Pistachio disguisey

Welcome!

Hello, Pistachio disguisey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pierre Picault

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pierre Picault, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Picault. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cheers, CP 20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Repost of Fernand Goux

A tag has been placed on Fernand Goux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. 71.42.216.98 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fernand Goux

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fernand Goux, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernand Goux. Thank you. Cheers, CP

Maria Pogonowska

Was in an Israeli newspaper, so that counts as "world media."Ryoung122 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Longevity claims article

Greetings,

I think you might be missing the point of "longevity claims": the point is NOT to have a list of true cases. The point is to show that longevity claims are near-universal (coming from any region without good recordkeeping). Thus, attempts to "clean" the list by getting rid of less-reliable cases misses the point.Ryoung122 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment about WOP

I just wondering what your problem is with using a WOP reference. So you have to register? It's free. Also, the information there is often more reliable than what is in the media. For example,

http://www.suedwest-aktiv.de/landundwelt/topthemen/4007814/artikel.php

This says that Alwine Werner is "111" but that is making the simplistic/lazy error of 2009-1898=111. Her birthday is not until November, she is nowhere near 111 yet.

Ryoung122 02:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

High-Income Economy

Comment: I don't think we should use the "high-income economy" standard...what about Saudi Arabia? That could be a mess. Just a thought.Ryoung122 23:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09

Actually, Man Utd beat Chelsea 3–0 at Old Trafford in January, not the other way around. The most Chelsea have beaten United by in recent years was a 3–0 in December 2001, but the Liverpool defeat can be said to be bigger as United conceded more goals. – PeeJay 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

José Luís Ladeira (Miranda do Corvo), fal. 2003 (107 anos)

Hi Pistachio. Where is written the exact date that José Ladeira died in the citation above? This one is the only reference to José Ladeira's name I could find, and I looked well.Japf (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work

Pistachio - I just thought I'd say kudos on the good work you've been doing with our longevity related articles. Raul654 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Also, I reverted your Wally Baker edit because although she has died, she does remain the state recordholder. It wasn't a slight on you, it was just easier that way. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- after I saw your revert, I figured what I had done wrong. Raul654 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Heaton's squad number

Heaton has not been given a squad number at Man Utd this season. The #99 that you see on the squad page on the Man Utd website is merely a placeholder number. Fabio and Rafael were similarly listed as #98 and #99 during pre-season, but those were never official squad numbers. – PeeJay 19:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Marie Coulon vs. Marie Audy

Did you realize that April 4 1898 and March 29 1899 are different years, months, and days? I find it highly unlikel that this is the same person.Ryoung122 01:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Language please

No need for this: [1]. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• After looking through the history, I understand your frustration. Have you thought about asking for semi-protection? Drmies (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Sorry, I hadn't seen the protection starting and stopping. Good luck keeping that page clean. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

French Algeria

Greetings,

I do not think it is appropriate to link French Algerians to an Algerian nationalist/Islamic flag. French Algerians were born in a French colony, to French parents, with French names, spoke French, and under French administration. Many moved to France proper after Algerian independence in 1962. Linking someone from French Algeria is not quite as offensive as putting a Nazi flag on a Jewish person from Germany, but please let's have some cultural sensitivity here: colonization or no, these people could not help what their parents did, where they were born, etc. After 200,000 deaths, I wouldn't want to be associated with the other side, would you?Ryoung122 04:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unverified Supercentenarian claims

Please allow TWO years for unverified claims to be updated before moving to limbo. The purpose of the "unverified" list is, in my opinion, to offer a list of "footnote" cases that could be out there. As such, I think it is better to give a little leeway.Ryoung122 15:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mildrid JaMais

I refer to your revert after I added Mildrid JaMais to the list of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010, in which you said she is not verified after all. I'm a bit confused by this, because Mildrid Clements JaMais appears right above the late Theresia Staffler on Calment8 at GRG's website. (yes, they DID make a new page) Brendanology (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thank you for clearing things up. But then again, Table E didn't remove Maggie Renfro one day after her death... Brendanology (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your assistance. I hope we can continue to keep in touch.Brendanology (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

Please use the text-only lists on the GRG for the "deaths in year X" citations. Inclusion in the photo galleries doesn't mean the case is completed. It does, however, mean we believe that it is likely that she was 110. Right now we are waiting on the release of official documents.Ryoung122 08:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of serial killers by country

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of serial killers by country. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serial killers by country. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pistachio disguisey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been the victim of collateral damage due to the blocking of user Robert Taggart

Decline reason:

Can you please post the block message you see? I need more details to evaluate the cause of the block and how to override it. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|Posting as requested - Secure login You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit or create them. Editing from 212.183.140.0/26 has been disabled by Jayron32 for the following reason(s):


Disruptive editing: IP hopping vandal, range used by User:ROBERT TAGGART established users should request WP:IPBE This block has been set to expire: 00:00, 6 November 2010}}

JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Sowell

I would call that a highly controversial page move, so please get consensus before you do that again. Şłџğģő 20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent BLP breaching move. PLEASE STOP and gain consensus on talk page before making such moves. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ukexpat is right. Whatever your feelings on the pending case, redirecting the article without gaining consensus is a breach of good faith.THD3 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, PD moved it for the third time with consensus still not reached, and it was rewritten, leaving the article largely incoherent and not focusing on the subject most people are looking for, Sowell. I just moved it back and undid the rewrite. Even though we're on PD's page, it's pretty clear PD is not part of this conversation, so I think I should flag down an admin. Şłџğģő 22:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten at the request of Ukexpat. It was not largely incoherent at all, just focused on the murders rather than the suspect, which is exactly what Ukexpat and THD3 were concerned about. Your argument is entirely different so don't try to enlist them to help you. And I don't know what 'flag down an admin' means, but I assume it's what you do when someone disagrees with you. Do it. Because it's the exact same debate that's already taking place, and my argument is winning, not yours. So unless sockpuppets are involved, it'll be the same result. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your rewrite was an attempt to solve a problem you don't believe exists, since you saw no issue with moving this page, content unchanged, to "Imperial Avenue Murders." The page is now indefinitely move-protected [2], and per the blocking administrator's request, I'm informing you that you're not going to be able to move this page from its present location to either of your other destinations until after you've gained consensus on Anthony Sowell specifically. That involves more than claiming consensus on Sowell was formed at an AfD on an unrelated article. Start a thread on Sowell's talk page asking for the move because as you can see, the "move" tab from the article page is gone. Şłџğģő 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My rewrite was an attempt to solve a problem I HADN'T CONSIDERED. But obviously you never make mistakes. Your quite the Gary Kasparov. I start a thread whilst you get all of your admin friends to vote me down. Yes, I know how Wikipedia works. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to take stuff personally, that's fine. I didn't mean anything personally. I behaved like I did because I saw problems with the content and the person I felt was causing the problems wasn't bothering to discuss until it was too late. You still have a chance to get your page move. Şłџğģő 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

John Floyd Thomas, Jr.

I have undone your move of this article, per WP:BLP and Wikipedia's naming conventions. Please stop making such moves without discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP

You cannot just move the article without completely rewriting them to focus on the murders rather than on the suspect. Just moving the article and leaving the text unchanged is an even bigger BLP issue because you are implying that he is the killer rather than just a suspect. So rewrite the text first, then move. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The end

Stephen Griffiths is a suspected British serial killer, so he gets a nickname. Anthony Sowell is a suspected American serial killer, so he doesn't. I don't know why, but it seems like the British are far more likely to nickname their psychopaths than Americans. I would argue our most infamous serial killers are Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz, and John Wayne Gacy, and all but the Son of Sam (whose article is called David Berkowitz) have no widely-used nickname. Sowell will, and I can't stress this enough, never be known as the "Ohio Butcher" or the "Imperial Avenue Madman" or anything like that, because he's American and we don't nickname our serial killers.

Read WP:BATTLEGROUND and keep in mind, it's just a website. It's not worth a heart attack. Şłџğģő 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of surviving veterans of World War I

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of surviving veterans of World War I, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edit, which corrected the spelling of the unit for Frank Buckles, can be seen here. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the entire history of the article, I only saw your emphatic edit summary. The best way to inform other editors from making a similar edit thinking that "casual" was a simple typo for "casualty" is to use a citation. It's not about "justifying" (your word, not mine), it is about improving the content and preventing future errors. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Milat

Please see Talk:Ivan Milat (serial killer)#Merger proposal. The editorial consensus was to keep Backpacker Murders as the article title. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about the name of the article, but since there was an earlier discussion and an article title decided, I think it proper to have a page move discussion rather than a unilateral decision. Also, if the page move is agreed, then the existing page Ivan Milat (serial killer) should be used rather than the cumbersome Ivan Robert Marko Milat. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving of serial killer articles

I've reverted all of these moves as the revert part of the WP:BRD. A fuller discussion of my reasoning can be found at Talk:Skin Hunters. Even when you named the article after everyone involved the other points I make still hold. Additionally when naming an article after two people I feel we have additional problems, e.g. who to put first. For this reason I think none of the moves are uncontroversial and so think all require a requested move if they are to be moved. Dpmuk (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice above that you have been asked not to make controversial moves without discussing please. Please make greater use of requested moves or your actions may begin to be seen as disruptive. Dpmuk (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mary McKinney

See oldest people for more information.Ryoung122 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mineno Yamamoto

You edited oldest people in a way that implied the death of Mineno Yamamoto. I am unable to find any online news substantiating this. Could you provide a link? Normally, of course, this would be referenced in her article, but surprisingly she doesn't have one. Ma^t_chups 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Grim Sleeper

Feel free to drop me a line if you get much of this type of problem, and I'll liberally apply some semi-protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary was cut

Hey, let's try and not get into an edit war =D The edit summary of this edit was cut off. It should read:

"I'm sorry but even if BLP is not an issue in one case, it can be in others. Feel free to take this to the talk page, but it's a very big change to make without discussion. Thanks."

