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

What's interesting is that this deletion is just simple housekeeping on this temporary, defunct project file (worked on by just myself and a now-retired user), so I can't see it makes sense to go through any extended process. The cruft in the project isn't that bad at this point. I honestly thought I could just toss it in the waste can, so to speak. Oh well. Maybe some other defunct project files can get deleted easier. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

[1] OK, I understand the point, but rollback should not be used to revert stuff that is not vandalism. Bedivere ( talk) 14:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Pppery,

Sorry if I messed up this page merge. I get frustrated when editors empty out existing categories in favor of brand new categories they just created which vary only slightly from the original category. But I guess my solution just caused a mess. Thank you for fixing it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Carino's Italian redirects to Johnny Carino's but Talk:Johnny Carino's redirects to Talk:Carino's Italian. It may just need a round-robin swap on the talk pages but I see you've done a histmerge, so I thought I'd better bring it here in case a more complex solution is needed. Certes ( talk) 20:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed that. It just needed a swap, except I'm an admin so can delete the trivial redirect without swapping. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As I explained on the draft's talk page We have the existing article Duodecimal so there is no need for a draft redirect. And duodecimal (base 12) is not hexadecimal (base 16) so this redirect makes no sense. Meters ( talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that establishes it was created in error. You'd have to establish not only that the redirect is unneeded, but that the creator would agree that the redirect is unneeded. With rare exceptions, I interpret that subcriterion as only applying to cases where the creator has, either explicitly or implicitly acknowledged their own mistake, i.e 24TeamBracket-NoSeeds where someone created a page in mainspace and moved it to template space one minute later.

I have no idea what the creator was trying to do, but I'm not convinced every edit they made was an error sufficiently obvious for G6 as you seem to think. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, how do you suggest that we get rid of these useless and incorrect drafts? Meters ( talk) 04:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do they need to be gotten rid of? Do they cause any harm? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion. We now have erroneous drafts (yes, maybe the other two can be considered not to have been created in error, but Draft:Duodecimal is a clear error. It's pointing to the wrong article, and the other two contain glaring errors: in Draft:Pentadecimal Senary is defined as base 7 when it is actually base 6, and Draft:Octal starts off with "The bass 20", which is presumable supposed to be "The base 20", and base 20 makes zero sense.) clogging things up. They are drafts that actually point to the existing articles on the subjects.

Why would we want to keep these? If you're not interested in speedying these as errors, or drafts that are attempting to duplicate existing subjects, or any other reason then just then just say so and I'll take this elsewhere. After seeing this [2] series of edits (twice) by the IP to one of his draft targets I'm wandering if this is intentional disruption. Meters ( talk) 04:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted Draft:Duodecimal as R3. I am not interested in speedying the others - I'm still not convinced any speedy deletion criterion applies other than G13 after 6 months, nor that they need to be speedy deleted faster than 6 months. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you commented the edit requests on this page ( /info/en/?search=Andrea_Muzii ).

Great that you noticed it.

I would also like to point out that some of the points present in the page are still part of the personal attacks that originated the page protection. You can see that the edit restoration (and following protection) was done for the last set of attacks but if you see past edits there's more of that.

These claims are the ones that mention a 8th and 4th positions through the page multiple times. You can clearly see by clicking on the cited sources that there's no mention of these informations and there's nothing about that on the internet in general. In fact no consensus was reached to add these informations and it was always done by the same anonymous user.

I think they should be removed.

And also, the mention at the end of the page about the online course may look like a promotion so it's better to remove it too imo. 151.43.61.194 ( talk) 20:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming you're not Lucio Scatola evading your block, then feel free to make requests for specific edits on the talk page and someone (who may or may not be me) will handle it in due time. I have just as little inclination to intervene in favor of your side of the dispute as I did yesterday to intervene in favor of the other side. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, clear.

I will try to make the edit request.

Just to understand: if the statements are poorly sourced, like it seems to be, why isn't possible for you to verify them and, possibly, do the edit?

