User talk:PizzaMargherita

If I start a conversation on your talk page, I'm watching it. Please leave responses on your talk page. Thanks. (Similarly, don't wait for my answer in your talk page.)

Hand Gestures

You reverted my edit to the Wanker section. I am not sure my variant is common everywhere, but I have seen it quite frequently as a replacement for, or in addition to rolling one's eyes, or instead of saying a phrase such as "big fucking deal". One notable use I can think of is in one of George Carlin's HBO specials. My addition probably needs a rewrite if it is kept though.66.153.117.118 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. No problem, feel free to reintroduce if you are confident. It's just that bulging of the eyes in particular seems even inappropriate for that gesture. Rolling of the eyes is much more understandable and I have seen it done. The problem with reversals you see is that it always makes you look like a nazi arsehole. That was more like a "soft" revert. I have rephrased the rest of your contribution. PizzaMargherita 05:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthday paradox

Regarding your revert of my edit: I'm not sure I do understand what you're saying -- you said we could discuss if that was the case. Could you clarify? Thanks, Matthew Plough 04:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. I think you understood that the modified problem (same birthday as you) was "what's the probability that another pair in the remaining 22 people has the same birthday as me?", whereas it's more like "what's the chance that at least one other person in the room has the same b'day as me?". I modified slightly the intro to clarify. PizzaMargherita 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I ever claimed to be the one who discovered the error in what Paul Halmos wrote? Michael Hardy 01:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It was an assumption based on your evident egotism and arrogant vandalism (restoring the section that somebody else had correctly "nuked"). It turned out to be a wrong assumption, and for that I can only apologise.--PizzaMargherita 01:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? You are dishonest and gratuitously abusive. Michael Hardy 02:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vandalism", yes. What else would you call editing the article in disrespect of the manifest opinion of the majority? As for being abusive, need I remind you that in that thread you called people cavemen, illiterate and vandals only because they were disagreeing with you?

I called them that because their position seemed like bigotry and nothing else. Michael Hardy 17:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

At this point I would refer the casual reader to the discussion, so that they can decide who was being a bigot - and a vandal. (Is this the right way to link to that btw?)--PizzaMargherita 18:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'd like to remind you that vandalism is never acceptable on Wikipedia, and is a bannable offense regardless of whether you revert it yourself. Please don't do anything like this again. Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm supersorry officer. I've been a bad boy, and what I did was unexcusable. Vandalising an article and reverting 3 split seconds later should be punished with 2 years of Gulag. PizzaMargherita 07:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, I didn't say I would ban you. Others might, though, and it does clutter the edit history. I'd prefer if you don't do it. Also, I know the watchlist link only works for me. It's for my convenience(it sets it up for 7 days, not showing my edits). Superm401 | Talk 07:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Viewing modes for variants

There are different "viewing modes" on the Chinese Wikipedia, for traditional and simplified Chinese. There are major differences between Portuguese Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese, but on the Portuguese Wikipedia, there is no such system, as far as I know. On the Chinese WP, it's necessary, because for people used to reading simplified Chinese characters, it's very difficult or impossible to read traditional characters. SpNeo 22:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

help:formula

Nice work. Dmharvey 14:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank you. :-)

I think we need to push on some of the features now. I mean, unless I'm missing something, Maynard Handley's improvements are ready to go, it's just a matter of testing and releasing them...

Also, there are some unsupported TeX commands that I can't see how it could be difficult to add, given what's there already. I may get my hands dirty and dig into the code myself. PizzaMargherita 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I've been putting in a lot of work into blahtex. The next version is starting to get to critical mass now. It should do everything texvc does, plus MathML, plus a few other things, including support for \textstyle and relatives, correct \mathop support, correct \limits etc support, a few more environments like align* and smallmatrix, much more TeX-compliant parsing (which will break a few equations, but that's life). Dmharvey 21:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Za, since you have previously expressed an opinion about the issue of what the Manual of Style has to say about links in the title, I'd like to invite you to talk a look at the further discussion that I have had with User:E Pluribus Anthony at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Links in the title.

