User talk:PizzaMan/Archive 2
Oooh, fresh talk page! :)
Not only because i created an archive, but also because i've got a new username. I'm now the one and only PizzaMan!
Your deletion request
editThanks for tagging the articles, the second article has been deleted as well. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I sent you an email
editHi!
I sent you an email asking if you'd be willing to talking to me about Huntington's Disease and CAG repeat disorders. The email page recommended leaving you a note on your talk page, so . . . here's a note. ;o)
Suggestion of a new great shoe resource
editI just had a suggestion of great shoe history external link. You can read about it in the [Talk:Shoe] section. I think it's a great resource.--It2shoes (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the enthousiasm. However i only made a small grammatical correction in the article and have no involvement in the subject (apart from wearing them every day :-). But if you could infuse some of the info from this website, i'm sure it would be appreciated. PizzaMan (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Here is some info: It's an online fashion museum that features vintage shoes and explains the cultural temperament associated with various shoe styles throughout the 20th century. It offers a decade-by-decade look at shoes and their place in fashion and culture from the 1900s-1990s. For each decade you can read an essay, view examples of footwear and see advertisements from the period. There are also three feature articles: Dangerous Shoes, Ga-Ga for Gaza [Gaza Bowen, shoemaker], and Ruby Slippers. Includes a pre-20th century chronology of "great moments in shoe history.--It2shoes (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear It2Shoes, My apologies for not being clear, but i am not interested in the matter. It sounds like a great website for someone who wants to know all about shoes, and i'm sure those people will appreciate your suggestion of a link. I've put a welcome notice on your talk page that links to some information about wikipedia. Also, i would like to invite you to be bold and edit anything that you think should be edited. For the shoe page that's not possible, so you'll have to wait until someone else makes the edit. The place to suggest the is the talk page of shoe, as you did (also suggesting it here is not necessary). PizzaMan (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Kin (phone)
editA tag has been placed on Kin (phone) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Wiki Med
editHi
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'm very busy, so a board position is not an option atm, but i'll try to contribute. I've collaborated a little in the past. PizzaMan (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation
editThank you for your interest in meta:Wiki Project Med. We have created a non profit corporation in the state of New York to promote the aims of the Wikimedia Movement within the topic domain of medicine. This means we are and continue to promote the creation and release of "health care information in all languages" under an open license. This is being done primarily via speaking and collaborating with both individuals and organizations who share our goal. We are working on anumber of collaborations already and are open to more ideas. We hope to be active globally and thus welcome all people who share these goals to join us. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) 15:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
editThe Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
- Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
- Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
- If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omate TrueSmart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of massively multiplayer online games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Targaryen family tree
editstripe?I don't know what do you mean but I have seen nothing.Maybe it's the error of your browser?Can you get a screenshot?--星辰之叹 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can sure it is definitely of your browser .Google chrome exist this error.--星辰之叹 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014
editMedical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF
During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!
- Just some of our over 60 translations:
- New roles and guides!
At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!
- New sign up page!
We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!
- Style guides for translations
Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.
- Some more stats
- In July, 18 full article translations went live (WP:RTT), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live (WP:RTTS)!
- We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! (Find them here old sign up page)
- We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
- New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!