Not a polemical question. 151.43.61.194 ( talk) 21:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's possible, just not something I have the time and motivation to do right now. I am not obligated to do any specific task on Wikipedia * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect WikiProject Integrity 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/2023 October 11 § WikiProject Integrity until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 22:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Just curious, who is this edit summary of yours directed at? - wolf 03:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The "you" was VintageNebula, who added a RM that was opened relatively recently to the page. But of course I didn't expect them to adhere to my idiosyncratic definition of fairness, so perhaps a better phrasing was "if this RM is listed for an out-of-sequence closure ..." * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I just added a request to the top of list yesterday, so I wasn't sure. Fyi, VintageNebula is a new user with only ≈25 edits, so maybe they didn't know any better? Anyway, thanks for the clarification. - wolf 04:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah hey it's me; my apologies! Wasn't my intention to be unfair or dismissive towards the other long-standing closure requests. I'm new and not entirely familiar with the norms, I thought it was ok because the discussion stopped for several days. I'll learn from this for next time. 🌌 VintageNebula ( talk) 10:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, for someone "not entirely familiar" with WP, you sure seem pretty familiar with WP just the same. And now thanks to this gripe that Pppery has with you, he's flooded the close request page and it'll take forever for an admin to mine. <sarcasm>Nice work, guys.</sarcasm> - wolf 01:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not a gripe. I've been listing all 7-day discussions that have been open for more than a month since mid August, and would probably have gotten to those RMs eventually anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't make the page any less flooded with discussions that are only few weeks old, and doesn't the fact that you a point of telling of some "newbie" in the summary while doing so. - wolf 02:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi! You've recently ubdo my edits in Module:Adjacent stations/PKP Intercity due to Lua errors. Ofcourse I do understand that it is my responsibility to clean up after myself. I am not an experienced editor. I did look trough few articles on What links here module special page after I had published my edits and I fixed all error I found. Apparently there were a lot more. Could you instruct me where I would be able to find list of all errors after I will make my edits? Best regards -- Antoni12345 ( talk) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

All articles with Lua errors are listed in Category:Pages with script errors, although it may take an hour or two for the list to update after a template edit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! — Antoni12345 ( talk) 11:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pppery, Good morning! Hope you're fine. Why is the Category:WikiProject Nigeria participants suddenly missing? It's disappearance is not even in logs again. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No idea. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that Category:WikiProject Nigeria members is about to be renamed to that category, but the rename hasn't happened yet. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks. I was not even aware of that discussion. I wonder though. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here. I thought User:JJMC89 bot III had moved all of these WikiProject Members categories and these categories that appeared on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories were just leftover since they were empty. I'm sorry for the extra work you spent, restoring them and then moving them to the correct, to the Participants page titles. I don't know why JJMC89 bot III hadn't gotten to them yet since the contents had been moved over, just not the category pages. My apologies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of these categories, like Category:WikiProject Environment participants, are actually Redirect caategories that still are tagged as Redirects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot III hasn't gotten to them because people are manually checking that all templates are updated before feeding them to the bot. Others are doing moves manuallty without using the bot. And yes, the redirect problems will all be addressed by various people in due time. And some of the categories are currently empty because the cache needs to update to recognize a template change. Why don't you just disengage here and let this be handled by others who know what's going on? Having to spend an hour cleaning up a mess that took a minute to make (and on top of that caused permanent damage due to a years-old unresolved bug) is seriously demotivating. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is a low priority, but as a member of WikiProject Kentucky, I'd like to see the most recently edited articles in the Kentucky orbit. I saw that you added a project to the HotArticlesBot run list in August, and so I'd like to inquire if this can be done for Kentucky too. If you do it, you can simply copy the settings from WikiProject Louisville, which I had requested to be added in the past. Thank you in advance, and again this isn't an immediate need. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your help with the Chronological template. Obviously, I didn't do what I was suppose to when I created it ten years ago and it has been something that has bother me for along time, but I haven't felt like I had the full understanding needed to make the appropriate additions to make it a proper maintenance category. I am sorry that you had to fix my problems and I am grateful that you did so. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 09:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of going to WP:ANI with this, but I figured asking an admin might be better, as this isn't a major dispute. A user with (apparently) two accounts ( User:Evanwilliams1121, User:Creativityhuman) is going around to predominantly healthcare articles and (almost always) rewriting text in violation of Avoid affected, pompous, or excessive language. Most of their recent edits have been reverted by myself and others. Even after being called on it, they just keep coming back and doing more of the same. Other egregious aspects is they mark all their edits as minor and don't explain their changes with an edit summary. It seems to me they are using the Wikipedia for a kind of creative writing exercise or using an AI tool to come up with alternative text. Can something be done about this? I have a hard time seeing this user is WP:Here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your consideration. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and take this to ANI or ask a different admin - I'm not the right person to handle this since, among other things, I pledged to refrain from using the block button in my RfA. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume this referred to the existence of Template:Automatic_archive_navigator_editsection itself, which is indeed a grotesquely stupid hack. If I was a Lua man, I would just incorporate the suppression of those magic words as a flag into the normal module (and a very good one I'd have to be since it's transcluded on 19 squillion pages)... jp× g 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And the reason for that edit was that the examples didn't use your hack. And it's also stupid IMO to encourage edits to archives, but whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey Pppery. I was giving admin role to new RfAs in Discord today and checked on yours. An account using your name joined some years ago and never chatted or auth'd. Since you're sysop now and I don't want any risk of impersonation, could you confirm if it were you? I can also boot the account if you don't plan to use it or if it wasn't you. -- ferret ( talk) 13:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's conceivable that at one point I may have created an account on discord many years ago and then forgot about it, or it could be impersonation. In any event I have no plans of becoming active on discord right now, so you can just boot the account. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ferret ( talk) 15:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please could you take another look at Pakhli? I've restored the redirect again after the article reappeared courtesy of an IP in the same /16 as the previous ones. Like your reversion, mine also undid some useful-looking edits by Farleftguy, who is new to Wikipedia but obviously knows their way around. Thanks, Certes ( talk) 18:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I would not be at all surprised if Farleftguy is a sock of Khan of Naral - the behavior seems similar enough. I'll probably file a SPI for both the account and the IP in a few hours. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I also had suspicions but don't know the history well enough to go straight to SPI myself. Certes ( talk) 18:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I created Currency tracking from a redirect article to be a disambig article, so if it needs a cleanup, I am responsible and will do the work on it. Could you elaborate your reasons for the tag?