Thanks. —Half Price 18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pistachio disguisey. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ryan Giggs

The sentence you want to use, "On 24 April 2010, Giggs scored the first ever league penalties of his career in his 900th game for club and country, netting two penalties in a 3–1 home win over [[Tottenham Hotspur F.C.|Tottenham Hotspur]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Man Utd 3–1 Tottenham|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/8632533.stm |work=BBC Sport |publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation |date=24 April 2010|accessdate=24 April 2010|first=Phil|last=McNulty}}</ref>", has several problems. First of all it says that the match was on 24 April but there is no way to tell how many games he had played at that point. According to the Ryan Giggs#Career statistics at the end of the 2009-2010 season he had played 838 games for his club. 24 April was the 35 game of the season leaving three games to play, so if that was his 836 game then he didn't play in one of the last games. The main problem is that both the article and the source say that it is for Premier League games only so you can't include the games played in the FA Cup, League Cup, Europe, Other and Wales. There just isn't any sources. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it was his 836th game, because I originally made this edit a few days after the game. Use the edit history if you want to see for yourself. Then someone inexplicably removed "for club and country" rendering it inaccurate for months (no-one reverted on that occasion I note), and the remainder was recently removed. Yet another instance of Wikipedia gone mad. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"I originally made this edit" is unencyclopaedic and bordering on WP:OR so I am removing this part of the text, which looks just fine without it. By the way the comment in the edit history seems to suggest that your wording implies it was his 900th game for both club and country, hence playing for them at the same time. Anyway, I'm not interested. It's not sourced, you've admitted it's original research, and that's enough to remove it. Cloudz679 22:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. It is not original research. It is addition. Following the game in question, the article itself already stated that Giggs had played 836 games for Manchester United and 64 games for Wales. The source for the 836 was Andrew Endlar's Stretford End.co.uk, the same source which is now showing 900. An edit shouldn't be disallowed simply because of the passage of time. The source for 64 has since been changed. Again, that is not my fault, but 64 is still sourced. And arithmetic is not original research. The text may look fine without it, but the same could be said of the vast majority of the article, and it featured in the article for many months, with no-one taking exception to it. And "for club and country" is a commonly used phrase in football. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As Cloudz679 points out "for club and country" is confusing in that it appears at first glance he was playing for Wales and United at the same time. It also introduces the ambiguity that he may have never scored a penalty in any match before the 24 April one. Even if it was the 900th game that factoid it just trivia otherwise the BBC report would have mentioned it. Anyway the 900 needs a current source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

1. When you say "it appears at first glance" you suggest that the article should pander to people who can't be bothered to read it properly. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. As I pointed out, "for club and country" is a commonly used phrase in football.

2. There is no ambiguity for those who read the sentence properly. That's why it reads "first LEAGUE penalties" and "900th game FOR CLUB AND COUNTRY". Capitals here for emphasis, not incivility.

3. "Even if it was the 900th game". Why are you assuming bad faith? I've asked you to check the edit history and see that it was his 836th club game. You clearly haven't done so.

4. The source was current at the time the edit was made in April 2010. Use the edit history to see for yourself. It has of course since been updated to reflect Giggs' current total. An edit shouldn't be disallowed because of the passage of time.

I'm begging you, if you're so determined that this piece of information not appear in the article, can you at least look into what I've said here. Points 1 - 4 above have all been repeated from my previous two posts, which makes me feel like you've not read them. The following is the chain of events which has taken place:

1. I add a fully sourced sentence to article. Remains that way for some time. Source is naturally updated in the intervening period.

2. Editor X removes part of sentence for no reason, rendering it inaccurate. Remains inaccurate for some time.

3. Editor Y removes remainder of sentence as it is inaccurate.

4. I re-add sentence.

5. Editor Z removes sentence saying that it needs a source.

So Editor X, the person who actually made the mistake of removing part of the sentence, thus rendering it inaccurate, is the one who has held sway here. Isn't that ridiculous? Would it have made a difference if I hadn't waited so long to right this? Or even if only seconds had passed, would you still have said it needed to be sourced? Doesn't that give carte blanche to any disruptive editors who want to delete information? Sources such as those detailing sports appearances are regularly updated. Stretford End.co.uk was used as the source in April 2010, and is used now, so surely you can accept that the 836 figure was taken from there verbatim. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I transferred this discussion to the talk page at Ryan Giggs, which is where this discussion should be continued if necessary, although it appears there is a clear consensus already. Thank you. Cloudz679 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Original Night Stalker

Fair enough.--FourthLineGoon (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Susan Nelles listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Susan Nelles. Since you had some involvement with the Susan Nelles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). K7L (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

List of serial killers in the United States

I have reverted your addition of Kermit Gosnell to this list as he does not fit the technical definition of a serial killer, viz: a person who has killed three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the murders, and whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification. (my emphasis).--ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pistachio disguisey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)