User talk:LaundryPizza03

Hello, LaundryPizza03,

I saw your message on the DreamRimmer Bot talk page. I did so as well last week and also sent DreamRimmer an email message because the CSD G13s are so far behind in the bot reports but so far no replies. I hope everything is okay with their life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm also autistic and have ADHD! Also your user is so cool! 🩷Thatg1rlAv3ry🩷 (Talk to me!!) 13:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello LaundryPizza03. I have removed the section that you started at WP:AN requesting WP:RD2 revision deletion. Per WP:REVDELREQUEST, please do not use highly visible on-wiki pages like WP:AN to request revision deletion of RD2/RD3 content. This is disruptive because (1) it creates a Streisand effect where we inadvertently draw more attention to the content we want to hide, and (2) the added attention will likely encourage the vandal/troll to want to continue vandalizing (WP:DENY). This is especially the case when the edits are more than a few weeks old—for some of the accounts you reported, the vandalism was done in April and is buried deep in the history now. The best thing to do might have been to just leave the edits alone to be forgotten. Per Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use, RevisionDelete is mainly intended for simple use and fairly recent material.

Nevertheless, I have gone through the three accounts that you reported and used revdel to redact some of those accounts' edits. If you need to request revision deletion again, please use IRC or other less publicly visible communication methods. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Well, I couldn't reach the admins through private forums. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

(talk page watcher) Any admin’s talk page from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests should be good if you can’t email or use the live chat. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi LaundryPizza, what's your opinion on a Togo delsort? I tagged Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tchamola Tanko as 'Africa' for now as there wasn't a more specific sort that I could find. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

At this point, I'd say every UN member state should have a delsort. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 22 § Fiction set in $YEAR on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson, has been now closed. The final decision is available at the link above.

The following remedies have been passed regarding this case:

• TruthGuardians (talk ·contribs ), TheWikiholic (talk ·contribs ), Guitarjunkie22 (talk ·contribs ), Jimcastor (talk ·contribs ), and MraClean (talk ·contribs ) are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

• TruthGuardians (talk ·contribs ), TheWikiholic (talk ·contribs ), Israell (talk ·contribs ), EpistemeAletheia (talk ·contribs ), Guitarjunkie22 (talk ·contribs ), Jimcastor (talk ·contribs ), MrBoar1 (talk ·contribs ), MraClean (talk ·contribs ), Never17 (talk ·contribs ), and PinkSlippers (talk ·contribs ) are indefinitely topic banned from Michael Jackson, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

• NE0mAn7o! (talk ·contribs ) is warned that future misconduct in the Michael Jackson topic area will result in restrictions under the Michael Jackson community contentious topic.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 21:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard §Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed

This article does not violate Wikipedia standards and policies presenting proper public identification with primary and secondary documentation with more to come since the new AVA was established March 2026. Therefore, can the notice be removed?Fb2002 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Fb2002: Yes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I saw some of the discussion about cleaning up the archives at Talk:Vatican City and just wanted to say I think it is a valiant effort. I did not sift through the history to see if I agree with the exact method or order chosen, and I think it is not always worth the effort, but in general I think archives should be in at least a rough chronological order. Also, I think the auto-archiving settings on that talk page are too low (too rapid). The activity level on the page is not so high that threads need to be archived after just 3 months. I've developed my own opinions about archiving and have found a lack of guidance and quite a range of opinions from other editors and practices on different pages. It's the sort of thing that probably shouldn't have strict guidelines and requires case-by-case assessment but I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about this or even user essays detailing the pros and cons of different approaches. (If there are, I haven't had much luck in finding them.) —Myceteae ‍🌈 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Myceteae How about 4 sections minimum (instead of 1 maximum) and archive threads older than 2 years (instead of the status-quo of 90 days)? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

That sounds good to me. Looking quickly at the archive, it appears there have been 2–3 posts per year for the last several years. My instinct would be to go for 1 or 2 years and 6–8 posts but I think either way is fine. In my experience, adjusting this is uncontroversial about 1/2 to 2/3 of the time but sometimes draws significant protest. I usually leave an edit summary along the lines of this or this. It's probably overkill but I prefer to leave some record of my thinking. Since editors have already objected to discussing the approach to archiving I think it's reasonable to make a change and see if it sticks. —Myceteae ‍🌈 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello - Hoping perhaps you would be interested in commenting on the disposition of the above 1-article category nominated for deletion. Gjs238 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was unsure if it applied only to articles. MarioWonderExpert (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Hello, LaundryPizza03. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NovoTech Patent Law Firm, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:1640s establishments in Puerto Rico. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mercy11 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello LaundryPizza03,

I would like to ask you a question. I submitted an edit request on the Egypt's talk page. The question is: Was my request correct? And what should be done if it was not?

