User talk:Pppery/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Pppery. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Pronouncing user name

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

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)

Wolf-Williams

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

test --BDD (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)