Yes, I realise that most disambig articles are of the form

• A (Cyrillic)
• A (Greek)
• A (Latin)

to disambiguate a simple A (pretending for the exercise that there is no primary topic); the article clearly does not comply with that model.

The other method that might apply is a wp:Broad-concept article but I really can't see that being relevant: the only "broad concept" that applies is "currency", interpreted so broadly as to be trivially relevant. What we have here is a case of the same words being used to mean different things. Do we have a mechanism for that? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 12:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It needs cleanup as the descriptions are far too long. See MOS:DABSHORT. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I always look for the complicated answer! tyvm. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Done -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 15:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Holiday music 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/2023 November 10 § Holiday music until a consensus is reached. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

All, or almost all of the pages that link to "Blue Spirit" do so for the animation studio, not the section for an episode of ATLA. Surely it makes more sense for it to be a disambig page than something that redirects people to the mostly wrong target? ( Hohum ^@) 19:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

An entry on a disambiguation page is required to be supported by an article on the English Wikipedia that mentions the claimed use. The disambiguation page you created failed that requirement, instead relying only on the French Wikipedia which is not an acceptable substitute since you can't assume readers speak French. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So, it's better to have a bunch of links from other articles definitely going to the wrong place? Can we come up with a better solution? ( Hohum ^@) 19:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have unlinked all of the articles linking to the wrong meaning of Blue Spirit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering if you could please help merge the draft histories between Draft:Glitch Productions and Glitch Productions, as a user copied and pasted the draft into the mainspace. - K-popguardian ( talk) 07:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are WP:Parallel histories here, as both the draft and the article have unrelated versions in April-September 2022, which makes a standard history merge not practical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, forgot I'd uploaded that over his old image. Though to be fair, Niemti/SNAAAAKE isn't likely to come back as is. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm obviously not a disinterested party here, but the no-consensus-means-overturn rule for speedies on DRV hasn't ever really been applied to pages that have gone through deletion discussions. Certainly not for G4s that haven't been temp-undeleted and then examined specifically for similarity.

