User talk:LaundryPizza03

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello, you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 16#Films by year of setting as close/merge. Please kindly undo your close and relist the discussion. I don't think a clear consensus emerged with 2 !votes only. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 12:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While it is my own nomination, I think a relisting of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_22#Births_by_year_600_BC_-_500 would be appropriate because of User:Fayenatic london's argument. At the same time I think (for FL to confirm) that there is clear consensus to merge the 6th-century BC categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear hear. And yes I do not oppose merger of 6th century BC. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand; do you want me to relist or not? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please relist for the sake of the ten centuries 490 BC births to 499 births, but you could acknowledge that there is consensus so far to merge 6th century BC. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I send a list of minor corrections to the List of isotopes articles? I recently send some but I am not sure I used the proper channel. There are 14 of them . Would an e-mail be better ?

Thank you. Michel Béliveau (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you edit the affected articles directly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning LaundryPizza03

I will preform the edits. Here is the list of these edits so you can have a trail. Thank you. Please note that - for testing purpose - I performed the first one before sending this reply .

D11 Article = Isotopes_of_rhodium

Isotope : ¹¹⁷Rh Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ¹¹⁵Pd Should be : ¹¹⁶Pd

D12 Article = Isotopes_of_palladium

Isotope : ⁹³Pd Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ⁹¹Ru Should be : ⁹²Ru

D13 Article = Isotopes_of_palladium

Isotope : ⁹⁵Pd Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ⁹⁵Rh Should be : ⁹⁴Ru

D14 Article = Isotopes_of_cadmium

Isotope : ⁹⁸Cd Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ⁹⁷Ag Should be : ⁹⁷Pd

D15 Article = Isotopes_of_antimony

Isotope : ¹⁴²Sb Decay mode : β⁻ 2n Result specified : ¹³⁰Te Should be : ¹⁴⁰Te

D16 Article = Isotopes_of_iodine

Isotope : ¹¹¹I Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ¹¹¹Te Should be : ¹¹⁰Sb

D17 Article = Isotopes_of_iodine

Isotope : ¹⁴³I Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ¹⁴¹Xe Should be : ¹⁴²Xe

D18 Article = Isotopes_of_iodine

Isotope : ¹⁴³I Decay mode : β⁻ 2n Result specified : ¹⁴⁰Xe Should be : ¹⁴¹Xe

D19 Article = Isotopes_of_cerium

Isotope : ¹²¹Ce Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ¹²¹La Should be : ¹²⁰Ba

D20 Article = Isotopes_of_dysprosium

Isotope : ¹⁴⁷Dy Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ¹⁴⁶Tb Should be : ¹⁴⁶Gd

D21 Article = Isotopes_of_holmium

Isotope : ¹⁷⁷Ho Decay mode : β⁻ Result specified : ¹⁷⁵Er Should be : ¹⁷⁷Er

D22 Article = Isotopes_of_thulium

Isotope : ¹⁵⁶Tm Decay mode : α Result specified : ¹⁵²Er Should be : ¹⁵²Ho

D23 Article = Isotopes_of_thulium

Isotope : ¹⁵⁷Tm Decay mode : α Result specified : ¹⁵³Er Should be : ¹⁵³Ho

D24 Article = Isotopes_of_gold

Isotope : ²⁰⁹Au Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ²¹⁰Hg Should be : ²⁰⁸Hg

Michel Béliveau (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day.

I applied the changes but got a message for the last 2 :

D23 Article = Isotopes_of_thulium

Isotope : ¹⁵⁷Tm Decay mode : α Result specified : ¹⁵³Er Should be : ¹⁵³Ho

message = This template is missing TemplateData, and its parameters have been autogenerated. As a result the template and its parameters lack descriptions. There might be additional information on the template's page.

D24 Article = Isotopes_of_gold

Isotope : ²⁰⁹Au Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ²¹⁰Hg Should be : ²⁰⁸Hg

message = Required field missing. Are you sure you want to continue without filling the "Reference name 1" field?"

Can you fix that ?

