User talk:Pppery

Welcome!

Hello, Pppery, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 . Again, welcome!

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

New page reviewer granted

Hi Pppery. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Gasper Crasto

Hi there! Sorry the edit summaries I left when editing the Gasper Crasto article weren't clear. Looking at the history, you'll see I made two edits in a row: one to remove Category:Biography/Sports and games articles needing expert attention (which should not be manually added to an article), and another to add the {{expert needed}} template that properly adds the category to the article. The article needs more work - I'll add more descriptive tags instead. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I understood what you were doing. The point of my ping there was to remind you that there's consensus {{expert needed}} shouldn't be used without an explanation, and thus you should have removed the tag or added one, nothing more. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hey. I will clarify that IP was my cousin's account. As a result, I will still apologize and you expect that it won't happen again. Noobguy33 ^(supernoob) (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Chu shogi diagram TFD notice removed

The TFD notice on {{Chu shogi diagram}} has been removed as I could not find the proposal at TFD. Techie3 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It was intended to be part of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#Module:ChuShogiboard. I've now added it there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

academia.edu/download/*

Pppery, User_talk:GreenC_bot#Flagging_non-dead_link_as_dead probably has some relation to Wikipedia:AWSURL/oldstock. I made a proposal to convert these academia.edu/download/ links to cloudfront.net URLs - GreenC 06:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

why did you delete my tf2 soldier edit?

can you give me any reason what ı did wrong ı search that information ı dont' use any copyrigthed photos or anything else can you explain this to me? Volkan1881 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Soldier (Team Fortress 2)
Because the article you provided cited insufficient sources to prove that the article is notable and instead relied entirely on Giant Bomb, which is a user-generated source that does not count toward notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

ok then teach me how ı rules of editing fictional character pages I try so hard and you delete it in two minutes!!! Volkan1881 (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, I didn't delete it in two minutes; it was more like two and a half hours between your unredirection and my revert. Second, WP:IWORKEDSOHARD is not a valid argument. Third, ı [sic] rules of editing fictional character pages are to cite reliable sources, as I explained above. Wikipedia:Everything you need to know * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

ı thought wikipedia editors always helping each others Volkan1881 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Michael Laski

I'm a little unhappy with what's going on at AfD with Michael Laski. You've closed the AfD, so I'm writing here, but this is probably also relevant to Scope creep, Hey man im josh and Laski22. I'm also going to ping Liz as a neutral admin heavily involved in AfD who might be able to shed light. What appears to have happened is

(1) An IP editor decided that there wasn't enough about Michael Laski to justify an article, and converted the article to a redirect

(2) The redirect got disputed and reverted back and forth a few times until Hey man im josh said "Redirect is disputed, take it to AfD"

(3) The IP editor started the process and it arrived at AfD under the name of Laski22 (who has only edited on this and the related party page)

(4) Laski22 then immediately withdrew the AfD, ending the discussion before anyone had had a chance to discuss anything.

(5) Although Laski22's withdrawl on the grounds that Google books "turned up more than expected" is effectively a keep, Scope-creep restored the redirect (it would have been wrong to do this during an active AfD, but of course the AfD had been closed by this stage; it was all so fast it's quite possible Scope creep had no idea an AfD had even been opened). But the point remains, we now have an article that's technically survived AfD but immediately been, effectively, deleted.

