User Talk: LaundryPizza03

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{archives|age=60|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=1440
| archiveprefix=User talk:LaundryPizza03/Archive
| numberstart=2
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{talkarchive}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| minarchthreads=1
| format= %%i
}}

Micronesia–Ukraine relations

Hello. If you move article, then also change name in lead, infobox and Wikidata, otherwise it doesn't make sene. Eurohunter (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:I don't feel that any of this except Wikidata is actually necessary here. And updating page names on Wikidata should be automated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 17:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 14 § Category:Fictional characters from the 5th millennium ↗

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>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 May 14 § Category:Fictional characters from the 5th millennium ↗''' on the categories for discussion ↗ page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 01:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Isotopes of krypton ↗

{{noping|ArAr'Hani}} has contributed lots of other wholesale nonsense to other articles. It looks like the basis is string-match of some text fragment, which would be consistent with LLM or an incompetent google-search. See also their puppet {{noping|Xenon℅Saturn}}. DMacks (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Closure of some CFD Radio categories

LuandryPizza03,
Thanks for all you with CFD closures; it's very appreciated. Would you mind double-checking your closures on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 9 ↗? It looks like several of the metro categories are being merged to themselves which might just be a long way of saying "keep". Also several of the city cats where most !votes were to keep are being merged which is certainly possible if the minority had better arguments but there's no analysis in the close decision which is pretty customary in that situation.

I'm a ''very'' involved editor here so if my request is not reasonable, just let me know! - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

:I just came here to say the same thing. I'm confused by the closures in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 9 ↗ and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 17 ↗. You seem to have consistently closed the discussions using the suggestions of Johnpacklambert even when he was the only user who !voted that way. Mclay1 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:Hi LaundryPizza03, thanks for your closings at CfD (I agree with {{noping|RevelationDirect}} above that they're quite appreciated!). I noticed that you also relisted ↗ one of the discussions that I had previously closed; was this intentional? If you disagree with the close I'd be glad to have it stay open, but I thought the consensus on that one was pretty clear. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs ↗) 02:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|Staraction}} No, please undo that. I want to get out of this trainwreck. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 04:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I've just closed the discussion at the May 17 log. I'll also tag some of the other categories you've relisted since a reverse merge has been proposed. Hopefully we're all good now! Best, Staraction (talk · contribs ↗) 05:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Staraction}} But I had already undone the relist! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 05:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I ended up undoing ↗ your undo if that's alright? I think this is probably the safest & easiest way to resolve the issue because otherwise we'd have to manually add back to the May 9 log. If you disagree feel free to re-add to the May 9 log, ping me, and I'll close it again. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs ↗) 05:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Okay. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 05:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:I've definitely had off days, both in real life and at Wikipedia, so I'm sympathetic here and understand you're frustrated. I did want to quickly outline what happened and how we fixed it should any procedural questions come up later:
:* Some closes on the May 9th log were in error, either being technically impossible or not providing analysis on controversial closes.
:* This was fixed by undoing those closes and relisting those as open nominations on the 5/17 log.
:* A close by another editor was inadvertently swept up in this and, ultimately, reclosed on the 5/17 log.
:* For the future, I encouraged the nominator to use group noms to make this easier on everybody!
:{{pb}}All my concerns have been addressed. {{ping|Staraction}} I see you've been active adding some notices on the 5/17 log so I assume you're good. {{ping|Mclay1}} Is everything resolved from your perspective? - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::It looks like all those nominations have been relisted so all good. Mclay1 (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

":Obama bin Laden ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obama_bin_Laden&redirect=no Obama bin Laden] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 18#Obama bin Laden}}''' until a consensus is reached.  SeaHaircutSoilReplace 17:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson ↗. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Evidence ↗. '''Please add your evidence by June 1, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson/Workshop ↗. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction ↗. For the Arbitration Committee, '''~delta''' {'''talk''' • '''cont''' ↗ • 🇰🇷 ↗ • 🎢 ↗} 22:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Probability problems navbox

Thanks for adding the 'probability problems' navbox to all the relevant articles! Boring but useful work, I appreciate you doing it. GanzKnusper (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of ConwayLife.com and LifeWiki

