seems to be an unfortunately common thing to do to reply to someone who indented their comment with stars by replacing their stars with colons. For example:

Thank you Example 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Example2 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, which is what I am fixing, is the first

in WP:LISTGAP. Pppery (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BDD now as my previous reply might have been too complicated to trigger a ping. Pppery (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

test --BDD (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of the affect on screen readers of extra line breaks; I remove them when I come across them. Is that the reason for recommending against mixing colons and asterisks as well? It's less clear to me. My preference, especially in an XfD context, is for each initial opinion to be bulleted, with replies beneath. It makes for a more readable conversation IMO, and certainly easier on a closer. I didn't realize how wonky these bullet points can be, that a comment preceded with *: will display differently depending on what precedes it. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: You are correct that this is an accessibility is with mixing starts and colons in the way you are doing. It is permissible (although less prefered) to respond to someone who indented their comment with * to reply with *: - that is the second LISTGAP Y. A comment preceded with *: always displays the same way as a comment preceded with :: - It's only an issue with the HTML markup. Pppery (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. See the line I added above with "test". It looks like if someone responds with just :, a *: below that will display a bullet point, blank space, and then the comment. Unless this is just looking different for me in preview... --BDD (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. The proper way to reply to a discussion is to add you own colon or star to whatever mix of those the person you are replying to replied with. Pppery (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I guess that's just something I should get used to. I'm very hesitant to do that, especially since I don't want it done to me. I suppose I can look for alternatives, like a new *, as I did in my 15:35 reply. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Re-adding this ping as I forgot to sign my previous post. Pppery (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for fixing the brackets

I thought that there was probably some way to do that but I couldn't figure it out. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: You're welcome. Pppery (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purging in MediaWiki

Hi. Re: phabricator:T143531, I agree that discussing idempotence is a distraction.

Regarding the behavior of purges in MediaWiki, I can share what I've learned/rediscovered lately, based on conversations with people and some code skimming. My current understanding is that purging does not invalidate parser cache directly, but does so indirectly. When you submit a successful purge to a MediaWiki wiki page, it updates the page's page_touched timestamp. The page itself does not get regenerated until it's requested (it's on-demand/lazy loaded). However, since purging a page typically sends the user/client to the view action subsequent to purging, the parser cache for that page is usually invalidated when the view is served.

You can see this in action in the HTML page source. For User:MZMcBride a few minutes ago:

<!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:3734194-0!*!*!*!*!*!* and timestamp 20160808233545 and revision id 706423733 -->

After the page is purged and my browser returns to the implicit view action in MediaWiki:

<!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:3734194-0!*!*!*!*!*!* and timestamp 20160824021119 and revision id 706423733 -->

I think people might differ on whether they consider this change to the HTML page source to be an observable (side) effect (which has an article at side effect (computer science), I learned yesterday).

When developers say using ?action=purge doesn't purge the parser cache, it's technically true, but also pedantically annoying and often misleading. The purge action itself does not purge or regenerate parser cache, but it marks the cache as old and in need of regeneration. And a purge action is very often accompanied by a subsequent view action.

The *links tables are a different matter. I often conflate null edits with purges, but purges do not cause *links updates, as far as I understand it, while null edits do. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: I was unaware of the fact that purging makes such a minor techincal change. However, that actually strengthens my point! Purging the same page twice (assuming their are no intermediate page views), has literally no changes after the first purge. The cache has already been invalidated and thus the second purge has no effect. Pppery (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANEW

FYI, something seems to have mucked up in the tool used to add new reports to ANEW. In the hidden instructions, instead of showing ~~~~, it seems to have actually applied the formatting of your signature. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't think I explained well. It isn't visible once the post is made, but the text the posting user sees in the edit box is this:

Comments: {{subst:void|OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using [[User:Pppery|Pppe<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r</big>y]] <big style="position:relative;top:5px">([[User talk:Pppery|talk]])</big> 19:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)}}

TimothyJosephWood 15:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Sorry about that. I was making changes to the example report to as to avoid irrelevant HTML comments showing up after the report is saved, and something mucked up with my sig. Fixed Pppery (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the issue there was be converting HTML comments (where signature tildes don't expand) into a substitution of the {{void}} template (where sig tildes do expand) and not noticing it. Pppery (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit overboard with moving the anchor code?