This all somewhat smacks of manipulating the AfD process: being told to go to AfD, therefore going, but then withdrawing the AfD before any discussion could take place. I'm not sure who's trying to achieve what, and I don't personally care tuppence whether this article is a redirect or an article, but I do care about doing things properly. I'm assuming there is still a keep/redirect dispute? This isn't a terribly satisfactory situation. What do you reckon would be best: reopen the AfD so redirect/keep can be discussed there, or discuss it on the article's talk-page? Elemimele (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I converted it back to a redirect, because the article is woeful as is the references. I don't see the need for an article on him. The two references are bare mentions and that is the best you can say about them. Such references cannot support a BLP or even a biographical of a dead person. There are woeful. If you want to revert, I will need to three secondary sources that are independent, significant and in-depth. Real deatail, not a bare mention, otherwise I need to delete it if it comes back up a 2nd time. I never an Afd. If I saw one, I would have sent it back for a second go and it would be deleted as the refs are woeful. Having written several articles on communist and still working on one at the moment, then tend to be notable, and with concomitant coverage. I don't understand why they're isn't decent sources. I hope that explains things from my end. scope_creep^Talk 08:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I've no problem with your actions: I can see your point that the referencing is inadequate and the redirect might be the right outcome. My problem was more with the fact that someone (josh) requested, in good faith, a proper debate at AfD, but the debate was (probably accidentally) turned into a charade. I think creating a nomination because someone else has requested it, and immediately withdrawing the nomination (thereby undermining the person who requested it) isn't great practice. Elemimele (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. Once it's posted to Afd it should always run its course unless somebody proves otherwise, which leads to withdrawn nomination. Do you want to send to Afd again? scope_creep^Talk 10:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Pppery, would you be willing to re-open the AfD so we can put this lot in the discussion there, and get this done properly? I think that would be less confusing than a second AfD. Elemimele (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to revert my closure and re-open the AfD if you want to. Nevertheless, I maintain that my AfD closure was correct; the nominator had clearly withdrawn the AfD and I'm not responsible for things that happened several hours after my last edit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! No problem, I didn't wish to criticise anyone's actions (except possibly, and only mildly, Laski22: if you are reading this, Laski22, since you hadn't taken part in the debate at the article itself, and presumably started the AfD because Josh asked you to, withdrawing it wasn't a great idea. It would have been reasonable to !vote "keep" if you found new sources, and it would be helpful to Scope creep and others if you could give links to them. But no harm done! Please accept an extremely small trout with my compliments!) I've created a new AfD as I didn't know how to revert a closure without messing up whatever the Bots do with AfDs. Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP letter to WMF

Thanks for adding you signature. We haven't asked for that yet because it's not final. I just changed it again. I don't want anyone to be upset because it changed after they signed... MB 04:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that shortdesc edit by me -- it was an edit conflict and I forgot to revert it once I saw the redirect move. Cheers, Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Confused expression

I haven't the slightest idea what happened. [1] Thanks for reverting. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Dr vulpes. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Indigenous science, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Dr vulpes: Reviewed articles should only be unreviewed if CSD'd/PRODded, not when they're AfD'd. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Tamzin, thanks for reaching out. The reason I unreviewed the article was because I had just started a rewrite of it and the changes that had to be made were significant. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes: That makes sense, and I realized that after re-patrolling. However, the idea is that any article that survives AfD has gone through an adequate level of scrutiny for NPP. That may or may not be a legal fiction, but it's the consensus currently. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin yeah that's what I kind of thought, thanks for letting me know :-) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for helping with the Indigenous science article, it was a lot of work to recover and fix that article. You've been a lot of help and really professional so thanks again. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

... and thank you for rewriting the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

IoE AI

Please don't delete ne pahe named ioE AI i will make change then publish it again. Bot786 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Too late. Someone else already did. I would strongly suggest reading the advice already given on your talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Velma S. Salabiye

Hello. I wanted to reach out regarding recent edits to Velma Salabiye's wikipedia. I mean no disrespect. But are you the original author of her page? Perhaps a colleague of hers? A relative? I only ask as I am the significant other of Velma's niece, who had a very close relationship with her aunt. Upon finding the Wikipedia for Ms Salabiye, the family was excited and asked me to fill in specific information that was missing. I appreciate any reply. Lightfoot92 (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no relation to her whatsoever, and came across the article when patrolling articles with malformed markup (your version says "aged –"). While I could, of course, have just fixed the markup, I reverted you because you added content without citing a source. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on what others have to say about the subject, not the subject or their family's personal knowledge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was having sn issue with trying to remove the expression error and couldn't find a way to do so. Also, almost all Wikipedia pages about people tend to add specific information (parents, family, DOB and Date of Death, etc.,.), which was mainly all I was adding. Thank you again for the feedback. Lightfoot92 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping

Hey did you ever get the ping in this discussion? If not, I think something is wrong with the ping system. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I did, just didn't see the need to comment at the time. I've done so now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Semihemidemibarnstar

Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for For moving my mislisted request to delete a redirect