- Further reading
- Translators Without Borders
- Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign
BLP
editI would strongly urge you to read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in full, especially before making any more claims regarding living persons. You may also want to self-revert your edit as a show of good faith before someone else reverts it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm aware of those. In fact i applied them by removing opinions. The real neutral information would come from her disclosing how she spent her funds. Citing an established source's opinions on how she spent the money does not provide real neutral or objective information. What's worse: there is not a single opinion that thinks she didn't spend the money well. Either the discussion is represented with a bias or there is no discussion making the whole paragraph moot. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
editDo not make any more comments about other contributors, as you did at Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. This is a violation of assume good faith and no personal attacks. Additionally, engaging in general discussion of the topic is inappropriate and violates the talk page guidelines and the WP:NOTAFORUM policy. Keep your comments focused on specific improvements to the content of the article and there won't be any further problems. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 16:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're right that i shouldn't have done that, but calling a professor who even cites scientific sources a not reputable source as opposed to "reputable sources" that neither speak with scientific authority nor cite actual scientific sources, still smells fishy to me. I re-wrote my comment. I don't know the policy on that, but is it ok that i left out your warning in the corrected version? Alternatively i could have let the old comment stand and added a new one, but i agree that the personal part doesn't progress the dialogue.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's totally okay to rephrase your statements when there's a problem. However, your response still got into what you think other users are doing, which is not appropriate. Please avoid this in the future and discuss content only.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain that. I consider responding to what others are saying not only an appropriate way to have a discussion, but the best. For example, if i think someone is sidestepping my point, surely i can point that out? Discouraging that in a discussion would encourage people to use fallacies or syllogistically incorrect reasoning. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome to discuss content matters productively, and if you think someone has misunderstood the material or sources it's fine to point it out. However, your comment said "Perhaps you only read positive press about her, that's your good right..." which is a personal comment about another editor. What other people do or believe is of no importance to you. Avoid making comments like that in the future.--Cúchullain t/c 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Granted that i should have formulated that differently. But i think you're pulling it out of context a bit. First of all it's not a negative accusation, rather it's intended as a question as to where this editor got their opinion. Second, i'm simply trying to distinguish his/her opinion (stated as fact) about the "sheer amount of positive press" from the impression i get when just randomly typing "sarkeesian criticism" in google (it's mostly about criticism against sarkeesian, rather than the criticism by sarkeesian) or "sarkeesian" in youtube. To me, that shows an obvious discrepance between the "correct" published sources and the more critical sources which are often self published and voice a major part, if not the majority, of the public opinion. So yes, it was also intended to invite Cuchullain into taking note of that. As a sidenote: dit you notice it's a single-subject account? PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment on the content, not the contributor, period. And it doesn't matter what appears in self-published sources, especially when discussing living people are involved. With some specific exceptions, we exclusively use published sources. The sooner you learn that, the better.--Cúchullain t/c 13:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Granted that i should have formulated that differently. But i think you're pulling it out of context a bit. First of all it's not a negative accusation, rather it's intended as a question as to where this editor got their opinion. Second, i'm simply trying to distinguish his/her opinion (stated as fact) about the "sheer amount of positive press" from the impression i get when just randomly typing "sarkeesian criticism" in google (it's mostly about criticism against sarkeesian, rather than the criticism by sarkeesian) or "sarkeesian" in youtube. To me, that shows an obvious discrepance between the "correct" published sources and the more critical sources which are often self published and voice a major part, if not the majority, of the public opinion. So yes, it was also intended to invite Cuchullain into taking note of that. As a sidenote: dit you notice it's a single-subject account? PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome to discuss content matters productively, and if you think someone has misunderstood the material or sources it's fine to point it out. However, your comment said "Perhaps you only read positive press about her, that's your good right..." which is a personal comment about another editor. What other people do or believe is of no importance to you. Avoid making comments like that in the future.--Cúchullain t/c 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain that. I consider responding to what others are saying not only an appropriate way to have a discussion, but the best. For example, if i think someone is sidestepping my point, surely i can point that out? Discouraging that in a discussion would encourage people to use fallacies or syllogistically incorrect reasoning. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's totally okay to rephrase your statements when there's a problem. However, your response still got into what you think other users are doing, which is not appropriate. Please avoid this in the future and discuss content only.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
BLP Discretionary sanctions notice
editThe Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Dreadstar ☥ 10:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- This notice relates to Gamergate controversy, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and related articles, talk pages and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Dreadstar ☥ 10:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, i'll keep that in mind. Recently, i've been involved in a (lengthy) debate about the critical reception of a video series which is not about living persons so, to which the BLP policy doesn't much apply. Or at least imho it shouldn't if the page sticks to the subject. In the link i can't find anything about GamerGate related topics, only a general section about living persons that "such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached". Are you saying i shouldn't have accepted the revert of my cleaning up the more personal part of the critical reception paragraph? Or is this just a general notice for anyone involved in any editing regarding gamergate? Or is this just a general notice for everyone involved in editing the articles? PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, you've been involved in editing Anita Sarkeesian; and I'm not sure why you wouldn't think Tropes vs. Women in Video Games contains biographical information about living subjects - it's very clear that it relates to Sarkeesian. The notice in no way indicates that you've done anything wrong, it merely informs you that the articles you are editing fall under BLP discretionary sanctions. Please let me know if you have further questions. Dreadstar ☥ 04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for the explanation, i'll do my best to respect the BLP policy on all articles.PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Women and video games
editI have no interest in getting involved in a back-and-forth edit war with you over this, but you are misreading the citations here. Look at the article again. You have placed a flag asking for a proper citation next to citation #16. If you click on the link to citation #16 and read the cited source you will notice that it says "Generally speaking, programmers and developers have a hard time juxtaposing femininity and feminism in a good video game.
