User talk:PJM/archive3

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly clapp
Hi I noticed in your comments for Articles for deletion/Kimberly clapp you mention it shouldn't have made it there. I followed the 3 steps for deletion. Should I have followed a different route? Sorry, I'm pretty new but still trying to help. JohnCub 13:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * *Hello, JohnCub and welcome. You did everything right regarding the AFD nomination process. When you can, review Wikipedia:criteria for speedy deletion. Certain articles need not be brought to AFD, as you'll see in there. Happy editing. PJM 13:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnCub"

bin/ibn
I don't understant why you reverted my change in Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Muttalib. I'm pretty sure (and it can also be seen from the link in the article) that "son of" in Arabic should be written as "bin", not "ibn". Ibn is only used when the patronymic is the only name given (e.g. Abd Allah bin Abd al-Muttalib, but Ibn Abd al-Muttalib). Same goes for Muhammad. Be more careful when popping vandalism warning templates on someone. I whis you recent changes guard dogs would take it easy. It's like dealing with Cerberus. I'm worried about the new users, who'll think that they'll get banned for doing some good (or at least good-willed) editing. Is it because I'm not a registered user, because I'm just an IP? Guess what, I am a registered user (but I'll sign with my IP). 65.211.7.138 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * From Arabic Language:
 * Nasab The nasab indicates the person's heritage by the word ibn (sometimes bin) which means "son". Thus Ibn Khaldun means "son of Khaldun" (Khaldun is the father's ism, or proper name). Several nasab can follow in a chain, to trace a person's ancestry backwards in time. This was important in the tribally based society of the ancient Arabs, both for purposes of identification and for social and political interaction.


 * Please be even more good-willed and use edit summaries, so other editors know your intentions ahead of time. Also, don't resort to name calling; see WP:CIVIL. I reverted my test2 warning which does not really apply. Thanks. PJM 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, there seems to have been a mistake in this essay I read online (talk about trusting online sources - the essay is now gone). There seems to be no difference between bin and ibn. Sorry if you were offended by my comment, I was just trying to be funny. Also, I don't think being compared to Cerberus is that bad (just kidding, of course it's bad). And I should get in the habit of using edit summaries. Anyway, thanks for keeping your calm, and don't let Hades treat you bad :)
 * P.S.: The quote you gave me is from Arabic Name, not Arabic Language. --65.211.7.138 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology. It was not your reference to Cerberus; he's quite cool, actually. It was your "bloodhound" remark, which I see you've since changed to "guard dog" (I love dogs, but it was more the tone). Anyway, you're right, I did leave the wrong Wikilink. BTW - it seems your IP address is now blocked. Cheers. PJM 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

billg
You just reverted my edit :( Sorry, I was not logged (forgotten). I wonder what are your reasons, unless you are payed by Microsoft of course. (I didn't mean to be unpolite). However I know what I am saying, working in soft dev for some 25 years. Jurohi 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jurohi. LOL - I'm not payed by Microsoft and I am looking at the Bill Gates article objectively. I just happen to think the previous edit is more "down-the-middle", if you will. But it's certainly only my opinion. If you still feel strongly about the word change, by all means edit it again and see if it sticks. Happy editing. PJM 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK man. LOL. I am new to wiki, so I was also curious about the "neutrality". Good luck.Jurohi 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bhoot
Hi, you voted "delete" on Articles for deletion/Bhoot. The content of the article has changed since then. Could you have a re-look? --Gurubrahma 16:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Both of my edits were completely valid. HasNoClue 15:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - now they should not be mistaken for vandalism since you've reinstated them with edit summaries. Please continue using edit summaries, as they will help avoid misunderstadings. Cheers. PJM 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HasNoClue"

Thanks a ton...
...for removing the vandal's comments from my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. I can't stand it when users resort to that. Cheers. PJM 17:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gurubrahma"

Thanks
Thanks for reverting my userpage! -- Vary | Talk 22:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Quarl
Hi PJM, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 11:15Z 

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. PJM 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome (again.. the pretty green box on your user page was all the thanks I need). --W(t) 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Computer jargon
I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...I really don't agree with your interpretation. I see the policy applying to individual definitions that really can't be expanded into good articles, not to lists related to notable subjects. Also, if articles are determined to be useful or essential via consensus in AFD, then by all means they should be kept. Cheers. PJM 17:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr%C3%BChst%C3%BCcksdienst"

My RfA
With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello you sent me this message

User talk:163.1.140.112 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Exeter College, Oxford. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. PJM 15:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it vandalism to point out that exeter college could not founded to be the outside toilet of jesus, given exeters founding in 1314 and jesus in 1571? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.140.112 (talk • contribs)


 * Your contribution to that article was:(Although Jesus College was founded in 1571 so this is most likely a piece of disinformation spread by a Jesus student with an inferiority complex). Adding this type of statement into an article violates WP:POINT and is considered vandalism. There was certainly more vandalism (from other IP's) on that page, but my revision happened to focus on yours. No offense. The other vandalous edits were removed after. PJM 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:163.1.140.112"

Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)