Lineagegeek (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reviewing my stub pages. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Articles about species are generally easy to review, because they're inherently notable. Do take note, though, of the edits I made to improve the formatting of those pages (such as by not using bare URLs), so that your future stubs are more fleshed out and need less NPP attention. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What stub pages that I made did you improve? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Festuca aloha, Festuca alpina * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have made the page Agaricus_annae. I have noted what you have said. Any Feedback? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks better, but see my changes * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

BloxyColaSweet has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, 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:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Ayanda Ngila‎

sorry about that, I think we edit conflicted. I think a G4 would have been declined but we'll see how the AfD shakes out. Star Mississippi 00:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Remember that as a non-admin, I can't see the deleted revisions so have no way of knowing whether the current version is identical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry I just meant when you tagged it for CSD and I tagged it for AfD. Probably a page loading/timing. Star Mississippi 01:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: 2022 Spikers' Turf

The article page will be a summary page of all conferences of the said tournament. Reconsider to revert/undo what you did. Volley000 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources. Not to mention that the above article is largely an empty placeholder anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It says on WP:BURDEN "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."

Give me some time to provide source/s. This season will be the tournament's return after a 2-year long hiatus because of the pandemic. Volley000 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine then. But do not be surprised if another new page patroller sees things my way and restores the redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Gosh, has it really been that long? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Fresh NPP Reviewer of the month

		New Reviewer Award
		For being the top article reviewer for August, among the new reviewers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CP copyvio backlogs

Thanks for sending through the CV-unsure categories. Please keep an eye on how big the backlog is across all of WP:CP though, since a few others are sending through other backlogs in a somewhat frequent stream, and we're quite swamped right now. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. My point was primarily to alert the board to the attention of that stream, which hopefully will now get carried on by the regulars there (and to help clear Category:Clean-up categories from 2004 and Category:Clean-up categories from 2005, whose existence was annoying me, although that's been dealt with another way). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Bad draftifications

Hello, Pppery,

You are a fantastic contributor and I hate to ask you to do more than you already do. But it would be great if when you reverted bad moves to Draft space, you posted a talk page notice to these editors who, I'm pretty sure, aren't aware of that Village Pump RFC. When I see that you have reverted a move to Draft space, I frequently do this myself and I must have passed notices of this RFC on to at least a dozen editors. I think once they are told not to move older articles, they don't ever do it again so I think the messages are effective. But I don't watch your move logs and so I'm sure I miss some of your move corrections. I know that many editors are more comfortable with leaving a template message than a personal note but I find that they generally work better and, besides, we don't have a template message that covers this mistake.

Any way, I just wanted to come by and make my pitch to you and also state my appreciation for all that you do on the project. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I ping them in the edit summary. Is that not sufficient? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Your question on 'plenitude' in the Neoplatonism article

Hi

I think it was an edit of yours that put in the tag "according to whom" in the sentence:

"The term 'plenitude' is an important[according to whom?] neoplatonic term." under the subtopic: Gnostic

Thank you for picking up that weakness. That part of the sentence now reads:

"The principle of plenitude is important in neoplatonism,..." with a citation to Remes 2008, p. 46.

The reference is the authoritative work "Neoplatonism" by Remes 2008, p.46, where Professor Remes includes it as the fifth basic principle of Neoplatonic metaphysics. Once again, thank you for picking up that weakness in the sentence. A very impressive pick-up.

The whole sentence now reads as follows:

"The principle of plenitude is important in neoplatonism;[103] however, in Plotinus' neoplatonic doctrines, the principle of plenitude is the productive activity of a hypostasis.[104][105]"

103 = Remes 2008, p. 46, The first principles and the metaphysical hierarchy.

104 = Goodman 1992, p. 114, From What is One and Simple by A. Hyman.

105 = Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 494, Plotinus’ aesthetics by P. Vassilopoulou.