Thank you. Pyramidslover (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please stop posting creation protection requests at RFPP for targets that have only been created once and can be easily circumvented; protecting such targets is a waste of time. See also WP:NOSALT. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 13:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, LaundryPizza03,

I gather from the CFD you posted (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 13#Literary characters), that you wanted to eliminate yearly categories for characters in favor of categories listing articles that covers a decade. I'm not sure what happened with instructions to JJMC89 bot III but the bot, or an editor, emptied a lot of decade categories, too at least for just the 18th century. See Category:Literary characters by decade of introduction. And there are several annual categories that are still full, which you can see at Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction.

If this seems a little backward it's because my end of this exercise is not dealing with CFD closures but tagging empty categories and I often need to go back to CFD and find out why categories have been emptied, through a CFD nomination (an old or new one) or because an editor decided to empty a category tree on their own, which causes problems. But after seeing all of these annual categories emptied, it was a surprise to see these decade categories emptied, too, because I thought the contents of the annual categories were being moved into the decade categories so why empty them too? However, if this whole arrangement was actually your intent, why are literary characters being handled differently for the 18th century while the pre-1700 and post-1800 categories are being kept? I hope you can figure out what happened here and whether there needs to be a follow-up to your original CFD nomination. Have a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Liz: I asked to merge with subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by decade of introduction because there weren't enough non-literary characters in this era to justify the lower category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am sorry that I knew I have been blocked from editing Blooncyclopedia forever, for trolling. ~2026-42354-82 (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please remember to never feed the trolls. Yue 🌙 (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Are you going to go through with the currently accepted schemes or not? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Any updates? If so, how long until implementation? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

For that matter, can I just start implementing the appropriate schemes decided in the discussion to the major objects in the Solar System, or are you planning on doing some more in-depth changes to the infoboxes themselves? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi LaundryPizza03. I nominated Draft:Appendix:Two-letter combinations for speedy deletion based on this diff on my talk page. I just wanted to let you know so you are aware. Best. AriuCH (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@AriuCH: Still not applicable and makes no sense. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

i'm working on my first article but it's so hard. I think you saw it already it's about 1E 2259+58. I don't know how to reference, and I am short on facts. PLEASE HLEP AQ7-8 TheFrostyAstronomer 125 (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@AQ7-8 TheFrostyAstronomer 125: I just explained this to you at your talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

ohhhhh ok AQ7-8 TheFrostyAstronomer 125 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Weakly interacting massive particle, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A unsupported parameter error. References show this error when you use a parameter name that does not exist. Please replace the parameter with one that the template supports, or remove it if no such parameter exists. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • Totani, Tomonori (1 November 2025). "20 GeV halo-like excess of the Galactic diffuse emission and implications for dark matter annihilation". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. 2025 (11): 080. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/080.{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |arxi= ignored (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can Weakly_interacting_massive_particle&preloadparams%5b%5d=1364673601"}]]}">report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion § Incomplete cleanup by JJMC89 bot III. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Can you vote at Talk:Bà Rịa ward#Requested move 9 July 2026 as you did at Talk:Phú Nhuận ward#Requested move 9 July 2026? It's not worth it for us to do that. And is WP:VIETPLACE in effect? And revert before discussion. I apologize if I upset you. Henrydat (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rename all userbox categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello! I saw you remove this sentence for lack of source, but it was taken from the first cited source in the article: https://www.1lurer.am/en/2021/11/17/Thieves-destroyed-Armenian-Hogvots-Monastery-in-Van/603271

There’s a lack of incline citations in the history section despite there being a reference. ~2026-42257-00 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Then it is either a Wikipedia mirror or a copyright infringement. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply