User talk:Pizzamancer
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Adoption?
[edit]Pizzamancer, I probably could squeeze you into my adoption school if you can't find another adopter. Let me know. Thanks! Go Phightins! 18:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
re: History of Pizza addition
[edit]Ciao Pizzamancer,
I'm Zach Nowak (pg1945), the person who added the link to the BBC article. I have reviewed the sourcing guidelines and would have put a reference to my forthcoming paper on the legend of the Pizza Margherita (accepted by Food, Culture, and Society, the professional journal of the Ass. for the Study of Food and Society) but I figured until the actual article came out, I would give my BBC Food piece. The source of the anecdote (American Heritage) is a cute article (btw, the link is a 404), but the dual assertions that the pizza was named after the queen, and that Esposito was the first to put cheese on the pizza,15:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Pg1945 (talk) are completely unsubstantiated (indeed, the second assertion is contradicted by a variety of source). My research shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the legend is just that, a legend. If you like I can put the reference to the paper I have forthcoming, but it is not yet published. I can also send it to you via email and then perhaps you will accept the BBC Food essay until the paper comes out, at which time I change the reference to that.
Also, as long as we're at it, the Pellegrino Artusi book should have its capitalization changed back to how I had edited it.
Thanks much for your help, I'll look forward to hearing from you.
Zach
- Both your paper and that BBC article fail WP:NOR. It is an interesting idea, but the sources to the contrary are well in the majority here, as well as the consensus WP:CON. An addition like yours needs to start out on the talk page, then finding original sources is the next step. It looks like there are some leads to those in the BBC article, but like I said, it fails WP:NOR.
Ciao again Pizzamancer,
Apologies for not signing, I thought that edits made when I was signed in were "signed." I usually hit those four little tildas anyway, but I must have forgotten. I'm still not quite clear on the NOR: when my paper comes out in June, it will be a published, reliable secondary source, correct? So I have to just wait until then? I am definitely aware of the consensus to the contrary--this is like most urban legends, which cite each other and have a consensus, but there are no actual sources cited in any of these. Included in this is the American Heritage article, which gives no sources at all. Oh, the correct link is here (http://www.americanheritage.com/content/american-pie). I was going to update it but only found "[1]" and I don't know how to edit those.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
ZachPg1945 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, your article would fail WP:NOR as well, it would also be a conflict of interest (WP:COI) to use your own work. You need to use the original sources, and build a consensus. You might want to start a discussion on the talk page.Pizzamancer (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added a lengthy contribution to the talk page about the history of pizza, which I noticed also brings up the point about the obvious historical anachronism of "cheese first being added to the pizza" in the apocryphal-yet-charming 1889 meeting of the Queen and the Pizzaiolo. Is there a way I can invite people to comment on this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pg1945 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I've now invited four users who have recently edited that page.Pg1945 (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Adoption?
[edit]Hey Pizzamancer. Are you still interested in finishing adoption? Go Phightins! 03:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. Life kind of crept up on me last month. I will do the next test today.
The article The Company Man (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable book lacking non-trivial support.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of The Company Man (novel) for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Company Man (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Company Man (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Pizzamancer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Pizzamancer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Pizzamancer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)