To construct the final precise sentence was a hard task and took a couple of hours.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Manual sending of messages to people who opted out of MMS

I have run into this a few times at FAR, I hesitate over sending the message manually since to me it seems to circumvent the editor's desire not to see mass messages. Admittedly, maybe my use case is not considered a real "mass" message, since other FAR regulars just copy and paste them in manually. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an explicit desire, it's that a few years ago I implemented the unanimous proposal at Template talk:Not around#How to avoid inactive users having their talk pages spammed with unread Signpost subscriptions etc. to automatically opt-out user talk pages tagged with {{not around}} from MMS. Since FAR apparently wants to notify people even if they're inactive, and I noticed the failure when patrolling the mass message log (which I've been doing since circa 2020), I figured I would save everyone a few rounds of confusion by manually reposting the message. Apparently I was mistaken, as I triggered this discussion on my talk page instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're right. If there are some people whose messages are just deactivated due to inactivity, I should make sure that they are notified, and if that also gets some people who have the mass message disabled I am not concerned about that. (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding BCD Travel

Hi Pppery, may I ask you why you deleted my update for the BCD Travel article? I would like to know and improve it. I am not that familiar with wiki markup and I am sure I am making several mistakes.

As for the content, you now redirect to the Dutch BCD holding company, which is not operational at all, but whose small subsidiary Park N'Fly has its own article, while the third largest travel agency in the US is not enough for its own article?

The BCD Group would be nothing without BCD Travel, which generates about 90% of total turnover. So wouldn't it make more sense to redirect from BCD Group to BCD Travel? Many people have stumbled across the "BCD", but these are two different companies.

What is an example of trivial coverage here compared to TripActions (a smaller travel agency), CWT (a subsidiary of Carlson, by the way) or American Express Global Business Travel (subsidiary of Amex)?

CWT only uses "Travel Weekly" and content from press releases. That seems to be fine. But why? Amex Global Business Travel has listed its acquisitions - is that more relevant? TravelPerk even listed its awards.

Do you know the travel industry and its major media and news portals? Because "Travel Weekly" and "Business Travel News" are relevant sources and used elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as CWT , American Express Global Business Travel or Tripactions.

I'm trying really hard to understand the criteria, but shouldn't they be applied the same way everywhere? I would like to improve my article, what can I do next? Thx Stefge Stefge (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Appealing to "other stuff exists" when that other stuff dates from years ago prior to the modern page review proccess is not a convincing argument; the only way to improve the page is to cite the required independent sources providing significant coverage of the company. None of your sources did so, as seen in the table below:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Ref 1 (Travel Weekly)	The fact that the source says at the bottom "Some Power List companies have resubmitted their numbers, which have resulted in changes in the rankings" means it's clearly based on information provided by the company
Ref 2 (BizVibe)			With only one paragraph about the company in a listicle, there's not enough content to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization
Ref 3 (company website)	The company's website is not a useful source here.
Ref 4			This is, to quote my edit summary, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage [...] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 5			Ditto
Ref 6
Ref 7			More routine announcements
Ref 8			Ditto
Ref 9			Ditto
Ref 10			Short list entries do not constitute significant coverage.
Ref 11			Short list entries do not constitute significant coverage.
Ref 13	If you read the methodology for this report, you see quotes like some TMCs are unwilling to supply us answers to every question for this report, including the key financial statistics that we use to rank TMCs, meaning it's based on information provided by the company, and hence not independent content
Ref 12	Everything is "according to the company"		See above quote
Ref 13			See above
Ref 14			See above - all of these are standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage [...] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 15
Ref 16			See above

Yes, if I performed a similar analysis on the other articles listed, I would possibly nominate them for deletion or come to the same conclusion. But that does not matter, since I was new page patrolling when I saw your article, and not looking at other articles. As I said above, you need to find at least two sources that tick all four boxes in the above table to improve the article to the point I won't think it should be redirected. None of your sources do that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you need reliable references according to ORGCRIT. I'm just struggeling to install the Template:ORGCRIT assess. Just a few questions about my references:

You wrote about Ref 1 "...based on information provided by the company." Of course it does. Numbers about revenue and turnover comes always from the companies itself. Who is able to valuate this from outside? This would be a mere guess. What about the "List of top earning travel companies" ? Do you believe Wall Street Journal or Financial Times would have different sources of informatuion?