I disagree with the "compromise position", which I think reflects only his desire to water down this rule. I would like to hear your view. If you and others are happy with the compromise, then so be it, I will leave it alone. If not, then let's change it back. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on my recent response on the subject of dialects here: [1] ? Cheers --Splidje 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your picture

Your picture may display better for many users if you limit its width to 550 pixels:

[[Image:pizzamargherita.jpg|550px]]

Hyacinth 09:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. PizzaMargherita 10:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. I have been polite and helpful on Talk:Set theory (music). Perhaps you could return the favor. Hyacinth 08:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bastard by nature. If I had any social skills I wouldn't be typing on a fucking keyboard. PizzaMargherita 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits to mathematics

Hi PizzaMargherita. I saw you editing at that article. Just wanted to let you know that that article is very proeminent, much watched and much argued about. So if you have big changes to make, it is good if you discuss things in advance on its talk page, to avoid reverts, arguments, and all that. Just wanted to let you know. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. I don't think I'll be doing much there, but do you disagree with any of my changes? PizzaMargherita 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree. But we had issues there with editors beeing too pushy, and that was causing trouble, that's why I am overreacting a bit. Of course, you are more welcome to contribute there, as long as, again, some discussion on the talk page takes place, to make sure we are working constructively on the article rather than arguing most of the time. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Determiners

I've commented on your comment in my talk-pages. KEJ 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, thanks, I'm watching it. PizzaMargherita 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you'll know that there are some more comments now - which will probably be my final comments on this matter KEJ 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Early or Late?

Are you staying up late or did you just get up early? Its 4 am here in New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm typing from my spaceship, there are no time zones here. PizzaMargherita 09:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bolding explicit cross-references

It seems that someone removed that item from the MOS in November as part of a "draft trim". Clearly I missed the relevent discussion. Jkelly 16:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

HIja'?

Dare I ask that means? (And do we need a WP article on it?) GRuban 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Know you not the language of our future rulers? PizzaMargherita 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blocking policy

I would block longer, but the problem with the IP is that it's shared. We try to limit our blocks to shared IPs, because we may lock out legit editors. However if push comes to shove, we'll just block them again. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If it were only that easy. The sad fact is that we won't know if in the future, some other user who has good faith in WP will want to edit. But if this guy continues to vandalise, I could lenghen his block to longer than 24 hrs. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 19:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Have you tried reporting him to Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse? Maybe the administrators there can help you out. There's no right or wrong way to reply. The reason I split conversations is so you can get that message at the top of the screen when you log in. It also saves space on my talk page as well. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Adjective

• I do like your formatting better. I am against excessive colons and bullets, &c.—but was limiting myself to only a quick change in one part of that article, instead of what I might've liked to do to formatting and a lot more.
• Later, when I allow myself the luxury, I might edit more of the article and add bits about post-positive adjectives.
• Do you happen to know whether there is some rule or standard about how dashes should be encoded? For an em dash, I usually just enter the character by holding down Alt and entering the number 0151 (on my American keyboard); but then I see others enter something like 'an ampersand and then the letters m d a s h and then a semicolon'. As far as I can tell, this makes no difference in final appearance, but does require 700% as many characters. Today, for a change, in the article on initialisms and acronyms, I decided to do it the long way, which someone else had already come after me and done a bit of—and then someone else came behind me and put them back to single-character em dashes (the kind I usually make). Not sure why I'm asking you; I just am.

President Lethe 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know to be honest. I use &mdash; because I come from an HTML background. You may want to ask in the WP:MoS talk page. I think that nobody really cares, because there is a lot of other HTML in WP that we can't get rid of. PizzaMargherita 07:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Barberio 22:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. Rather, you have reverted a good change of mine for personal reasons. PizzaMargherita 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious, you even reported me here! Excellent, I'll sit back and watch the admin reminding you to

Make sure the editor has been warned with the {{subst:Npa}}, {{subst:Npa2}}, and {{subst:Npa3}} templates as appropriate.

Priceless. PizzaMargherita 22:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through PizzaMargherita's edits for the past couple of hours and can find nothing approaching a personal attack. I have therefore removed Barberio's report to WP:PAIN. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For the enjoyment of the casual reader, here are the follow-ups to this episode:

• Personal attack accusations—The response of the admin on Barberio's talk page
  
• Personal attack diff links—Not having wasted enough admin time, Barberio tries to have the case reconsidered, with expected results
  
• "Not a severe enough attack"—Barberio incredibly persists and appeals to the Supreme Court, once again with a predictable outcome

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Barberio 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god, the second (baseless) warning! Now I'm really shitting myself, I must say. PizzaMargherita 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been a bad boy again, so I'll add this warning myself:

This is my last warning. If I continue to make personal attacks, I may be blocked for disruption. PizzaMargherita 20:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You may not be blocked for personal attacks, but it would help your case to abide by WP:DICK. Pointing out others' grammatical and spelling errors while making them yourself is quite laughable. - Mark 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Always happy to learn if you can point them out. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I can't remember where it was now. I have the memory of a slightly retarded goldfish. If I see it again I'll fix it. - Mark 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I saw the one. Thank you. Quite laughable, I'd agree. PizzaMargherita 10:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is my being a dick the only opinion you have about the things we are discussing? The debate would greatly benefit from an external viewpoint. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 10:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

last comment likely not helpful

Hi - Thanks for the support on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American, although I suspect this comment will not be helpful. I hope you can take some friendly advice from someone who's been here quite a while. Per Wikipedia:Etiquette, please work toward agreement. It's not about winning and losing. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. And I do admire the way you are handling, don't get me wrong. But come on, one thing is to work towards agreement, and another is to give in unreasoable demands and blatantly false claims. I'll remove the offending bit from talk page. PizzaMargherita 18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, what's this thing about systemic bias? And why is it relevant? Does systemic bias in WP mean that minorities' votes should weigh more? That's utter nonsense. And even so, it's not like "American x" is used only by Americans. As far as I know, it's as widespread in all other varieties of English. So, biased says who? PizzaMargherita 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The bit about systemic bias was a question (as far as I know unanswered) at the time about whether there's a geographic basis for a preference on this. I know several of the folks favoring "American x" are Britons (CalJW, Steve Block, Valiantis), and one American (Who) favored "x of the United States". To some extent, this is a criticism that can be raised on any Wikipedia poll. I don't think it hurts to include this in the conclusion summary (as long as it's also mentioned that no evidence of such bias was found). I personally don't have any idea why this is such a polarizing issue, but since it boils down to a binary choice it's hard to view any solution as a compromise. I do know that on issues like this (at least in Wikipedia-land) the generally most productive approach is to find some way to base the resolution on external facts rather than personal opinions. This tends to shift the conversation away from the "I'm right/you're wrong" rathole. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

So anyway, given the numbers, and that there is this ultra-strong consensus that we should have a policy, why is it not proper to make the "American x" proposal that policy? Because one person is particularly good at insisting that it shouldn't happen?

I mean, apart from being by far the most unpleasant character I ever met in WP in my short stay, this guy in the last two weeks has wasted a lot of WP resources giving us a long string of disruptive distortions (or blatant misquotations) of hard facts, and has been extremely uncooperative and systematically refused to budge an inch from his position even when he was repeatedly proven incorrect. (I'm considering writing down this list.) Why should he, or anyone for that matter, have power of veto? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

At least for category naming, I believe "American x" is the defacto standard. It's not exactly policy, since policy creation or change requires consensus (which is inordinately difficult to achieve, see Wikipedia:How to create policy). I separated this particular aspect of category naming from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) specifically so that the broader conventions could proceed (with consensus). And so it lingers. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

CJBot

Splog redirects to Spam blogs. Computerjoe's talk 08:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the pitch class article. I've had some conflict with Hyacinth, who seems to feel a bit proprietary about the music theory articles. Tymoczko 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Let me know if there are other articles in need of attention. PizzaMargherita 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Language icon template

Hi Pizza,

about your revert to the language icon template... all began on 29 March 2006, when RHaworth removed the external parentheses. I thought that if we had to keep *one* set of parentheses than better keeping the external ones. I don't care having both sets, anyway. That said, thanks for pointing out that there is an ongoing vote. I would like the template to produce a mainly gray image, consistent to this: ; the blue shades we have now draw IMHO too much attention.

PS: are you Italian?

Cheers,
Gennaro Prota 03:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. My preferences are expressed in that talk page. As you can see I agree that it attracts too much attention as it stands, but I restored the second pair of brackets to respect others' votes. (I'm not Italian.) PizzaMargherita 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, isn't that odd? If you change the template you will undergo an assault; if you ask for comments you get no reply, as if nobody cared about it... :-/ —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, it's disgusting. I'll consider a request for arbitration if nobody turns up. I'm also surprised that no one of the people who voted in favour of a change is prepared to spend a post to defend their right to matter. Incidentally, did you notice that "cool" cat has been turned down three times his request for adminship? (many commented on his incivility) PizzaMargherita 21:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know he requested adminship. Quite absurd. As this discussion, by the way: Wikipedia talk:The German solution. What's happening to Wikipedia? When I joined everything seemed to work so well. Now, have you seen, for instance, how many changes (without notice!) there are to manual of style? People spend months discussing whether the passive form is fine, whether one should use hyphens or dashes and where to put user boxes. Looks like something has broken :-/ —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Work gang" is not perjorative

The phrase "work gang" isn't a perjorative phrase in British English, and is an internationally defined term -

(k) Work gang (crew) members are workers who are members of a group of workers who have been engaged as a group on terms corresponding to those of "paid employment" and where the employing organization has entered into a contract only with the crew leader or with an organizing agent for the crew, and not with the individual worker. [2]

This, therefore, would be an accurate, and non-perjorative, description of the victims in the 2004 Morecambe Bay cockling disaster. Average Earthman 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I also didn't like the "work" repetition, but never mind. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Move Your Tagging Proposal to Its Own Page?

Hi. Your dialect tag proposal is currently in the talk section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling), and is taking up most of the space there. Perhaps it should be moved to its own page, where it can garner more attention, and won't be cluttered by other matters in the talk section of the Manual of Style? Hyperborean 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, it should be a proper proposal, and advertised accordingly. I don't have the energies at the moment, but I agree it's not ideal. Thanks for your support, I'll get around to it. Feel free to do it yourself. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make it a proper proposal but I confess I'm a little intimidated.... Is this a "feature request", proposed "policy"? I don't want to start the official discussion of this off on the wrong track! Hyperborean 08:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... I'm afraid I'm not an expert on WP bureaucracy, I'd ask at the village pump or something... Anyway, for further random thoughts on the matter have a look here. PizzaMargherita 09:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that can be our next project! Hyperborean 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll ask, or "be bold." A bit zonked tonight, might not get to it until tomorrow (Friday, at the abs. latest!).

(Two days later....) Have to remember never to say "at the absolute latest"... Got a "panic job" I had to take care of. Anyway, I decided to ask for guidance at the Help Desk. More as soon as I get some feedback! Hyperborean 10:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for all this. PizzaMargherita 15:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! As I said, it's a very good cause. (And if we -- one person who seems to prefer one spelling system, and another who prefers a different one -- can work together on this, there is hope for the world!) I'm going to wait one more day for an answer to my question. If I don't get one by then, I'll either move the proposal, or ask somewhere else. Actually, I realize I have other questions -- like should we "archive" the past discussion and start again? The proposal is a bit different in it's current form from the original, so maybe a fresh start is warranted. Hyperborean 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

True, it's slightly different. Also a lot of criticism is/was already addressed in the proposal itself. If this becomes a proper WP proposal, we might as well start afresh. We will finally need to advertise the proposal. Good places could be: the official place where you are supposed to advertise proposals (forgot where it is), talk pages of controversial articles (though this is ignored in my experience), people who frequently "vandalise" or revert spelling "vandalism" in said pages, and if the votes are ditched, talk pages of users who had already expressed their vote, for or against. PizzaMargherita 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to quickly ask MediaWiki developers their opinion about how hard/feasible the implementation would be. The tricky part I think is the IP address mapping for unregistered users and defaults of registered users. PizzaMargherita 08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All good ideas! I'll ask MediaWiki developers on my next break (afternoon, UTC). Meanwhile, I set up the following page: User:Hyperborean/Proposal:Dialect Tags. I'll copy and start a rewrite of the proposal in the next couple days. Then we can move it to whereever we discover is the appropriate place for it. By the way, would you agree that "Dialect Tags" is an OK name? Seems like that's a good summary of what we're talking about. Hyperborean 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing. I think the proposal greatly benefits from your endorsing it because it's seen as "PizzaMargherita"'s proposal, and some people have dismissed it as a one-man effort. If you do something significant like setting up a more formal proposal, it will gain strength. PizzaMargherita 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Hyperborean 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the name, as it's general enough to encompass non-national dialects and other languages (as opposed to "National varieties of Enghish" which this proposal would replace).

Before you venture in a complete rewrite, which I welcome, could you please summarise briefly what you would like to change? I mean, is it just the format or something more concrete? As for the format, which also you are more than welcome to change as you please, but keep in mind that people will attack the proposal using always the same (and addressed) arguments, so please rewrite it so that it's going to be easy for us to point critics to specific sections of the proposal when we defend it. PizzaMargherita 09:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't thinking of a complete rewrite; mostly the problem is that criticisms are in many cases "messily" integrated with people's comments in the voting section. Your original organization of the proposal was excellent! My main goal in the rewrite is to organize the material so that it's more consistent with your original structure. Hyperborean 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I recently felt I needed to "change my identity"; pardon any temporary confusion. Email me if you want details (nothing particularly interesting). Otherwise, more on the proposal as soon as I get a break! -H

Lists of Words

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Lists of Words over the interpretation of policy regarding lists of words. As a fairly recent contributor to [List of British words not widely used in the United States], you might wish to add to the debate, as it affects several AfDs going on, and a current Deletion Review. Thanks. WLD 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Fruitnveg.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fruitnveg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use image removed from your user page

Hello, PizzaMargherita. I've removed Image:Pizzamargherita.jpg from your user page, as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is insane. PizzaMargherita 05:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You do realise that this is ridiculous, right? PizzaMargherita 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The entire point of copyright is that the creators have the right to control how their works are used. Your using this image on your user page violates the copyright on this image, unless it happens to fall under fair use. But you're not using it for critical commentary or any of the other things that fair use covers, and it's certainly against the Wikipedia fair-use policy. —Bkell (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, right. And by the way, thanks for the 48 hours notice. PizzaMargherita 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What? What 48 hours notice? If you're upset that I removed the image from your user page directly, please read Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images#My userpage is mine. Nobody else has the right to edit it! and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images#Someone could have at least asked me before doing this!. —Bkell (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[3] PizzaMargherita 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the policy you refer to is talking about images being deleted, not removed from pages. This image has not been deleted; it's still on Wikipedia, and it's still being used in Spaceballs. —Bkell (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

OK, I don't want to have a big argument about the validity of my actions at the article which is currently located at 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. I would like to hear from you what you would have done in my shoes, however. The article kept being moved constantly, creating double redirects and other problems everywhere. Formal voting on a new title had begun at a time that the article was located at August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot. Voting had occured for several hours already, and there was a clear supermajority of votes (9 to 2 to 1) in favor of 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Nobody prefered the title that the page was located at at the time (August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot). What would you have done? —Mets501 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear from you what you would have done in my shoes—Which shoes? You were wearing two pairs... PizzaMargherita 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Care to explain? —Mets501 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You were acting both as an editor and as an administrator, and there was a clear conflict of interest. PizzaMargherita 13:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that not what administrators are? Just editors with some extra buttons. —Mets501 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No they are not. Administrators are expected to adhere to a certain code of conduct. PizzaMargherita 15:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And editors are not supposed to adhere to a code of conduct? —Mets501 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. PizzaMargherita 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, neither of us are getting anywhere here. Let's drop this, OK, and move on. When consensus has been reached on a new title on the talk page of the article, let me know, and I will gladly rename the article and fix all double redirects. —Mets501 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for backing me up Pizza. Hard to believe that guy is an AMA member. He probably causes more conflicts than he solves. CindyLooWho 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries, my pleasure. It's people like these who are grinding this place to a halt. PizzaMargherita 05:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking?

There is no relevant discussion - I simply noticed that the proposal was inactive (as indicated by the lack of recent discussion) and so I marked it as such. We don't decide things to become inactive (that's pretty a contradiction anyway), they become so when people lose interest in them. That said, as {{historical}} says, if you want to continue discussing the matter you are welcome, but it would help if you advertised this e.g. at the village pump to actually raise interest. >Radiant< 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching your page. PizzaMargherita 12:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pussy Galore

In response to your comment. Pussy Galore is a permanently banned used. If he uses his sockpuppet's it would be to circumvent that ban. Therefore, all his sockpuppets should be banned. Sockpuppets are what they are with no positive or negative comments. THere are no longer any legitimate uses for his socks. --Tbeatty 05:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was duly retracted and did not warrant your response. In any case I disagree that there are no legitimate uses for his multiple accounts, or indeed any other account that he may want to create. You do not kick someone when they are down. Please demonstrate that his sockpuppets would be used to circumvent the ban. PizzaMargherita 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

'He' is banned. Not his accounts. Indefinitely. any incarnation is to circumvent that ban. Until the ban is lifted (and it's quote possible that it will be because his offenses were not that egregious). Any incarnation of 'him' is considered a disruption. THat's sockpuppet policy. --Tbeatty 08:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pussy Galore

I replied to you on my talk page. Regards, Nandesuka 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching your page. PizzaMargherita 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfDs

Actually User:Sloane left the comment you're referring to. The page is in my userspace but others have edited it. GabrielF 12:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching your page. PizzaMargherita 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

Just FYI if you're still around. --Tbeatty 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just Curious

Do you now go by the username Fairness and Accuracy for All? Morton devonshire 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I have created a template that I think is an acceptable solution to your proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling). Dtrebbien 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jean Charles de Menezes

I am posting this as you have made a substantial number of edits to the above. I have conducted a reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Jean Charles de Menezes/GA1. I have de-listed the article. This decision may be challenged at WP:GAR or the article may be improved and re-nominated at WP:GAN. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hazelcast logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Hazelcast logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Examples sidebar

Template:Examples sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)