User talk:Pizza Puzzle6
|
|
Hello, Mr. Puzzle. I've noticed that in several articles, you've been hiding people's first names, writing things like "Rogers" when referring to Toby Rogers for the first time in an article. This isn't helpful, because people won't know which Rogers you mean, unless they happen to follow the link, or at least hold the cursor over it and see where it leads. The convention is to give people's first and last names when first referring to them, and then possibly dropping their first names later on where there is no ambiguity about who you mean. (And of course for people whose personal and family names are written the other way round, please substitute "first" and "last" in that paragraph.)
And by the way, I'm sure you don't care about this, but I'm going to tell you anyway: I found out this evening that I'm going to be an uncle. :) -- Uncle Oliver 00:48 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not sure where you mean by "at the tertiary bigtop" (above, below?) so here are my comments.
You asked: "Is 3kg really so bad?" I'm not sure which article you are referring to, but I presume you are questioning why I put a space in between the number and the kilogram symbol. I guess my question back is, what do you mean by "really so bad"? Is it so bad that it is a major problem, seriously degrading the quality of the article? Probably not. Is it against accepted style, potentially harder to read, and very easy to fix? Yes. It can be much easier to read if there is a space there (which is why that is the accepted style). This can be very important if someone gives a number of liters and they use the lower case L, since it looks like a 1. Cos111 06:41 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
[3]
|
^
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| | |
| | PP |
| | |
| | |
| / \ | Theresa knott
Argh, I've got into an edit conflict with a tent! But yes, I'll be sure to take Fernando aside and give him a stern talking-to at our next family get-together. ;) -- Oliver P. 16:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
leaving the unused day is an excellent way to encourage somebody to add something. Pizza Puzzle
- No, it's an awful thing to do. It looks terrible. People should add news because it's news, not because there's an empty space for them to put something there.
- James F. 03:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- There is news everyday. Pizza Puzzle
- No, there ends up being news every day, but that often only gets added some days or even weeks after it occurred. Leaving a hanging date around is inelegant.
- James F. 04:07 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- This site is a work in progress - elegance is not the goal. Pizza Puzzle
- It's not the primary goal; it is still a goal, and one reached with surprise regularity for a 'work in progress'.
- Either way, there is now a news article for the 19th, so the discussion is moot.
- James F. 04:14 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Not at all, PP I agree with much of it. Sorry I have been working a lot of big pages and chasing up some images so I have not had a chance to get back. But I very much appreciate the message. FearÉIREANN 03:10 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Lir/Vera: your insistence on deleting huge sections of the New Imperialism article got you banned under the name Vera Cruz, one of your most successful incarnations. It could get you banned again. Please don't force me to protect it or ask someone else to protect it. 172
But due to your past, it would be best if you just made suggestions on the talk page of New Imperialism. This would make the situation easier for you and other contributors, like myself, who fear that you might have some ulterior motives.
I mean, after all, every time you get into a major edit war it starts with a series of minor edits that evolve into a major reconstruction, to which other contributors often object. 172
Don't be coy, Lir/Vera Cruz. You do know what I'm talking about. We all know who you are. One of the reasons that you've been banned so many times is your evasiveness and insistence to maintain the pretension that you're not Lir/Vera Cruz/Dietary Fiber/Susan Mason, etc.
For your own good, please to not revert to your old habits. You've been eying that page for months, seeking to totally rewrite it. Nobody thought that your last crusade to remake the New Imperialism article was constructive or coherent.
You know that every time you get into an edit war it starts with a series of your ostensibly benign "minor edits." Then, after dozens of other "minor edits," you've totally remade the article, often in a manner that you and you alone can understand.
You've been a constructive user now under the name Pizza Puzzle, from what I've heard. Please don't resume your old habits, which have gotten you banned dozens of times, and will perhaps get you banned again.