Ref2: as you wrote, it's a listicle. Of course it's not enough content to write a whole article, just a paragraph and in a pie-chart. But in the context of the first sentenses it shows that the company is one of the largest. (But anyway, if listicles doesn't count, ok)

In regards of Ref4: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage [...] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" - Are you really sure? Did you even read this? This is an article about the creation of the company in 2006, TUI is a stock exchange listed company and sold its shares in TQ3 to BCD Holdings BV, which owned World Travel BTI. At that time, not even the future name BCD Travel was clear. Only that one of the largest travel companies was to be created. Does this not contain significant coverage? What else is significant if not this?

Ref13: again - who else can provide numbers, if not the companies itself? BTN Europe wrote: "A few years ago we decided to include all of the major TMCs in this ranking, regardless of whether they supplied the necessary information. This means that, for some TMCs, we have to make estimates of certain key figures, notably the gross sales figure, rather like the compilers of the Sunday Times Rich List do. These are clearly marked." If a company does not provide numbers, it's always a guess. Which source can fullfil this criteria?

I tried be find something better. Would this source fullfil the criteria? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shake-up-of-business-travel-agents-g8tswlchm67 (unfortunally behind a paywall) or this article about the foundation of BCD Travel https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/btn20060104112134257/ or this https://www.presseportal.ch/de/pm/100004222/100502602 (as I wrote, TUI is stock listed and has to inform its shareholders - but its content from a company of course ;-) )

Here is a listicle too, but maybe this works? https://www.zippia.com/advice/largest-travel-companies/ or https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/5-biggest-travel-companies-in-the-world-912750/2/

Statista should be a valuable source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/202250/air-ticket-transactions-of-travel-management-companies/

I don't want bother you, but maybe you can help me a little bit? Thanks Stefge (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:ORGIND; useful sources have to include content that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Disagreeing with that requirement will not help, and I'm just not seeing the sources that do it. Re your new sources, I can't access the times source, but the rest still seem to be simple listing of corporate transations or listicles lacking in-depth coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi stefge, reading through your comments, there appears to be some confusion about the criteria for notability for companies. I'll try to summarise the main points based on my experience and questions asked in the past.

1. First thing to understand is that there's two main ways in which a source/reference may be used. The first, to support facts and information within an article. For these references, it really only has to pass WP:RS (I'm simplifying) and none of the rest of what we're going to discuss applies
2. For companies and organizations, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. For now, we'll assume the references are reliable sources. In summary, we require multiple (at least two) sources from different publications/authors. We look at the content of the article/reference in question. As per WP:SIRS *each* article used to establish notability must pass *all* of NCORP - in other words, we don't combine sources and say that in aggregate we have multiple sources that meet NCORP.
3. We first look at the content with WP:ORGIND in mind and especially we look for "Independent Content". Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that *relies solely* on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. We need to see the journalist/author providing some independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc and this must be *clearly attributable* to either the journalist (i.e. that it is clearly their opinion/analysis/etc) or a source unaffiliated with the topic company (ie an analyst, commentator, etc).
4. When we've isolated the "Independent Content", we then look at WP:CORPDEPTH to check that it is deep/significant. If it is, chances are we've got a source that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability

So .. back to your comments about the refs above. Articles that publish a company's published financial figures *without* providing an analysis/opinion/etc fails ORGIND - there's no "Independent Content" and the author is simply regurgitating company information. Brief mentions in listicles fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles that rely entirely on reprinting/regurgitating PR/interviews/announcements must also contain in-depth "Independent Content" in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability.

It's not easy, it might appear to you that obviously this company is notable - but in many cases its really closer to the truth to say that most companies issue a lot of announcements/PR which get published in the media. If a company is truly notable though, someone will write about them, in-depth and with "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Clean Up sent to AfD

Hey @Pppery I just wanted to give you a heads up that I nominated Clean Up for deletion. I saw that you had edited it recently so I just wanted to keep you in the loop. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess sometimes AfD is cleanup, huh? jp×g 21:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No, just a non-notable subject with a confusing name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hi, Ppery. Just wanted to inform you that I was notified of your post regarding MegaSmike's mess on the Disney XD template. Just so you know, I was trying to undo his disruptive edits. I apologize if you thought I was editing disruptively when cutting and pasting in the old template, even though that was not my intention. BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I wasn't blaming you, just providing a neutral description of what happened. Personally if I had seen this situation I would have requested someone sort out the cut-and-paste move mess at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge rather than taking any action myself, but your behavior there makes sense and was certainly done in good faith. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Pppery. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(Filler so Twinkle adds my signature since it doesn't if I leave this field blank.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD bizarre adventures

