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.

Hey, I think you broke the column sizes in this template: [1], ${\displaystyle 20\times 2+16\times 4+28=132}$, 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)

@ 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)

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)

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 [2] [3]. Your understanding is appreciated. Alex|The|Whovian ^? 13:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

@ 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)

Your reverted my edit ( [4]). 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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

• Just to reinforce the latest warning you've been left about this (which you removed here [5]), you really need to cut this shit out. It's getting to be a serious matter and, yes, you can be blocked for it, as others have in the past. E Eng 17:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• EEng is being too polite here; given the number of warnings you've had, if you don't cut this shit out you will be blocked. The MOS isn't even compulsory for articles let alone for internal discussions, and editing other peoples' posts to make them compliant with a non-existent policy you've made up is totally inappropriate. (Have you ever actually read the WP:LISTGAP page you keep citing, the very first sentence of which is This is a guide to editing articles for accessibility (my emphasis)?) ‑  Iridescent 17:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Once in a while, I add some indenting to a hard to read discussion where someone else forgot. I try not to change it if they actually did some indenting, even if I don't like it. Gah4 ( talk) 22:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not mislead editors asking for assistance at the help desk. Telling a user that notability depends on online information is patently false. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting you there, I obviously assumed you had gone back to the listgap thing however looking closely you were actually improving the layout so I apologize for reverting you, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been working on tables using {{ nuclide2}}, which are now all ruined. It completely messes up the formatting! There was nothing on the talk page for {{ nuclide2}} until I put something there. Putting it on {{ nuclide}} doesn't seem so bad, as it will encourage the change, but even there I suspect it ruins lots of pages. How long will it take for the merge to occur? Days, weeks, months, or years? Gah4 ( talk) 00:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Gah4: The merge discussion will be over in approximately seven days. If it is then closed as consensus to merge, but there is a delay in doing the merging, the tag is removed, and does not change transclusions. Ppp ery 01:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

But why can't we have the tag only on {{ nuclide}}? That is the one that is deprecated. That will encourage those pages to change. I suppose seven days isn't all that bad, but it really does mess up the tables I am working on. Gah4 ( talk) 04:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

... because that would contradict the general practice of template merge nominations. Ppp ery 14:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose, but it really isn't a merge. Merge is when two somewhat equal things come together. The result should have properties of both. This is more like a hostile takeover, where one completely eliminates the other, though takes the name. Gah4 ( talk) 16:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure your template merger idea is fine, and I'm not worried about that, but your actions have made it so that almost all of the lists connected to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States are inaccessible (unless someone goes to the trouble to manually type in the page address) because the links don't work. It seems unacceptable to me to leave these pages like this for a whole week. Can you please fix this so that all of the links aren't broken? Michellecornelison ( talk) 15:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I will not violate WP:TFD#Listing a template, which says that the notice should be transcluded except on substituted templates. Ppp ery 15:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

