User talk:Pmj

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! --Actown e 03:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture
You reverted my edits to acupuncture without discussion. There has been ongoing discussion on this. Please feel free to join in. Mccready 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Water fluoridation
Hi, Pmj. I saw that you have commented in the past at Talk:Water fluoridation regarding recent edits to the article. If you take a look at the article and talk page now, you'll see that there is a content dispute going on. I'd love to hear your comments if you have any. Thanks! - Jersyko &middot;talk 01:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Freshtel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steve (Slf67)talk 08:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Technique
Instead of making an inappropriate comment in your edit summary about my edits, I would have appreciated a note on my talk page. Please assume good faith. It was a simple mistake. --Ronz 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (No indignation, just trying to catch problems before they escalate.) --Ronz 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Shitake
Hi, thanks for fixing Shitake. I don't really care about the spelling, I was more curious if wikipedia used american english / english english, or both, etc. I was thinking someone would set me straight if I put in a contraversial enough revision history. :) I guess both are acceptable as long as we don't flip back and fourth between the two.   Correct?

Thanks

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Burmese anti-government protests
Thank you :) Sue Wallace 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You say erb, I say herb, let's call the whole thing off.
I don't understand either... definitely one of the weirder elements of north american english. Both are pretty common here in Canada, so I'm not sure which is official Canadian pronunciation. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Importing old history
Thanks for your message of encouragement! I totally agree with you that these old edits are invaluable for research. It's amazing what one can find while doing this importing work. Graham 87 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy Spirit Prep
PMJ, my problem is that creating a section called "controversy" and piling up naysaying isn't good encyclopedia writing. I talk about this on the article's talk page. I don't have any attachment to the school--I've never seen it, I don't know anyone who went there, and I didn't know anything about it before I started editing the article a few months ago. Before reintroducing disputed material, please go to the talk page. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Touring car and Tourer
You are invited to a discussion on the merging of the articles Touring car and Tourer at Talk:Touring car. I look forward to your participation and insight. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Competition between Boeing and Airbus
Were you the one who removed all the tablets and comparisons in this article?Alainmoscoso (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The ones added by 77.186.19.241? That was Bobrayner. I liked them, but I can see his point. You can check individuals' changes in the edit history. --pmj (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zone bit recording, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fragmentation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for semi at NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
G'day, I've submitted a request for semi protection. It is getting a little tiresome. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --pmj (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not successful. :-( Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pending change protection instead, that works well. Hope things are a little quieter on the Eastern Front from now on. --pmj (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What's your problem?
What are you playing at on the Brazil-Germany article? If you have any complaints to make, why not provide specific examples of what specific facts/language in it that you think is unencyclopedic, unbalanced, or otherwise not an improvement. Not that it even is all that emotional, if you think an encyclopedia isn't supposed to convey emotion, you couldn't be more wrong. The issue is, is the emotion accurately reported? In this case, it clear is. Unless, as I said, you can prove otherwise. MarkBM (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:AGF.
 * I understand that you have spent some time on the rewrite and feel attached to it, but it does not improve the article. In particular, it removes useful context (think about someone reading the article in 20 years' time). It is also aggressive and emotional. --pmj (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What context? And I have no clue what part of you think is emotional, let alone aggressive?!?!? - so like I said, provide specific examples. But if you think articles are not supposed to convey emotion, I will say it again - you are wrong. MarkBM (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I just checked, and these are the only facts I removed:


 * 1) The two teams reached the stage with an undefeated record in the competition. Germany led 5–0 at half time, and they eventually defeated Brazil 7–1. The match was administered by CONCACAF officials led by Mexican referee Marco Rodríguez


 * 1) Germany's win marked the largest-ever margin of victory in a FIFA World Cup semi-final.


 * 1) 1975, Brazil lost 3–1 to Peru in that year's Copa América.

I fail to see which of those is crucial for historical context. In 20 years time, will people care about any of the titbits in 1.? Arguably 2. is significant, but compared to the rest of the records referred to? I don't think so. Certainly not to someone reading in 20 years time. It's still in the article anyway. That leaves 3, which was just pointless distracting detail.