I am planning to go through some of the AfDs I hit with last night's run in a few hours -- I see you have caught a couple of errors. Thanks for the help! I feel kind of bad making other people clean up after me, so I am planning to go through them all myself. Of course, it's a huge pain in the ass, so if you want to help I will certainly appreciate it. If so, I think it would probably be a good idea to share notes somewhere and avoid duplicating each other's efforts (my notes right now are at User:JPxG/old AfDs). jp×g 21:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been going through [2] and manually loading each entry. I've completed the first three pages of search (up to entry 60), and caught 10 errors (so about 1 in 6). I guess I'll stop with this then and let you handle the rest.* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I decided to just clean all of them myself since it was easier. The most bizarre thing I saw was a series of errors made by an admin-meatbot in 2008 which moved every page from "Talk:X/Delete" to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X", picking up a bunch of "Talk:X/Deleted material" style pages that were never AfDs at all. I also found a bunch of article drafts misfiled as AfDs, which I mostly left alone except for one that was so promotional I tagged it for G11. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. I suppose I can repay you by not half-assing the regex next time -- what I'm pretty sure caused all of these was the "xfd-closed" tag not being in the old substed close templates. I will try to write something more robust (incorporating all the versions of the template and all versions of the boilerplate)... as for the weird /Delete ones, I was wondering what the heck the deal was with those. A bunch of them were just random paragraphs or sections from articles -- obviously something weird had happened, but I couldn't figure out what. On that note, have you seen any of those weird ones where the entire page"s revision history is a single comment from somebody saying "don't delete this article", seemingly out of nowhere? It is a mystery to me. jp×g 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't consider myself to be cleaning up your mess, but instead us both to be cleaning up the mess of the past. If I had to guess the "don't delete this article" comments are someone misunderstanding the relatiotionship between PROD and AfD; people misinterpreted something like if a PROD is challenged and you still want the page to be deleted, start an AfD as telling them to start an AfD to challenge a PROD. Or got confused by another wiki wanting them to do that, as Commons' equivalent of PROD works that way sometimes.

The list I posted to your talk page used a similar approach (find certain phrases that every AfD should have and list ones that don't have them), but if you tackle it note that sometimes the problem isn't the AfD not being opened properly but instead unreverted vandalism (i.e Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do It My Way) or someone deliberately breaking the standard formatting as an April Fools joke (i.e Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vowel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibberish). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding University of Western Macedonia page

Hello Pppery,

Could you please explain why you inverted my additions to the page? I did not do something different from the other Universities pages on Wikipedia. I just gave information on the history, the departments and facilities of the institution, which is a public university and not a private company. Please clarify what we need to do to have accurate information of the University on Wikipedia Sylvia2022 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see the edit summary of my removal: Per WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTADVERT; that is it is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles to contain a complete listing of every single department (WP:NOTCATALOGUE), nor include language trying to promote the university (WP:NOTADVERT). Also note that I did not revert all of your edits, and left the changes to the history section and departments table alone, so I'm not sure what's inaccurate about my version. Furthermore, essentially the same edit has been made to the page numerous times over its history, each time by a single-purpose account or IP address, and has been undone every time by an experienced Wikipedian (Mean as custard six times, Graham87, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Jerm, as well as me 5 times). Are all of them wrong, or are you?

Wikipedia is notorously understaffed, so the existence of other articles filled with the same level of promotional, poorly sourced cruft does not make this one should be, but instead that those articles should likewise be cleaned out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD hatnote removal

Hi - just a friendly heads up that I always navigate to the AfD page by typing AFD in the search box, and then clicking on the hatnote at top. I just did that and noticed the hatnote was gone. I looked in the history and noticed your edit summary for the removal saying the link was redundant. It turns out that the hatnote and the link at the bottom are two different links, so both are useful. I think it's rude to revert experienced editors who are making good faith edits, so I thought I'd just point this out. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead then; evidently two people disagree with me (I made a similar edit here) so my desire to prune sources of redundancy is against consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete a useful information from GS1-128 page making it a redirect to GS1 page?