" This corroborates the claim for which it is used as a reference - "Erin Hamilton argues that part of the problem comes from the difficulty in "juxtaposing femininity and feminism in a good video game."
" Please revert your last edit and attempt to reformulate your objections into an understandable format. -Thibbs (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I tagged the wrong citation, it's corrected now.PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's a bit better, but I wonder if you examined the source that is used for the citation (Reference #7). I just listened to the clip and while it's true that CBC's Spark is not the originator of the original study, it clearly supports the claim that the study found 85% male characters as stated in the Wikipedia article. I have previously requested clarification on this issue of whether a citation to a reliable secondary source reporting on a primary source can take the place of a citation to the primary source itself. The answers I got from the RfC I filed are far from clear and there seems to be no actual requirement that the primary source be cited at all. In this case the Spark corroboration isn't specific enough to track down the original study so at best you should be placing a {{nonspecific}} tag instead of a {{citation needed}} tag because the citation that is currently used, though vague, does in fact corroborate the claim. In fact I'll update that for you now and I'll see if I can locate the original study later today. -Thibbs (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind I found it already through Google. Let me know if that works for you. -Thibbs (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. The abstract doesn't mention the number, but i have access to the article and it does. Thank you for the contribution.PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind I found it already through Google. Let me know if that works for you. -Thibbs (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's a bit better, but I wonder if you examined the source that is used for the citation (Reference #7). I just listened to the clip and while it's true that CBC's Spark is not the originator of the original study, it clearly supports the claim that the study found 85% male characters as stated in the Wikipedia article. I have previously requested clarification on this issue of whether a citation to a reliable secondary source reporting on a primary source can take the place of a citation to the primary source itself. The answers I got from the RfC I filed are far from clear and there seems to be no actual requirement that the primary source be cited at all. In this case the Spark corroboration isn't specific enough to track down the original study so at best you should be placing a {{nonspecific}} tag instead of a {{citation needed}} tag because the citation that is currently used, though vague, does in fact corroborate the claim. In fact I'll update that for you now and I'll see if I can locate the original study later today. -Thibbs (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
editYou've been told before about commenting on the content, not the contributor. Please don't make comments like this again. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 15:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler
editYou have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale
editYou have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back!
editI've been working on Guillain-Barré syndrome and I might need your proofreading skills at some point. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you JFW :-) and sure. Any specific way i can contribute? GBS is a fascinating disorder where lots of patients and family will come to wp to make a little more sense of it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Medicine navs
editYou have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Medicine navs. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
editMerry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! | |
Hello PizzaMan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
med navs
editPizzaMan, I understand you are bizzy in real life. Is there any chance you can take a look at our {{Medicine navs}} improvements shortly? If yes, we can conclude the stuff. If not, we can go live but there might be issues in the live versions, you would have tackled. (Do you want us to list the hotter topics?) Please respond here. -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I came back as soon as i could, DePiep. But my obligations for christmas carried into the third day of christmas. I'll start working on it now. PizzaMan (♨♨) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- All fine, and I don't wanna be the one that directs you to working here ;-).
- It all looks finalised now, fit for publication. Just say when you see blocking issues (minor incidents can be edited later just as well). Tom and I have made a deployment planning Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Deployment_process. Today at 22h UTC (or earlier) we will be live and proceed; you are invited to join. -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oops. Inviting all editors now is not a smart process move. What did you have in mind? -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- We can't push such a drastic change to the templates live without first leaving a note on the talk pages. (Edit: continued this dialogue on the talk page). PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is for the RfC announcement to cover. And this way it is late in the discussion process, intermediate steps have been decided. -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oops. Inviting all editors now is not a smart process move. What did you have in mind? -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin
editYou have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)