For the zillionth time, it does not say that. It says that if the template is subst'd then the notice should be noincluded. It doesn't say that substitution is a requiement for using noinclude; see Affirming the consequent. Haven't you got the message yet that your OCD gnoming constantly puts high-traffic articles into unreadable states (see [6])? As with your tinkering with others' talk-page posts (see other threads on this page) you need to step back and use your brain instead of mindlessly following "rules" (some of which aren't even rules). I'm not going to bother adding noincludes in this particular case, because the damage isn't all that widespread, but you need to start getting a clue or there's going to be consequences. Paging Iridescent. E Eng 19:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he ruined {{ nuclide2}}, too. Two editors (me and someone else) have now reverted that one. It is transcluded many times in some tables, which really destroys the formatting. I believe that there is one that says to noinclude Tfm if it ruins the page, but I forget where it is. Find someone else who agrees with you , and it will be two against one. Gah4 ( talk) 21:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this is really out of hand. It's not a matter of how many against how many, but common sense. The worst part is that these notices doesn't show up on the watchlists of people who maintain the affected articles -- all they do is mess up the article for everyday readers who want to learn something, and the articles' editors won't even know what's going on unless they happen to visit the article during the seven days. Paging Iridescent (again), plus Michellecornelison, NQ. E Eng 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it isn't really how many against how many, but it is easier to know you are on the right side when it is more than one on one. I only recently started working on tables with {{ nuclide2}}, and it is difficult to judge the formatting when it looks so different, and is used in every row of a table, Gah4 ( talk) 22:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone added the noinclude to nuclide2, so it should present OK now. If not, say so. Way too much editor time is being wasted cleaning up after one editor's bad judgement. E Eng 22:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well this is lively. EEng and Gah4, is there anything that I can do about this other than wait it out? I just contribute content (although it's been made a lot more inconvenient for me right now); I don't know a lot about templates. - Michellecornelison ( talk) 02:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In the police-shootings case, the relationship between the templates is a bit confusing, so I hesitate to tamper. One way to speed things up, if you agree with the proposed merge (or whatever's going on) is to get some others to comment hoping for quick close. E Eng 02:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't actually know what is going on, to be honest, and I'm not really clear on the intentions of the person proposing it (as they appear to have no personal interest in the articles themselves), so I'd rather not support it without understanding it. I'll just wait it out, I guess. Thanks! Michellecornelison ( talk) 03:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have little interest in the content of articles myself. I am more of a technically minded gnomish editor; objecting to noincluding; creating redirect; !voting on and nominating RfDs and TfDs, nominating redundant templates for merging, etc. Ppp ery 03:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

How in the world does that advance this conversation? Would you please take the time to assist Michellecornelison? And what in the world does it mean that you see part of your role as "objecting to noincluding". Haven't you figured out yet the damage you're doing? E Eng 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't even mean the content, I just mean interest in the article. As in, wanting to make it better. - Michellecornelison ( talk) 03:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What??? E Eng 04:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

EEng, I was responding to Pppery, sorry. I should have indented my comment differently, I guess. I think I'm gonna be done here though. Thanks again. - Michellecornelison ( talk) 13:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• (Responding to ping; I have no opinion either way on these templates.) Pppery, I would urge you to read this comment by Guy Macon and consider how it applies to your situation. When a large number of people are consistently telling you that you're acting inappropriately, there comes a point when you need to realise that the problem isn't everyone else, it's you. It's less than two weeks since you were edit-warring to try to make ANI comply with the Manual of Style; you need to stop trying to enforce any policy which you haven't read and understood. Wikipedia welcomes good faith users and we're generally pretty understanding that it can be daunting following Wikipedia's mess of rules and regulations, but good-faith disruption is still disruption and there's a clear pattern emerging of you wasting other peoples' time by demanding that they comply with non-existent policies. ‑  Iridescent13:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"I have little interest in the content of articles myself." - I have to say, that is a real shame. Not all content on Wikipedia is great, but some our featured articles are compelling reading that can grip you in exactly the same way as a good book or film. I don't know what your interests are, but I have found Cottingley Fairies, Moors Murders and Whitechapel Murders all "unputdownable". Why not give them a read sometime? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Ritchie333: That isn't what I meant when I said that. I was validating the assumption above saying "(as they appear to have no personal interest in the articles themselves)" by stating what I primarily do on Wikipedia. I in fact started out as a reader, but then made my first edit as an IP by flagging a link as dead in 2014, and then found myself making so many edits I decided to create an account in April. Ppp ery 23:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As a fellow wikignome with a lot of experience, let me give you a bit of advice.

When you are doing "technically minded gnomish editing", if anyone objects to your edits stop immediately and discuss it with them. Do not continue until you either get them to agree with what you are doing or you have firmly established that the community supports what you are doing. Wikignomes are supposed to perform non-contentious actions. The road you are on leads to you being blocked.