Thank you. Michel Béliveau (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with the visual editor, so I cannot offer guidance. However, I fixed the issues listed here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

Here are 4 edits (almost final edits) that I intend to apply today. They all are minor edits and are in accordance with "The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear physics properties" in Chinese Physics C Vol. 45, No. 3 (2021) 030001.

3 are for half-life units ( ¹³⁰Sm, ²³⁰Rn and ^127m4Sn )

1 about the use of "?" in decay mode and daughter For isotope ⁶⁰Sc : remove the question mark from the daughter isotope (⁶⁰Ti) and apply it to the decay mode. It is only for coherence : it is the only case where de Decay mode does not contain "?" but the daughter isotope contains it. It is the Decay that is uncertain, not the result.

I will eventually post another comment about the use of the "?" in Decay nodes and Daughter isotopes. Michel Béliveau (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category or 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/2025 March 20 § Category:Fiction set in the 7th millennium or beyond on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 charlotte ^👸♥ 21:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ToadetteEdit (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Sohom (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1, especially for your work at WP:CfD ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 This way, you don't have to report backlogs, you could take care of them yourself! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 many thanks for your endless contributions to categorization, it's lio! | talk | work 04:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you (correctly) closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March_8#Early and high medieval establishments in Switzerland. I didn't notice it while it was ongoing, and there was only minimal participation, making this the CfD equivalent of a WP:SOFTDELETE. Would you consider reopening the discussion for further input, or should I take this to DRV, or are there other options? Fram (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I'd suggest WP:DRV is the way to go. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you even started the DRV, thanks! I'll comment there, but again, I have no issue with your actions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LaundryPizza03. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 10:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have seen you a lot at CfD closing discussions there, and today, I saw your RfA. It is very odd for a great candidate to not have a nom statement. I endorse the AWOT last time, and I will support your candidacy. I am posting here because I can not vote there anyway. Good luck with the mop soon! ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words from ToadetteEdit, who comes to your page with personal experience. Coming to the party late, I can see why the many +1's above might have given you reason to think you have the confidence and temperament to do mop work. They are correct; you've done some excellent work here. That you just self-nommed like a shot from the hip is, I'll confess, a BOLD approach, and I always admire the bold. However, AfD seems like a gauntlet where a run often reveals weak spots in your armor, so to speak. I failed my first RfA in 2011, and my disappointment was somewhat lessened by my better understanding of the process, and my larger respect for those who even attempted such a run. Some unsolicited advice: 1) This is not over. If you were to make some corrections right now to your self-nomination statement, you may be able to impress others with your willingness to do the right thing. 2) Nobody is your opponent in a run for admin. Everybody just wants a skilled, energetic, competent, and reliable candidate to !vote for (root for). 3) Questions can be your friend. It is not unusual for supporters to pose questions which allow a candidate to refocus opposers' critique in an enlightning way. 4) Lots of terrific administrators failed their first run. Sometimes we bite off more than we can chew. In 2011, I wasn't ready, and I didn't possess the right mindset for service. You still have time to speak for yourself. 5) Honesty is inevitably the right policy. If you want to stick it out, then consider asking some of your +1 friends above to advise you how best to weather the slings and arrows of the current process. REMEMBER, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT ALONE RIGHT NOW! Demonstrate to the undecided why these allies thought you should be mopping NOW. Best wishes, BusterD (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One note to add: I don't know you as an editor, and there are editors whom I respect in each of the "support" and "oppose" camps right now. I'd intuitively like to support, but I think there are valid concerns. Please take a few minutes to answer the optional questions posed by RfA participants; your answers will help those of us on the fence make a decision, and I think that the longer optional questions go unanswered, the more participants will migrate into opposition. Good luck! Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I just saw the stats of your RfA and (sorry to be blunt) I advise you to withdraw now. Your RfA is well intentioned, and you indeed have a clue. However, I suspect this RfA will most likely not pass given the current support/oppose/neutral ratio of 4:2:1 as of typing, or 50%~67% success rate. I am sorry to say this because your RfA is sinking right now with the strong opposes (in particular Ritchie333 and OwenX's votes). Read the opposing votes and learn from them, gain more experience, and in a year or two, you will be ready. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs can turn around. It's still early. Often commenters wait to see how the candidate responds to follow-up questions and the like. Showing "clue" goes a long way. As does showing the ability to navigate nonsense with poise and class, while still being responsive to questions/concerns (WP:ADMINACCT). As well as having a collaborative demeanor. All of which, I think the candidate has in spades. - jc37 19:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my 2011 debacle, I put my nomination in place, then went to work for 12 hours. When I got back home, it was much too late for me to recover. LaundryPizza03 hasn't edited since the nom went active. BusterD (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they have never edited today (their most recent edit was a reply at CfD), and the second was to launch the RfA. TBH, this nom seems to be incomplete (an empty nom statement), which is also one of the various reasons why people are opposing this candidate. The reason why this I am recommending such is because it is boring to watch this page, with opposes catching up with supports to the point where by the end of the 7 days there will be more opposes than supports. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03: At this stage, I believe many people are waiting for you to address the concerns and questions editors have raised through questions and comments, especially about Q2.