Not asking that you reinstate your close, just hoping to prevent a dystopic "no consensus for drvs of afds means we have to overturn, so long as someone's reposted it at least once!" future. — Cryptic 02:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I'm still going to let someone else close, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand your motivation for tagging How are you? (initiative) with CSD:G5, and appreciate you not outright deleting it. However, while the novice editor is not XC, the article itself seems well sourced, and not directly related to the conflict at all. It is questionable whether it falls under the content ban, but even if it does, we should still apply judgement in each case based on the content. Owen× ☎ 15:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. It's not at all questionable to me that an article that explicitly links to Russo-Ukrainian War is " related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed". But whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair point; I changed the wording to a more neutral one, so now it's a generic reference to the war as an event, without pointing at an aggressor. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Pppery, I noticed you added an RfD template to the Paupers deck challenge, but I couldn't find this redirect's entry in the RfD logs. Am I overlooking something? – DreamRimmer ( talk) 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops. I've added the log entry now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		ThatOneWolf has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!

ThatOneWolf ^{( talk| contribs)} 04:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pppery, you reverted my edit with the claim "These are invisible tags that don't affect the display of this navbox ".

Unfortunately, they definitely do affect the display. In Firefox, they cause the labels to appear like this, broken across multiple lines:

"Agrivoltaic Aquaculture Cattle Dairy farming Fur farming Goat farming Grazing

   Convertible husbandry Rotational grazing

Hydroponics Insect farming Livestock

   Pasture

Mixed Paddy field Pastoral

   Bocage

Pig farming Poultry farming Ranch Orchards Sheep farming Terrace Wildlife farming"

That seems to me quite disastrous as a bit of "invisible" formatting. When I formatted it, it appeared correctly like this:

"Agrivoltaic Aquaculture Cattle Dairy farming Fur farming Goat farming Grazing Convertible husbandry Rotational grazing Hydroponics Insect farming Livestock Pasture Mixed Paddy field Pastoral Bocage Pig farming Poultry farming Ranch Orchards Sheep farming Terrace Wildlife farming"

I don't know how your tag system is meant to work, but it is not working properly at this moment. I would suggest you remove the transclusions or whatever they are and just format the list the usual way, so that it works; or else find some other solution that works properly. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have fixed the visible formatting. I have good understanding of either why it broke or why that fixes it * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Pppery,

I'm not exactly sure what has happened here. This is a recently created category that contains nonsense content but it is filled to overflowing with talk pages. Has some template been altered to fill this CSD-tagged category with talk pages? This category can't be deleted until it is emptied but I don't think anyone manually added all of these pages to it. I'm hoping you can figure out what happened to cause this category to be filled as you are brilliant with this kind of detective work. Thanks, in advance, for any help you can supply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Some template somewhere is checking if "Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in FOO" exists and populating it if it does, where FOO turns out to be the empty string sometimes. I didn't investigate what template it was, but in any case WP:NULLEDITing the page removes it from the category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to the reason for the speedy deletion of newly formed group "Al-Aqsa vanguard". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam6897 ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Because non-extended-confirmed users aren't allowed to create articles in this topic area. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• 2023 Bitung clashes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you point me to a consensus somewhere that specifies that articles created in contravention of the ECP restriction should be automatically deleted? As far as I can tell the ArbCom decision says "permitted but not required", meaning it is up to discretion, and this article doesn't seem to me to be worth throwing out just because of who made it. Am I understanding this correctly? – bradv 06:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I, for one, think we should enforce consistent standards rather than engaging in special pleading on the merits of every single article. There's also a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Suggestion: Expansion of G5 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The big difference to me between deleting an article outright and merely reverting the additions is that in the latter case the material is available in the history if someone else wants to take it over. Also, in the latter case, presumably they would have been warned that their content might be removed, either on the talk page or via the page notice. In this case there was no such warning available to the author of that text. So deleting the article outright is completely unfair. – bradv 16:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing unfair about consistently enforcing the rules - on the contrary unfairness comes from arbitrary/selective enforcement. Yes, ideally we would have an edit filter warning about this beforehand, but that doesn't matter now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this clearly needs a broader conversation. I will raise my concerns in the discussion you mentioned. – bradv 18:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think draftification might be sometimes appropriate; that way an ECP editor if they want to take responsibility for the article can do so. Galobtter ( talk) 19:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't creating the article in draft space be just as much of a violation of general sanctions? Thus draftification wouldn't actually solve the problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm contacting you as an admin involved in the speedy category renaming page. I haven't touched that area.

