User talk:Pmetzger

Gropes and gripes
Hi there!

Got a couple issues to bring up with you. Firstly, your note on User_talk:Pazza. Wikipedia policy is always to sign one's sig on talk pages. This can be accomplished auto-magically using the quad tilde ( ~ ), and it allows us to know who has posted what.


 * I usually do. That was an accident. --Pmetzger 00:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, I (and, again, wikipolicy) disagree with your definition of vandalism as in your SD reason for My jedi story. Vandalism is defined with malicious intent; that page was a simple case of vanity and misunderstanding of WP:NOT. Please remember not to bite the newbies!


 * Really, what we need is a standard speedy for "Wikipedia is not a place to publish fiction". --Pmetzger 00:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Make one! :-) --BorgHunter (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion. Please feel free to join in. --Pmetzger 02:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I feel I'm getting a bit lecturing, so I'll depart now. You're doing a great job here. Keep it up. --BorgHunter (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Source Systems
Vanity is not a reason for speedy deletion. You need to place that article in WP:AFD. Thanks. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I read Criterion A7 to reasonably mean companies as well as people, and the precedents I've read seem to indicate this is correct. Do you have better information? --Pmetzger 04:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

See this: Thanks--Humayun_shabbir
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Pakistan+Now+a+Hot+Spot+for+IT+Outsourcing+!%22&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-30,GGLG:en&start=0&sa=N

Thanks
Thanks for correcting 109,000 metric tons to 109 million metric tons in the article on Ammonia. My face is appropriately red! - mbeychok 04:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, easy mistake to make. The important thing is it is fixed. :) --Pmetzger 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

hi, FYI, the backslash in ...
... $$ G \ $$ is to force PNG rendering so that the server doesn't draw it with a small G. 71.161.208.161 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-03 Equiv versus Equal-Def
I opened your request for mediation. However, you have not named any specific respondents. Mediation is a consensual process where both applicant and respondents must agree to the mediation. Please return to the page and name atleast one main respondent that you wish to seek resolution with on this matter. It's most likely that if you choose one, they will collect their supporters to join the discussion. Alan.ca 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added User:SebastianHelm as a respondent on the arbitrary basis that he has done many of the edits. We can presumably move forward from there. --Pmetzger 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This user has a notice on his talk page stating his region is encountering some kind of disaster. I will put the case on hold for now, unless you're interested in removing his name and naming another party. Alan.ca 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect this disaster is rather short term. Could you begin by examining the situation at least and seeing if you can come to some sort of conclusion? We could then discuss it but wait for Mr. Helm to return (or for another counterparty) to proceed more formally. --Pmetzger 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded to both parties on my talk page, but have not seen either of you state that you are ready to proceed with me as your mediator on the discussion section of the mediation page. Please advise on my talk page or on the MEDCAB page. Alan.ca 05:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded, as you can see. --Pmetzger 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Mediation

 * Pmetzger, Alan.ca was blocked recently, and wasn't able to be in any Mediation, including one that I'm in. I suggest you allow him to return to your Mediation. Acalamari 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that in any way increases my confidence that the matter would be settled quickly and fairly if Alan were to remain as the mediator. --Pmetzger 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He has been unblocked now. I think that he has handled our Mediation fairly, and I say that he would handle your fairly as well. Acalamari 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Meditation Cabal
Good evening (GMT time); I have taken over your med cabal case and we can begin whenever is suitable for you.

If there is any questions you have not directly concerning the case, please drop by my talk page.

Cheers and regards, Anthony cfc  20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to start immediately. --Pmetzger 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I will commence the discussion here (the Case page in Med Cabal namespace) - unless you wish to hold it at a mainspace article talk page?

Anthony cfc  13:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
The end is near. Regards, Anthony  cfc  [ T &bull; C] 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon, I've been away for a couple of days -- I need a chance to catch up... --Pmetzger 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Replacing "utilize" with "use"
Hi, I see that you're apparently editing several articles (,, , ,  and  many many others) to replace "utilize" with "use". Please do not do this blindly, and without knowledge of the specific subject matter that is the subject of the article.

In Patent infringement, for example, "use" has a specific legal meaning, and is only one form of patent infringement. The word "utilize" was apparently employed to avoid exactly the type of misleading statement introduced by your edit.

Some of your edit summaries include comments along the lines of "Use" is always a better word than "Utilize". That's not true, it's not always a better word; sometimes it's specifically not the right word. Please don't edit articles unless you are sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to appreciate such distinctions. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, there might be some specific legal situations where "use" is a term of art and "utilize" might be used to avoid it (although my dealings with the patent bar, and yes I've had them, haven't revealed that in the case of patent law). However, I'm unaware of any other situation, other than direct quotation (where clearly accurate quotation of a source is critical) or explanation of a term that includes "Utilize", in which "Utilize" isn't anything other than an attempt to demonstrate false erudition. The word is an abomination. (I'm not sure I believe the bit about patent law, by the way, but I won't dispute a revert there until I've done my own research.) --Pmetzger (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like "utilize," either, so I didn't revert, I reworded to avoid it. But "use" is just one type of patent infringement, see 35 USC 271.  "Utilize" was apparently used in the article to avoid confusion with the "use" that's just one of the enumerated acts in 271.  But my point is, mass edits without taking the time to understand context is not a good thing.  "Utilize" was by no means good in this article, but "use" was wrong.   Ugly beats wrong any day. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do actually read the articles I clean up, and I'm pretty careful about context when replacing "utilize". One has to be careful about things like quotations or places where applying the change mechanically would not work correctly. I'm not running a bot for that reason. I'll be more careful about law related articles in the future, but I think those are a small minority. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Book Machinery of Freedom 3rd Ed David Friedman.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Book Machinery of Freedom 3rd Ed David Friedman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice
Hi, there currently is a discussion at Edit warring notice board you may be involved in. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Malice


A tag has been placed on Michael Malice requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Woodcock article
I removed the patent applications, leaving only two issued U.S. patents. David notMD (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)