Hi, I'm a very occasional unregistered lurker at the ConwayLife forums. Maybe this isn't the best place to ask, but you might have a better idea given that you also contribute there. I want to improve the article on Conway's Game of Life ↗. Today I expanded the lead greatly. That article cites LifeWiki and the forums many times. Normally we do not cite user-generated content, however I feel that in this case many of those users ''are'' in fact the experts. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone better acquainted with cellular automata than you guys. Do you think it would be at least be okay for me to cite forum messages by people such as Dave Greene and Nathaniel Johnston, who wrote the Life textbook, or those mentioned at this ↗ article by Quanta ↗ such as Matthias Merzenich? Thanks Wreaderick (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Wreaderick}} This is a tough question. It is at least as reliable as Stack Exchange ↗, since users tend to be experts and statements are often easier to verify than Stack Exchange questions. Ask WP:RSN ↗. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 03:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Splitting by state

I supported your motion on establishments in Wyoming. It seems likely to not fully pass. More so I do not think we need to divide by every state in any case where we divide by some. Right now I am trying to build a set of Category:Founders of populated places in California etc. I have so far opted not to create West Virginia and South Dakota. This is a better name than "city founders" because many if the places involved were never cities. It is a slow build since you have to figure out what state the person founded the populated place in. Or states. There are a few who were populated place founders in multiple states. I am still torn over what to do about the 62 founders of populated places in the Thirteen Colonies. I may end up with some categories that are too narrow. Arkansas may end up with only 1. I think I have about 200 articles to go, and I know there are other articles that belong in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

:I formed the first of these categories back on March 15. But only created about 10 then. The distribution by state is much different than some other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|Johnpacklambert}} I'd say :Category:American city founders ↗ should be diffused as thoroughly as possible before we can decide if the existing categories should be merged back, and the entire tree of :Category:City founders ↗ should be renamed to :Category:Founders of populated places ↗, etc. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 03:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Apology for undoing caesium anchor removal

Sorry for undoing your removal of the anchors in the caesium list of isotopes. I had missed the already existing anchors in the page. Briarshore (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Sex editnotice et. al.

Hi, looking at your G6 on Template:Sex editnotice ↗, Template:Sex editnotice/doc ↗ and :Category:Sex editnotices ↗ was not the result of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_5#Template:Sex_editnotice ↗ to keep Template:Sex editnotice ↗ and just remove Template:Non-sexual nudity editnotice ↗? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|KylieTastic}} Both templates were merged to Template:Not censored editnotice ↗. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 12:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
::That was not mentioned in that discussion and it was not closure reason left by {{u|Izno}} which was to merge to Template:Sex editnotice ↗. Was there another discussion for the creation and merging with Template:Not censored editnotice ↗? KylieTastic (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|KylieTastic}} The nomination did not specify a merge direction, nor did anyone else involved. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 14:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I think this is more or less a fair read of it. How we name templates is less important than what their content is, and on the latter question there was a preference.
::::I might suggest this would have been cleaner if you had just moved the page instead of G6ing the merged template pages. Izno (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

CFD rationale

Hi, for the record, when you wrote here ↗, "No one has explained why it should be merged to the Palestine category", did you mean why it should '''not''' be merged to Palestine? – Fayenatic '''L'''ondon 22:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:In the end, the target came out a subcategory of that one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 22:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Bot trouble

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. '''''L'''''iz '''''Read!''''' ↗ '''''Talk!''''' 03:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ello fellow autistic!

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

Your revdel request

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 ↗, {{tq|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)

:Well, I couldn't reach the admins through private forums. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 20:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::{{tpw}} Any admin’s talk page from {{catlink|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)

Togo

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)

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

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 22 § Fiction set in $YEAR ↗

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>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 (dc̄ ↗) 15:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson ↗ closed

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:

{{user|TruthGuardians}}, {{user|TheWikiholic}}, {{user|Guitarjunkie22}}, {{user|Jimcastor}}, and {{user|MraClean}} are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

{{user|TruthGuardians}}, {{user|TheWikiholic}}, {{user|Israell}}, {{user|Episteme Aletheia}}, {{user|Guitarjunkie22}}, {{user|Jimcastor}}, {{user|Mr Boar1}}, {{user|MraClean}}, {{user|Never17}}, and {{user|PinkSlippers}} 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.

{{user|NE0mAn7o!}} 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)

: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Jackson closed}}'''

Nashoba Valley AVA ↗ general notability guideline

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)

:{{ping|Fb2002}} Yes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄ ↗) 19:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Vatican City ↗ archive

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&zwj;🌈 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:@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 (dc̄ ↗) 18:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::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&zwj;🌈 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_June_22#Category%3AEconomic_crises_in_Iran ↗

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)

Speedy Deletion criterion A3

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

Concern regarding Draft:NovoTech Patent Law Firm ↗

25px|alt=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)

Deletion review for :Category:1640s establishments in Puerto Rico ↗

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)

Question

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)

WP:RFPP ↗

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)