Looks like vandalism to me :-/ Usa265 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLAR-ing poorly-sourced articles is not vandalism * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of open-source wireless drivers deletion

Hi, You proposed Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers for deletion but I didn't find the page where to discuss that deletion.

Could it be somehow linked in the Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers page?

If that page doesn't exist it probably also need to have the reasons inside that page (they could simply be copy-pasted) instead of referring to other pages to make the discussion easier.

In these two concerns above it would be best if you could do it since you're the one who proposed the deletion, this would make sure that all the correct arguments are there and that we have no duplication of deletion pages.

As for the deletion itself, the only argument that I saw was that it was "Extremely niche".

And I think that can be a very subjective criteria and a way to sort that out is also precisely to have some discussions on that. A more neutral point of view would be to determine if the article meets the Wikipedia:Notability criteria and if this can be fixed and if so how. GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 13:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I used the proposed deletion process. You are free to object to the deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the top of the article, although I will likely follow up by starting a proper discussion soon after (assuming the other AfDs I started on these topics close as delete). My reasoning for deletion isn't just that it's extremely niche, but that it's a type of article that consensus has repeatedly shown is not acceptable in 2022's Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to prevent the deletion, but I definitively want to discuss it publicly GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 13:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that if there is a central place to discuss it it also works for me but discussing it on already deleted page doesn't seem the right thing to do. GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 13:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

OK then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of open-source wireless drivers is now open for discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your quick revert of that edit on Indigenous science. I'm glad I'm not the only one who follows the updates on that article.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Decapitalisation

Hi, I just reverted this to a previous version. Some of your small edits got caught up in this revert. I think I've put them all back. Could you please check? Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

BN

Minor point for the record, may want to tweak your closure to specify imposter account rather than sock? Stephen 22:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

They're also a sockpuppet, per the edit summary of their block. I've done that change anyway, since there's no harm in being clearer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Mental health of Asian Americans

Hi, so I am creating the article on mental health of Asian Americans, I feel strongly that the numbers should actually be there for the hotline. While yes, this is an educational source, this particular article may attract people who are in need of these resources. I therefore think that it is important that they are there. So, I would appreciate it if you would leave them as a part of the article. Thanks so much for your contributions! Neha576 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep edit warring with you over this, but I maintain that listings of phone numbers are inappropriate in articles on general principle, and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. That aside, language like Calling this number will allow you to reach healthcare providers that can aid with mental health struggles is entirely unencyclopedic; Wikipedia articles should not talk directly to the reader. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

FASTER (NZX)

Hi. Just a courtesy heads-up about a discussion I have opened about FASTER (NZX), which you have proposed for moving, at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#FASTER (NZX). Cheers. Nurg (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help around the Angela Jacksons

		The Original Barnstar
		You have been lovely in helping me clean up the set of pages I was adding to today. My work was a bit messy, and you made it better. Thank you! Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery:, I do have a follow-on question, though, and since you have been in the weeds with me I'm going to ask you: So, Angela Jackson is a writer, and Angela Jackson (writer) is a writer, so I feel like the parenthetical notes are confusing. Like they should be Angela Jackson (poet) and Angela Jackson (historian). Now, I am getting started drafting Angela Jackson (she is a male basketball coach) and. there appears to maybe be a collegiate player at Texas, Angela Jackson, who died recently but was quite notable during her forshortened career. So: I understand not building for future pages, but I am about to start these pages. May I ask you to advise me on how to create clarity among them with page titles if one-word summaries are insufficient? Thank you Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a mess. The first question to ask is which person (if any) is the primary topic for "Angela Jackson". Whoever is the primary topic belongs at Angela Jackson with no parenthetical, and the disambiguation page belongs there if there is no primary topic. Assuming no one's the primary topic, the best disambiguation for the two writers is either your suggestion or Angela Jackson (American writer) vs. Angela Jackson (British writer). For the basketball players, WP:NCBASKETBALL says to disambiguate by birth year ("Angela Jackson (basketball, born YYYY)"), but the problem is that the current article does not state the birth year, and nor did any of the sources I checked. So, I have no idea what to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks -- learned some stuff from your response and also agree that the information is a bit thin on the ground ins some parts. Maybe the others will have a birthyear and then I can clarify at least a bit. Appreciative of your sharing of knowledge. Oughtta Be Otters (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