The fact that you're allowed to return, rehabilitated, without the pretension that you're not Adam, is a great show of trust on the part of many. Please do not lose it through your evasiveness, uncooperativeness, and propensity to misunderstand the well-intentioned advice of other contributors. 172
Please PP, don't slip back to old ways. You have done good work as PP and I have been one of the people defending your right to be here because of how you have behaved as PP. Don't slip up now and revert to a standard of behaviour that got you banned before. You have a lot of ability. Please don't blow it and get yourself banned by acting like Vera and the other characters. Your behaviour as PP has impressed people and there is a real prospect that all the problems of the past could be forgotten for good. But any revertion to past bahaviour would simply not merely get you banned but would kill off chances of you ever being trusted back here again. You would end up like Michael and DW, in effect permanently banned, any new identities banned on sight with every edit you make reverted on sight and every contribution you make undone. I don't want that to happen. But that is what will happen, if wikipedians generally come to think you are abandoning your recent constructive behaviour and behaving as in the past. In that case, if Eloquence again proposes your banning it will get support from many people on the w-list and will happen. IMHO that would be a great pity but it is a danger if you start unilaterally dumping large lumps of text from articles without discussing it as 'Vera' did to the fury of everyone else. Please please do not go down that road again. FearÉIREANN 22:13 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, if nobody does it before me, I'm going to chop the article in two (I've given advance warning of this at Talk:New Imperialism). I'd do it now, but I'm ploughing through some real-world work at the moment (ah, the real world... I remember that...) --Camembert
- Please don't treat us like fools, PP. Most of the people have known who you are from day 1. (A simple check of IPs, location etc apart from anything else shows it.) I don't care who you are. All I care is that we don't have a repeat of the Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber performances.You know why and how you got banned repeatedly before. Just avoid doing that again, OK, Adam. That way everyone will be happy and you will be able to continue to edit wiki and most people will simply deliberately ignore the past. It is in your interest to avoid opening up those old wounds. But if you return to your trouble-making old ways then you will be hardbanned again and this time it will be permanent. A lot of people, not withstanding the past, have trusted you and shown respect for you as PP because your standard of behaviour was a big improvement. If you piss them off by acting as before they will never trust you again and treat you to the same all out war waged on Michael and DW, with you being banned the moment you are caught on and every single letter and full stop you place on wiki deleted on sight. IMHO that would be a shame given the talents you could bring, and the contributions you could make, to wikipedia.
- It is entirely in your hands. But don't insult the intelligence of many intelligent wikiepedians here by playing the "oh golly gosh. Who is this Vera?" lark. There are plenty of wikipedians who can establish within seconds what IP you are using, where you are physically calling from, etc. They have done so (they did it almost as soon a you first came on and established exactly who you are. Nobody on wiki will be fooled by protests of innocence. If you don't want to talk about who you really are, then just don't talk about it at all. But pretending you are not who you demonstrably are is one sure way of generating bad will towards yourself. Just drop the issue, keep up the standards you set as PP and don't revert to previous behaviour and all will be well. But it is entirely up to you whether you want to stay and continue to be a respected working colleague here on wikipedia or whether you want to muck it up and be kicked off. And if you get kicked off again it will be for good, and not a single wikipedian will be supporting your presence on wiki again. So stop messing and get back to work, OK! FearÉIREANN 04:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
BTW, I meant to say (and something 172 said to me reminded me of it), I hope you do realise you have the potential to be one of wikipedia's best contributors, if you set your mind to it. He and I are both academics and both of us are very impressed by your ability. He commented that if you set you mind to it you could be another Mav, and I agree totally. Given your ability you could be one of the most influential people on wiki, looked up to by people and be able to lay claim much of wiki's success on your resumé. Please give that some thought, PP. Wiki needs someone of PP's ability and obvious intellectual capacity. What it does not need and I doubt will tolerate is more of the Vera Cruz/Lir larking around. Don't blow it for yourself by messing around. After all RK might think he had won if his brand of Israelicentrism is allowed free reign on wiki because someone with your knowledge and more balanced analysis had gone from wiki. And you don't want to let RK win, do you? :-) FearÉIREANN 05:18 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)