Pppery, when I moved the core RMassist logic over to a subtemplate, I deliberate left the anchor code out of it if ever the anchor code would change. Now, you decided to incorporate it in an unchangeable edit summary (and ending up using more characters). If the template changes, it could break the edit summaries. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that you removed the conditional output depending on page, which technically didn't have consensus (!), and broke consistency with RfD templates, perhaps you can remove the anchor code altogether? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M, Wang: I removed the conditional output because my interpretation of reading the 2013 talk page thread in which the move link was added showed that it was a no-longer-necessary techincal hack. Pppery (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: Pppery (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your conditional output removal, but didn't think about its implication for the anchor until now. Previously, the "move @subpage" that you see at WP:RM produced a link that led to the WP:RMT subpage, with the link pointing to the anchor. Since you removed that conditional logic, the anchor, which you now moved to RMassist/core seems no longer necessary, and if you don't wish you restore the conditional output, I suggest that the anchor be completely removed. (For context, {{Rfd2}} has something similar in conditional output) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you were interested in a debate about a failed refactor proposal for {{Rfd2}}, check out Special:Permalink/725657614#RfC: Proposal to simplify the substituted output of Rfd2. The proposal was about encapsulating all that logic into subtemplates, similar to how {{RMassist}} does it today with {{RMassist/core}}. It failed mostly due to transclusion concerns, whereas it doesn't exist for {{RMassist/core}}, since the transclusions are all temporary. Thought this was up your alley. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did go ahead and remove the anchor code altogether. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

bold, but not reckless

Thank you for gnomish work, bold but not reckless, such as page moves and redirects, work at the help desk, proper headers for discussions and follow up on merges, cleaning up hidden messages because consensus may change, reducing shouting, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hold off for the full 30-days of the RFC

There is NO CONSENSUS on the Talk page for Jane Austen for any of these edits by these 4 users. All editors must follow the Open RFC to the letter until it ends. Could you hold these edits until the RfC is completed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? I removed some contradictory hidden text about infoboxes, which there seems to be no discussion about on the talk page? Pppery (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Please reduce the total vertical height of your sig; it's negatively affecting line-spacing, and making it harder to read discussions, by giving the appearance of a new post when one of yours line-wraps. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually notably worse now than it was when people first complained about it in June. If you reverted to that version, it would obviate the problem I'm talking about. (And obviously I don't hold to the view that people should not have fun, custom sigs like my cat-face one). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add to the previous comments about this and say that I think your sig is needlessly distracting, and toning it down a bit would be appreciated. Sam Walton (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Series overview table transcluding

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T144762

Just so we're clear, your way of transcluding is not necessarily "better". Take a look at these revisions at Step by Step (TV series) – there is an unnecessary space that renders at the bottom using your way of transcluding the 'Series overview' table that isn't supposed to be there. The same issue was present yesterday at Breadwinners (TV series) (which is why I went to onlyinclude tags) though for some reason that issue has resolved at that article. If you can solve that issue using your way, great! But, for now, I going to revert at Step by Step because that extra space shouldn't be there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like #section-h includes everything between the header for the section wanted and includes any spaces in the source to the start of the next section. To stop that need to remove the spacing between the end of what is wanted to transclude and the next header. This is generally not desirable as generally headers in the source have spaces before them and removing that spacing is not normal editing behavior. It may be better to use #section instead and mark the sections in the source to what is wanted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall and Geraldo Perez: But that removes one of the reasons why #section-h should be used in the first place - that it doesn't require duplicate markup in the source of the target page. <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags are very opaque and produce counter-intuitive transclusion behavior, while not using #section-h produces markup like:

== Series overview ==
<section begin=SeriesOverview />

in which one of those appears to be redundant to the other (but they aren't). It's better to just remove the spaces. Ppp ery 16:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not necessarily against doing it your way (though I probably need more convincing to actually start using it myself) – it's just that your way is currently leaving an "extra space" after the 'Series overview' table which is undesirable. If the "extra space" thing can be eliminated, then I won't object to your way at all (though I'm also not sure it's worth the trouble of "converting" all those transclusions done the "old way" to "your way"...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The spaces will likely be added back in future edits as editors try to format the source code for readability and to how it is generally formatted in most articles. One header in an article with no space before it looks unusually and the reason it is not there when it would normally be there is not obvious. This looks to be a bug in #lsth, spaces before the next header should be ignored. onlyinclude tags look to be a better way until that issue with lsth is fixed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onlyinclude tags are definitely not better for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Ppp ery 16:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Pppery – removing a space between sections is really not acceptable editing behavior. Please self-revert. Whether you are right or not on the merits, this is really not productive editing on this. I think you need to rethink your approach on this – you definitely need to rethink your insistence on using 'section-h'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I still am not sold on your blanket opposition to using onlyinclude tags, primarily because I have yet to see one example of this "anomalous" behavior your referring to. Can you provide an example where use of onlyinclude has led to a poor rendering outcome at an article? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And removing the space before a header is not desirable either. You seem to be familiar with this extension. Could it be possible for you to work the spacing issues with the developers, maybe get a version of #lsth that excludes post and pre header spaces? I'd love to use this as it is a much better solution then marking up another article but this spacing issue is annoying. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @IJBall and Geraldo Perez: Why don't one of you file a bug report on phabricator? Also, this discussion probably should be happening on Help talk:Labeled section transclusion. I never said that <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags have lead to a poor rendering outcome at an article. What I was saying is that I was confused when I first encountered onlyinclude tags with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy transcluding Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (since LSTified by me) didn't display the full page. Ppp ery 16:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall and Geraldo Perez: Pinging again because an edit conflict caused me to make some minor spacing changes unintentionally. Ppp ery 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be much more familiar with the development process than I am and will likely be able to communicate much better to the developers than I can. From your user page you look like you speak their language and you are familiar with the issue. Your help would be appreciated as I really would like to use this if the spacing issues could be fixed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Geraldo Perez: What I'm not good at, though, is formulating a bug report. Ppp ery 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess that Cyberpower678 could probably help you with that. If not, I'd try the Admin MusikAnimal. Both of these editors are "code"/technically savvy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a test with a section edit and the space before the header is automatically put there. Removing the spaces before the headers is not really permitted by the wiki software and mosts people do section edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall has now awakened the great beast.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678, Geraldo Perez, and IJBall: I filed a bug report. Ppp ery 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some maintenance categories

Hi Pppery, thought I'd alert you to Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects, which can be used to determine editnotices that possibly need to be moved (like in a recent RMT request you made).

And on the onlyinclude fixes, there are times when a page transcludes another one via onlyinclude, and an editor unaware of onlyinclude will remove one or both tags, unaware of the consequences. Sometimes these breaks will make the page appear in one of these three categories: one, two, three... Just FYI, since it seems you're quite eager and passionate about onlyinclude issues, and cheers — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: Re the topic of onlyincluding - that is one of the reasons that #section-h is better - it is not possible to break #section-h without renaming the section, which is not something that can be done accidentally. Yet over 9500 pages have onyinclude tags, incorrectly in my opinion. Ppp ery 00:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016)

I put the September 2016 qualifier on there because IWRG has held similarly named events in August 2016 and other times in the past, I am actively working on IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (August 2016) and the article you moved should really be moved back to be consistent. Once I have more than one "IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara" article created I would use the base named article as a dab page. MPJ-DK 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: A RfC recently concluded on WT:DAB showing that There seems to be no consensus about altering titles that do not strictly collide. Ppp ery 23:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No clue what that even means, is that supposed to explain why it's okay to just move the article and ignoring the comments made to naming? Since I know there will be an "August 2016" version and that will lead to the base name without qualifiers being an overview page for all IWRG shows of that name I know that either now or in a week or two it'll end up back at "(September 2016)" - why not just leave it there now instead of getting moved again? Seems pointless to me. MPJ-DK 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I put something for both the "August 2016" location as well as the article name without qualifiers to complete the set. MPJ-DK 23:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disambiguation

It has an RfD tag, but no RfD entry. FYI — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: There is an rfd going on. The discussion was just relisted and is now found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#WikiProhect Disambiguation. Ppp ery 01:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question on updating John Loeb Jr. Wiki Page

Thanks for your help as I get up to speed on Wikipedia. I received a message that said the Wikipedia page John Langeloth Loeb, Jr. has been moved to: John Langeloth Loeb, Jr but when I go to that URL I do not see the page. I do see the original page at: John Langeloth Loeb Jr.

You advised me to post my updates on the talk page for "John Langeloth Loeb Jr." using {{request edit}}.

Quick question: We have updates to make in several sections, in the middle of paragraphs, etc. Is it possible for me to make all the updates and post the ENTIRE page (with all updates) to the "Talk" page for John Loeb Jr? Or maybe there is another place I can post it for review?

Thanks in advance for your help with this. Mybestwords (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mybestwords: I'm not sure what move log notification you are talking about. I moved the article to John Langeloth Loeb Jr. (dropping the comma before the Jr.), rather than to the title you claimed it was moved to. As for your second question, I'm not sure how to answer it. The general format of edit requests is "please change X to Y". Ppp ery 21:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should keep discussion on one place. May I point out that you have posted requests relating to this article on your talk page, my talk page, the Teahouse, and the talkpage of the article. Ppp ery 21:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Thanks for your reply. The log notification was in an email that I received but it sounds like there are no problems, so that's good. Sorry about posting my query to several places. I will consolidate my queries moving forward. Just learning, with your help. Thanks! Mybestwords (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

noinclude list

I'm just curious, mostly because I haven't dug into the coding of your module, but is there a reason why your noinclude list seemingly transcludes every template at TFD? Primefac (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Primefac: My noinclude list transcludes every template at tfd because I use mw.title:getContent() on every template at TFD to get the page source and see if it contains the text noinclude in the relevant spot. This thus causes a transclsuion to be recorded in the database. The coding is at Module:Sandbox/pppery/noinclude tfd Ppp ery 02:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk response

You said an outdated URL would automatically be replaced, but that assumes there's something to replace it with. The other person to respond pointed out that manual archiving is the best way.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: clpo13, the other person to respond if I understand which thread you are talking about, certainly didn't point out that manual archiving is the best way, he merely told the asker how to do say, infact he explicitly said I was correct. Additionally, links that are not extremely short-lived and are not on a site with a restrictive robots.txt will probably have and archived copy generated before they go dead. Ppp ery 21:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't say it was the best way. Sorry, I didn't say that right. I really meant that it was the best way to assure there is a URL that will continue to work. You made it sound like the site would be archived, but I'm concerned that's not as true as you think.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: Proof that some links go dead without being archived? Ppp ery 21:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my experience that this happens a lot. If that is changing, that's news to me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback Machine does a fairly good job at automatically archiving pages over time, but pages may not be archived for a number of reasons, not least of all a site's robots.txt blocking the crawler. Some on-demand systems, such as WebCite are susceptible to this as well. Archive.is, on the other hand, does not honor robots.txt, but archives may be taken down at the request of the content owner, which is true of all archiving services. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newburgh

This was a slightly more complicated move. If you find any need for corrections, let me know — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your technical move request

Hello Pppery. You asked for Belong Betray to be moved to Belong ╪ Betray. When I fill that name into the page-move form it says that it's forbidden by the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I declined this as a technical move. As an admin I can override this problem, but first I'd like to know why that name is blacklisted. Can you ask someone who might know about the blacklist, such as User:MER-C, or post a question on some technical board? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act like this please

Sorry for removing the irrelevant comment, but your insisting on restoring an irrelevant and nonsense comment is not pleasant to the eyes really. I'm not bound to speak of the copy vio when there's no problem with that. Btw, the outcome had no effect on the progress of my nomination. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Thank you for converting the headings I use at WT:DYK into links, but I think it's unnecessary, particularly when most of them become queues before the issues are addressed. While I completely acknowledge that you're doing a "good thing" I'd suggest you spend that time doing other good things because I'm not clear what real value those edits are adding to Wikipedia; editors interested in these issues are fully aware of how to find, say, Prep 5, without a hyperlink in the section heading to help them. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, but honestly, I'm not sure if you're really making the best use of your time. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your LISTGAP edits are not helpful at all. In fact, editing my own talk page to implement this LISTGAP methodology is unwelcome and I'd ask you to not do that again. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I disagree. The edits I am makings, while they seem minor, in fact are fixing an accessibility issue that arises whenever there are blanks linkes between list items or some methods of mixing colons and stars. I don't understand why you are reverting me here. See #Reformatting discussions above. Ppp ery 21:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content your intentions are noble. Please be advised not to make such edits to my talk page ever again. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rye (town)

Hi Pppery, wanted to give you a heads up that another user undid your move of Rye (town), New York, which I believe is legitimate per WP:USPLACE. — Andy W. (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Hi,
Thanks for following through with all that copyright stuff, though I have my doubts about the current version too. I hope they'll have a look at that too once their attention is drawn to the article. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RMT instructions

I honestly don't think this is necessary given the editnotice, but for the sake of completeness, shuold I (or you?) update the oldid on the clickable button at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests/Instructions at the bottom of the page? — Andy W. (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: I wasn't aware of that button (which I can't see, because I'm not an admin or page mover), but that would be a good idea. (BTW: I added that comment because a similar one was already present in the "requests to revert undiscussed moves" section, and the inconsistency seemed odd to me). Ppp ery 19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protection table column size

Hey, I think you broke the column sizes in this template: [2], $20\times 2+16\times 4+28=132$ , not 100! At least in my Firefox, this made the rightmost column (the one that actually needs width) really tiny. I've adjusted the sizes to add back to 100; feel free to change them if you want, but try to keep them adding to 100%. ⁓ Hello 71 12:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hello71: I didn't even think about the column widths way back in April, and must not have noticed the width anomaly. Thanks for catching and fixing that. Ppp ery 19:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of micronations

Hi Pppery. Sorry I reverted one of your edits. I didn't mean for that to happen. I hiccuped and banged my mouse by mistake.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent transclusion edits

Please discuss your recent transclusion edits at WT:TV before reinstating. This is the method of transclusion that is used in the hundreds, if not thousands, of split television articles, and has been for years. You made a bold edit, you've been reverted, now start a discussion. I am also not the only editor that has reverted you [3][4]. Your understanding is appreciated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for fixing the confounding comma at Augusten Burroughs! Safehaven86 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Pppery. Thank you for pointing out that the template I added to the image caption for Sabnam Parvin was missing the date parameters. I didn't notice right away that I forgot to add it when I originally added the template; for some reason, I must have mistakenly assumed that the correct date would be substituted. It was my mistake and I appreciate the correction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: And I was reverting you instead of fixing it because I didn't know that the date parameter existed at all. Ppp ery 14:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revert

Your reverted my edit ([5]). But I think it should be noincluded because it shows in the page that inlcude Template:Hangugeo. See Template:Hangugeo/doc#Examples, it shows "‹The template Hangugeo is being considered for merging.› Park Geun-hye (박근혜)". Is it right? Sorry for my English.--A2093064 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@A2093064: Yes, that's a completely intentional and desired side effect of the tfd notice. It alerts people reading the article that the template is considered for deletion. That is good. Ppp ery 00:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your answer. When I google "Park Geun-hye", it shows in search result. haha.--A2093064 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LISTGAP

Please stop changing the indents of everyones comments - Ever since I've been on here I've always done it as :* and unless there's an important reason for me not too than I'll carry on doing it this way and I would appreciate if you left them alone,
I appreciate you wanna help however in this case you're not helping but instead are being a hinderance and are being disruptive,
Focus more on editing and less on how people indent their posts,
Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 16:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Is there some reason why you keep reverting edits that don't change the appearance (or only make minor spacing changes), and yet make the HTML produced cleaner and improve accessibility. See #Reformatting discussions above. Ppp ery 17:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Because you're technically editing eitors comments which isn't allowed as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, As I've said I've been doing it this way for years and i'm not about to change it just so people can read it better or whatever, If people cannot read it as :* then you perhaps need to get consensus to have it deprecated however until that time comes I will continue to indent my comments as :* and I would appreciate if you left my comments and other editors comments alone infuture - If you don't you could be blocked for disruptive editing,

Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 374: / Line 374: @@
 ::Yes - Because you're technically editing eitors comments which isn't allowed as per [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments]], As I've said I've been doing it this way for years and i'm not about to change it just so people can read it better or whatever, If people cannot read it as <nowiki>:*</nowiki> then you perhaps need to get consensus to have it deprecated however until that time comes I will continue to indent my comments as <nowiki>:*</nowiki> and I would appreciate if you left my comments and other editors comments alone infuture - If you don't you could be blocked for disruptive editing,
 ::Thanks. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
-== November 2016 ==
-[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments. <!-- Template:uw-tpv4 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning4 --> –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 14:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-:You were only told 4 days ago to stop the indent changes and yet you've carried on so let me make this clear - You either stop and get consensus for these changes.... or I go to ANI and you could be blocked for disrupting editing - Your choice. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 14:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)