You may find my essay at WP:1AM to be helpful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, what was this edit [7] all about. Why are you blanking archives? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: I blanked that archive because the discussion that was previously archived there had been re-added to the main talk page, and thus didn't need to be present in the archives too. (I admit, I should have stated that in the edit summary). Ppp ery 21:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Good, so that's explained. Can you acknowledge the point that's been made over and over on this page by numerous editors? E Eng 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pppery, be aware that the alternative to us working this out with a friendly discussion here on your talk page is me filing an report at WP:ANI, with the probable result of you ending up blocked or topic banned to stop the disruption. So please discuss the fact that multiple editors are telling you to stop doing what you are doing. Would you like to make a case that they are all wrong (it does happen -- see WP:1AM)? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pppery. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you recently edited {{ Testcases notice}} to prompt a G8 under certain conditions.

I've looked at a few, e.g. {{ Abbr/testcases}} and don't think it is correct. Am I missing something?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears I made two mistakes there which masked eachother. I forgot the namespace, and also didn't remember the parameter order. In any case, Hut 8.5 and Peter coxhead seem to have fixed it. Ppp ery 22:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing on {{ Template sandbox notice}}; was there a discussion that led to this? It's tagging a bunch of harmless-looking old userspace sandboxes (e.g. [User:Ashot Arzumanyan/Infobox Armenian Apostolic Church Diocese/sandbox this one]) that I don't see a good reason to step in and delete, but there's no way to decline inappropriate taggings without removing the template that triggered them. Unless this has been discussed and there's a consensus to make this change, I'm inclined to revert it until this is addressed. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 06:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@ TheCatalyst31: No, this has never been discussed. It seemed to me like an obvious way to catch some pages that meet G8 automatically. WP:BRD - feel free to revert me and possibly start a discussion. Ppp ery 13:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of reverting this now, I'm going to make it exclude userspace. Again, feel free to revert me if that causes too many false positives Ppp ery 13:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You have reverted this article three times this evening over relatively trivial matters. You really don't want to go arguing about infoboxes, it just ends in tears. See the long, drawn-out discussion on Talk:Noël Coward/Archive 2#RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page? where I wasted an hour of my life summing up the pros and cons. If you revert again, I'm afraid I'll have to block you for violating the three revert rule. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pppery, yes I will stop caring about this now. Nevertheless I am still convinced that it is true nonsense. Would you keep redirects such as Nort station or North staion (both to North Station) as well? I really don't see a point in this. These are obvious, useless spelling mistakes, which I don't see a point to conserve. Nordbahnof instead of Nordbahnhof is useless the same way – especially as it is an orphaned redirect. Anyway, feel free to redirect Nordbahnof to Nordbahnhof now, if you want. At least this was an option mentioned by the author of Nordbahnof (see history). I don't care about this anymore. I had thought that in this obvious case we don't need preserve the history of spelling mistakes. I was wrong with not moving the redirect before changeing it into a dab page. Regards, -- Kleeblatt187 ( talk) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Kleeblatt187: Considering that you explained it was a misspelling of the germanic name, that makes it not G1 to me. Consider starting an RfD. Ppp ery 22:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that mess of an article. [Altan] I'm trying to figure out why the user wrote so much stuff like this: " «can do any more with it [for] it's done» "

what is «? Whenever it's used it seems like it's in place of quotation marks? I have gone through the user's history and have seen a pattern of leaving things worse than they were. -- Jennica✿ ^{talk / contribs} 08:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Malicorne (band) <-- here's another by the same user. I don't even know where to begin @ Pppery: - maybe you have some ideas hopefully. I also discovered another one of their accounts: Frenchfolk - but it can't fall under "sockpuppetry" can it? -- Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Jennica: The « character is a Guillemet, also known as an angle quote, which should not generally be used in articles (and also, you don't need to ping me on my talk page, as editing it automatically notifies me) Ppp ery 17:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

oh okay sorry. I forgot about the ping thing. I have gone back to September and have corrected many mistakes that user has done. Sigh. thanks for helping out. -- Jennica✿ / ^talk 17:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)