A user called User:Russian Rocky proposed that a category about a place in Ukraine should be moved to the Russian spelling (Mukacheve to Mukachevo). [3] This should not be speediable IMO as it is strongly POV. I don't watch the category but I do watch the article on the radar station which should be under the Russian transliteration as that was the name used during the Soviet era when it was operational. However renaming places to their Russian name is dodgy and should have been picked up on, really. Secretlondon ( talk) 09:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like they renamed the articles to the Russian spelling before submitting the speedy request. Secretlondon ( talk) 09:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like the speedy rename was correct as the article has been stable at Mukachevo since 2017 and the category names should follow the article names. If you think the article should be titled Mukacheve, feel free to file a RM for that and the categories will follow. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the {{ Airntd}} template repopulated a lot of the same redlinked "Soviet aircraft" and "Russian aircraft" categories that caused the whole thing to have to be reverted back in September.

• Category:Soviet airliners‏‎
• Category:Soviet military reconnaissance aircraft‏‎
• Category:Soviet civil utility aircraft
• Category:Soviet experimental aircraft‏‎
• Category:Soviet sailplanes‏‎
• Category:Soviet helicopters‏‎
• Category:Soviet cargo aircraft‏‎
• Category:Soviet sport aircraft‏‎
• Category:Soviet special-purpose aircraft‏‎
• Category:Soviet anti-submarine aircraft‏‎
• Category:Russian civil utility aircraft‏‎
• Category:Russian military reconnaissance aircraft‏‎
• Category:Russian airliners‏‎
• Category:Russian anti-submarine aircraft‏‎
• Category:Russian cargo aircraft‏‎
• Category:Russian experimental aircraft‏‎
• Category:Russian helicopters‏‎
• Category:Russian special-purpose aircraft‏‎
• Category:Russian sport aircraft

I don't really remember all the details of what went down in September — I brought them to Jonesey95's attention at the time, but wasn't otherwise involved in sorting the problem after that, so I don't know all the details of why it had to be reverted rather than the categories just being created — and thus I'm not sure what to do with them now. They obviously can't stay red, but I don't want to create them if that'll screw other things up again, and I also don't want to just revert your template change arbitrarily because I don't know what other steps you may already have taken this time to prevent complications.

Accordingly, I just wanted to ask: is it safe to actually create the categories this time, or is this an unexpected snafu that's going to have to be sent back to the drawing board again? I'm obviously willing to create them if they're safe, I just don't want to mess things up by assuming anything without checking first since it was a big ol' shitshow just a couple months ago. Bearcat ( talk) 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No need - I've fixed the template to no longer populate these redlinked categories, and still populate the "Soviet and Russian foo aircraft" parents if the more specific parent doesn't exist. For reasons that are beyond me, this split is happening piece by piece at CfD instead of all at once, which occasionally causes problems like this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pouring, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk) 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ Pppery, I created an article titled CLEF Coalition aiming to collate info from the web about the partnership so internet users might be able to find out about it from Wikipedia with many different sources other than the organisation's own website. It was rejected for not having enough independent sources. I have been able to gather more independent sources and wanted to add them to expand the article's credibility and resubmit. Unfortunately, you have deleted the draft in the meantime. Could you please clarify what I need to do here and how I can proceed with resubmitting? Many thanks. Schwedinnen ( talk) 11:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article you wrote was clearly just advertising and not a credible attempt at writing an encyclopedia article. You need to start again, writing in a non-promotional tone (not saying things like "CLEF demonstrates the power of collaboration", "One of CLEF's guiding principles is to invest in proven solutions", etc.) Aren't these things every company would claim to do? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response @ Pppery - the goal is not to advertise, thank you for making the nature of the writing clear from your perspective! I am very happy to create a new draft with the intention of writing an encyclopedia article with independent sources. Can I simply resubmit a new draft once it is done? Thanks again for your help. Schwedinnen ( talk) 14:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)