Please take some time to read the opinions people have already expressed and concerns that you will probably need to address. Things can turn around, and hang in there! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 20:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to what ToadetteEdit has to say, it's probably wise at this point to withdraw. I myself voted !Oppose, but I'd be happy to work with you towards a future RfA. Just say if you'd like to take up the offer. Schwede66 22:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Laundry. Anyone would be completely overwhelmed by the activity at RfA. Whatever you decide to do, I hope you give yourself time to breathe and rest and sort through all this. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also perplexed by the direction this has taken, but I would counsel maintaining continued optimism, and diving into some more robust content creation. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I'm sorry you kind of got your chain yanked like that. I hope you prove resilient and stick around, continuing to help build an encyclopedia. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to close that RFA for you? Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFA process is almost always stressful, and I'm sorry it's going the way it is. Please soak in the feedback as a way to be a better editor and have a better RFA next time!

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	You're almost there. I hope you take the RfA comments and criticism in a positive way and improve upon those. You have my support already for the next one. Happy editing :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Better to have been bold than to have never bolded
	Just an outside observer saying I respect your efforts and whatever happens with the current RfA, there's clearly lots of people who support you and will continue to do so. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LP03, I've "paused" your RFA until we hear from you about what is going on. As you've surely seen, it isn't doing well, and people kind of expect replies from you - even if you've decided to abandon the attempt. In particular, I see you've edited after the problems with the RFA were recognized, and after multiple questions were asked, but you didn't say anything there. It is possible a Bureaucrat will actually close this before you reply here, but I didn't quite feel like I could "officially" close it myself, without hearing from you, since I'm not a crat. But to be clear, the only real reasonable result is that this is eventually going to be closed as unsuccessful. You don't really need to officially withdraw there, if for some reason you don't want to post there, you can just say it here, and I or someone will do the paperwork. But some kind of note from you would be appreciated so we're not all trying to figure out what to do without your input, at least. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LaundryPizza03, a discussion regarding a request of yours is open at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Please see the discussion at your earliest convenience. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

-Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Take some time, some deep breaths. You are a valuable member of the community. I'm sorry that we are sometimes very cruel to people we actually like, and who do good work in so many ways. Risker (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to second (third?) Ad Orientem and Risker. You are absolutely a valued member of the community, and I want to re-iterate that I was expecting to support the request, and hope to support a future request if you want to make one. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, kindly undo and either relist or overturn your Merge close of Category:Films set in 5th-century Byzantine Empire. Only one vote and it is a Keep (mine). So this is probably a mistake. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 20:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of the deletion discussion for Category:Wikipedians who own aquariums containing all of the fish they have been slapped with does not reflect consensus, or policy. I hope that you will reconsider it, or I will take it to deletion review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, had missed that one...I agree. Your close is totally erroneous there too. -Mushy Yank. 21:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You kids fish-schlapping without me? BusterD (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish - The close was 3:4 if you are counting votes (which I believe you wouldn't do). And the P&G arguments pretty clearly outweigh the ILIKEIT/MALVOLIO ones.