As for emotion, all I can imagine you are objecting to is "shock result" and "described as a national humiliation". If you object to those, then you're objecting to reality (which is not encyclopedic), because the basic fact is, you won't find anyone in the world's media, whatever their perspective, that would dispute those terms. This was a shock result, and this has been described as a national humiliation (very widely, and by some of the country's biggest newspapers). In time, this is also what all football books will say too. Frankly, if you want to take these out, then you're not doing anything that is remotely encyclopedic or any kind of improvement, and you most certainly won't be helping anyone reading in 20 years time, especially people who might not know anything about football or Brazil. This is not like the 9/11 article, it's not like there's any need to explain to the reader that the violent death of 1,000s of people was a shock, or a national disaster for the US. But in an article like this, you're not helping anyone by expecting them to figure out that the dry stats and records that were presented before, represent a similar touchstone event for Brazilians. Not to sound flippant, but in some ways, this will be their 9/11 - the media reflects that using precisely these words, so should Wikipedia. It would be different if there was any dispute about whether these represent the mainstream view, but they clearly do. There's nobody out there trying to brush this off, or claim it was anything other than a complete humiliation. MarkBM (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Sydney Hostage crisis
Hello Pmj, could you help by communicating with users on the 2014 Sydney Hostage crisis page about fixing the page up so it lists the event as a terrorist attack. Someone has removed the Terrorism in Australia and List of Islamic terrorist attacks links in the 'see also' category, they are claiming that there are no reliable sources that claim it as a terrorist attack. On the Terrorism in Australia page they have done the same thing. I have already posted on the [] that the police themselves considered it as a terrorist attack. I thought that you may be able to do something since you were able to fix up the List of Islamic terrorist attacks page. You don't have to do it if you don't want to but thanks anyway. (124.180.10.81 (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia is governed by consensus; I can't just tell people what to think. The attack has polarised editors, and I suspect some are pushing their POV for political reasons. Perhaps the article needs a subsection about this debate in the Reactions section, outlining various points of view on the nature of the attack. --pmj (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of ANTI (computer virus) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ANTI (computer virus) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ANTI (computer virus) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 22:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Mars race
Hi. Following your comments at the AfD on Mars race I tagged the article for merging. The discussion is here. Andyjsmith (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Medal listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Presidential Medal. Since you had some involvement with the Presidential Medal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Presidential medal listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Presidential medal. Since you had some involvement with the Presidential medal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Astronomy helpful stuff
Hi,

I appreciate you giving me the heads up with the any translations I provide for things of atmospheric exodus into space. While it’s not within my usual scope of of professional Japanese -English translations, I can ensure any translations I do are J-E translates, then back translated, then compared to common usage in scholarly sources. I]it’s an old occupational hazard of translating medical resources, so extpect the same from other sources (if I don’t translate something, it’s due to my professional ethics rule of thumb, “if you’re in doubts don’t translate, and make the world dumber due to sloppy work).

So if you need something translated that’s of upmost importance to your field, then don’t hesitate tomling me for help. Especially when you’re stuck finding a scholarly rigorous J-E translator....but remember I still think the Mir Spacestatiin, is just a Mere Spacestatiin ;-)...(I don’t actually considering how “low tech the Soviets got their instrumentation to wor...damn that revolving “drum map of the solar system” utter brilliance.

So give me a short out when needed, but please remember that my med strand stuff might take a rack a ,title higher up the list....please keep,adding to the WP space articles, keeps us hunistics-psychologist types in are or of human potential.

All the best with your WP contributions.

Cheers, Dr. Jason Dixon aka Dr.khatmando (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

reply here so i see it
Hi, and thanks for your contributions to various typeface articles. I broadly support your changes, however there is some feedback you might want to take into account: I've now implemented these changes to the articles. Other than these few things, thanks again and happy editing! --pmj (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The lede serves as a summary, so it's a good idea to put the most relevant facts there.
 * 2) Don't insert double newlines after the lede.
 * 3) Grammar, in particular articles.
 * 4) It is not necessary to break your changes up into tens of edits. A single edit is usually enough. Do provide edit summaries though.

send me a link here of -- exactly -- why you feel this way '# Don't insert double newlines after the lede.'

send me a link here of -- exactly -- the specific example you saw of this '# Grammar, in particular articles.'

i have tons (billions in fact) of feedbacks for the current status of usable wiki content, or lack thereof, and all of the prior years of lackthereof, no wonder why i pretty much never use wiki as a good info souce when tehre ware far far better sites out tehre on the web, so dont worry about it

dont worry about it

also some of your feedback are wrong

enjoy, i need links here of those 2 tings that may not be wrong that shows actual evidence that those those 2 things are better for me to take anything into consideration

need link to details of those 2 things, you are nobody to tell me what not to do, double lines are lead are very imporant, basics of good info, anyone that knows abcsic things would know that

need deailted links of those 2 thinsg an ill take a look into it

whenever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A024:B9B:FD87:48E:4C6:4C69 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

random idiotic ppl deleting discussions (as if those ppl fixed or did anyting to make better any of the wiki content, yet another of the 1 billions problems of wikipedia sigh what a disappointment

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"D ring" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D_ring&redirect=no D ring] 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  until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)