User talk:Pizzigs

Welcome!

Hi Pizzigs! I noticed your contributions to Rafael Benítez and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem

I have the same problem with Vicpumu he keeps deleting anything I add, in page for barca season 2022-23 he decided only acceptable source is from barcelona website! and deleting everything else. I tried to tell Mattythewhite but he didnt answer me 108.30.205.112 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you can either wait for the editor's response or, alternatively, visit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Pizzigs (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you i just did,

someone posted a warning also on his page, but he still went and deleted information after! 108.30.205.112 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he keeps deleting simple math thing in the transfer summary honestly, it doesnt worth wasting time on this, i am doing it for fun and because i like soccer but having someone who is making it silly as this doesnt worth it 108.30.205.112 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Real Madrid CF into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pizzigs! Thank you for your edits to Moscow trials. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Andrey Vyshinsky into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary. Original content contributed by users can be freely used if the original author is properly attributed. If you have copied text but forgotten to use the edit summary, this can be easily corrected: You can make a dummy edit by making an inconsequential change to the article—such as adding a blank line to the end of the article—and link to the source article in edit summary then. A note such as "content copied from [[source article]] on 1 January 2012" works fine.

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

It is also recommended to make a note on the talk page of the source article that copying has occurred, because the source article cannot be deleted as long as content from it is used. The template {{copied}} can be used for this as well as on the destination article's talk page. Moxy- 11:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely thought this requirement only concerns copying and pasting directly from the source and not the cases where wording, linking, and referencing are modified. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Pizzigs (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo

Hello! I see the information In the next Champions League fixtures, on 10 October, Ronaldo scored again a last minute winner, with second coming seconds before the full-time whistle, as United overturned a two-goal deficit in a 3–2 home victory against Atalanta is seriously misleading about the time of the match between Manchester United and Atalanta, it's 20 October 20, not 10 October. I asked for the modification on the discussion but nobody cares, hope you can help! Hongkytran (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Stop editing my grammatical fixes to the Portuguese team's article. They were correct. One more and I'll take this to ANI or an admin. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already reported you. I made edits to the history section, ensuring everything was properly written. You didn't need to revert them. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got lucky nothing happened to you. Don't revert my edits on the Portuguese team's page again. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate the 3RR and you know that. Instead of trying to reach a consensus before introducing your contentious edits, you resorted to reverts and threats. Just so you know, there is a separate page called History of the Portugal national football team, where a more detailed overview can be presented; instead, you prefer to fill the main page with useless descriptions of failed qualification campaigns. Considering the threats you have made, I've made a decision to report you. Pizzigs (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those threats have already been discussed. The information about failed qualification campaigns was always there, I just fixed the grammar. So please quit. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States periods after captions

Hello,

thank you for your edits in the United States article. I noticed that in an edit, you put periods after all captions, whether they form a sentence or not. If there's a Wikipedia guideline that suggests that, please let me know. If I am correct, there's no such guideline. In this case, maybe you could remove the sentences from the captions when they are not a sentence. Thanks.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems I have made a mistake, and MOS:CAPTION clearly defines that periods are not needed in sentence fragments. I'll remove them. Pizzigs (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But it seems you now removed all periods in the captions except when they contain multiple sentences, even when the caption is not just a sentence fragment or brief image description, but indeed a correct, complete sentence (e.g., "The Texas Medical Center in downtown Houston is the largest medical complex in the world" is a complete sentence and therefore should end with a period).-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hopefully it is fine now. Pizzigs (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did some further copy editing, should be fine now.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all to imply that you've been editing in bad faith at Neo-Nazism, but it is important to be aware of the special scrutiny we're all under when editing contentious topics. Please ensure that you've gained consensus for all contested edits before restoring them to article space. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response

Responded on my talk page, @Pizzigs:. Thanks for messaging. KlayCax (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Freoh 12:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh:If you don't include all the diffs of edit-warring the admins won't do anything. (Pizzigs drew my attention to the incomplete list of reverts you posted at the noticeboard.)

While admittedly some of the diffs on 7 May are just fighting over intensifiers like "really" great! or "very" good, it remains edit-warring all the same...

My hope is that you won't need to use these diffs and that Pizzigs will start being more willing to listen to others rather than systematically reverting them. That said, I'm not going to edit-war to test that theory. Edited to add: Nor do I think anyone else should... it's much better to debunk bad arguments on the talk page. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evibeforpoli (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]