That said, my experience with these "playtime" cats is that if one waits a bit longer to nominate, they usually end up being deleted. I think that this was merely nominated too soon after April 1st, and the editors wanted their toy in the sandbox a bit longer.

And categories (unlike pages) actually have a techincal overhead (which we don't talk about much), which is part of why these sort of things are usually deleted eventually. Categories aren't a good place for these kinds of things.

Anyway, as for me, I might have closed it No consensus (which would allow for a later nom, as appropriate), but I think it falls within closer discretion based upon current guidelines.

For now, if you want to DRV it, I suppose that's up to you, but asking LaundryPizza03 to re-open/relist the discussion is likely just to have more of the same comments on either side. So I'm not sure what you are looking for here. - jc37 22:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the "P&G arguments" do not reflect P&Gs; they were refuted in the discussion, and not simply by ILIKEIT. I'm not sure how you are counting, but there were 3 deletes (including the nom) and 4 keeps. To say that the 3 deletes made for a consensus would amount to a supervote. The alleged tech overhead was never raised in the discussion, so basing a close on that would be a supervote too. And as for "usually", I provided counterexamples in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying.

I noted the 3:4 in my comments above. But (as I noted) I thought you wouldn't be vote counting, but I guess based upon the above you are?

Anyway, the next step is up to LaundryPizza03 (and you), so I'll leave that up to the two of you. - jc37 23:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand WP:NOTAVOTE without needing you to talk down to me, but it's hard to argue that the discussion added up to such a consensus without making a supervote. And considering the number of "thanks" notifications I've been getting for what I said about this issue on the RfA page, I think you underestimate the number of editors who see this as I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "talking down" to anyone. Please don't characterise my comments in a negative fashion.

And neither am I interested in an argument. I merely was providing you with info. What you do with that info, is up to you. And as I said, beyond that, it's up to the closer (and you) what you each do next. - jc37 23:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it came across. I re-read it to see if I had misread, but it still sounds that way to me now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is the full moon making normally outstanding editors a bit testy today? BusterD (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to think about this for a moment. I'd still stand by my close barring anything else, but it's a harmless category so I'm inclined to overturn or go to DRV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37 Sorry, little confused by the "bit longer" comment? It had been around since 2019. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. I was mainly noting that it was nominated on April 1st. - jc37 20:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza has reversed the close, and the discussion is now reopened. Thank you LaundryPizza for doing that. As for me personally, that's fine for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LaundryPizza03. We've never interracted before as far as I can remember. However, I've seen some of your wonderful work over the years and just want to drop by and wish you the best of luck on your RfA. No matter what happens, please remember that you a great asset to this project and highly needed. Do what is right for you, and don't feel like you have to be pressured or rushed into anything. You are the most important person in this scenario and your well being comes first. Secondly, I want to take this opportunity to formally apologise to you directly for any drama I might have part took in on that RfA. That was never my intention. I just don't like seeing people bombarding one person, and I had to speak up. However, if by speaking up caused you any unnecessary stress, I sincerely apologise as that was never my intention. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you choose to do, and my strong support for your candidacy remains intact. Good luck! Tamsier (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A Betta splendens for you
	RfA is hard, and scary, but you went for it! And have stuck with it, even given the circumstances! In honour of that, I've found the bravest fish possible (B. splendens) for you. No matter how this turns out, I have confidence you'll stick around, and this seems like it will be a suitable companion for you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added papers from different independent authors about simmilar solutions of shell-like compact objects. I object deletion for that slowly upcoming star model. Swen (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Thanks for submitting your candidacy. I hope the feedback left by editors is useful and know that many people have successfully gained administrator rights after initially being unsuccessful. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find your behavior surrounding the RFA inexplicable. It seems out of character with the positive interactions and constructive contributions I associate you with. I hope that you continue to productively engage with the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry your RfA was unsuccessful. I hope you continue doing what you have been doing, and I hope you run again successfully at some point in the future. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your RfA was not successful. So, instead of eating pizza and doing laundry as your username suggests, you should eat some pie! GTrang (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]