For you

		The Original Barnstar
		For maintaining a sense of civility in the face of some moody reaction to your attempt to help Nosebagbear (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

undo changes for Nextcloud

Hi Pppery,

I noticed you undo changes made by me along with some old text existed before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nextcloud&diff=prev&oldid=1125422186

Could you please explain what is wrong with chapters regarding Nextcloud AIO and Nextcloud VM? For me it sounds inconsistent to mention Nextcloud Box introduced 2016 (which is discontinued now) but not refer to current existing implementations? https://nextcloud.com/devices/

For FOSS software referring to the Github repository sounds useful for me as well.

As I consider Nextcloud is very important software suite I'm willing to improve this article further - let me know which areas you feel could be improved? Wwe226 (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of secondary sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you for the answer. Both mentioned chapters could are tightly related to the main project I was under impression URL pointing to the Github repository with docs, source code and bug tracker should be enough. Similar articles e.g. Microsoft 365 list parts of the software like outlook.com without any citation as well. Wwe226 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The key distinugishing feature there is that the things being listed have their own articles, which include relevant secondary sources. Remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedic discussion of the software, not a manual for it as some of your edits come close to doing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I definitely didn't intend a manual - enough exist on the internet - my intention was to describe different architectures supported by system. Maybe wording is not ideal but I assume such list is very useful to describe the software to a reader. Maybe you can refer me to a good example? Wwe226 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia care about discussing those features if secondary sources don't? I feel that the content I didn't remove provides a good enough description of the software. Maybe you can refer me to a good example - see Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology#Software and Wikipedia:Featured articles#Computing for some of Wikipedia's highest-quality articles on software as assessed by the community. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk page archives

At least such talk page message is no longer being read (and for other users needing it, they are still in page history). Nevertheless, the banned banner should be displayed prominently in the talk page so that others will know when viewing it (and also the template will add an opt-out from mass message category). GZWDer (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

For User_talk:أسامة/أسـامـة, this is where the talk page previously redirected to.--GZWDer (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I treated it as analagous to a page-move archival, and I'm not aware of any convention to blank even talk page archives. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It is displayed prominently even in my version. I completely fail to see the benefit of hiding both the link to the archives and the discussion about the global ban taking place there. (For any confused talk page stalkers, this is about User talk:4nn1l2) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

DHCP Software

Hi Pppery, You recently removed the Jagornet DHCP server from this wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DHCP_server_software. Your comment indicates "notable entries only". While the other servers that you removed are indeed no longer notable or active, the Jagornet DHCP server is a notable implementation. It has a complete feature set, including support for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, and has been actively maintained for over 13 years. A quick look at GitHub shows that the ISC DHCP server has 67 stars, Kea DHCP has 298, and Jagornet DHCP has 88 stars. While I understand that GitHub stars is just one measurement of the relevance of software, there have been thousands of downloads as well. Jagornet also includes features such as a REST API and Docker images which it make it interoperable with modern software stacks and tools. For these reasons, I would like to respectfully request that Jagornet DHCP be added back to this page. Agrabil (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Notable" means "has a Wikipedia article", not my own subjective assessment of its importance. Jagornet DHCP has been explicitly judged not notable by that definition. I decline. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Azekwoh

Hi @Pppery you marked Anthony Azekwoh for speedy deletion? This article is a new article different from what was created last year December 2021. Instead of deleting the article what not approve and work on it or allow other editors to work on it or atleast highlight what the problem is so correction can be effected. You know it’s not an easy task writing articles and doing research on the topics. George Nyiam (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but in any case another admin has already decliened the speedy deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Renaming wiki ed course pages

Well, then perhaps somebody should fix the dashboard so that it does start following redirects the same way any other Wikipedia content would, because I had no responsibility to have already known any of that. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

https://github.com/WikiEducationFoundation/WikiEduDashboard/issues/5225. For any confused talk page stalkers, this is a response to User talk:Bearcat#Renaming wiki ed course pages * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)