User talk:Pnm/Archive 1

Templates
Believe me, I'm probably the last person you want to count on for help in developing your next template. My primary talent is being lucky in finding something to copy. But if you have something you're trying to do and need an extra set of eyes or a wild guess, I'll certainly be glad to give it a try... Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

i.i.d. random variables
This is the most absurd edit I've seen in a long time. Will you next move The Beatles to The Beatle?

It makes no sense to speak of one "independent and identically distributed random variable. More than one random variable can be independent and identically distributed.  You would have found that out if you had read the first one or two sentences of the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you're right about the name, and it's obvious from the first sentence. i.i.d. requires more than one random variable. Thanks for fixing it. -- Pnm (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! -- Pnm (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this fix. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Please stop removing existent categories from articles (I'm especially monitoring business articles) and adding them to categories that should be pages. Thank you.'' Pm master 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an editorial disagreement, not vandalism.


 * I'm working on improving the unmanageably large category Category:Organizational studies and human resource management. I'm removing some articles when they are already included in the more appropriate subcategory. For example, Executive pay is listed in Category:Employment compensation, a subcategory of Category:Human resource management, which is underneath Category:Organizational studies and human resource management. (You'll notice I even left it in Category:Management in case it's really relevant there.)


 * Organiation design should be a category and a page. "Organization design is not a category" was not the case when you made this edit. Let's discuss it directly: Category talk:Organization design.


 * --Pnm (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Pnm,


 * your last edit claims that I removed the merge template, while in fact you did, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organization_design&action=historysubmit&diff=365467762&oldid=365391238, I added it back, someone removed it, you added it back.
 * It is okay for parent categories to contain child categories and pages belonging to child categories, this is not dmoz . Pm master 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry I blamed you for my editing mistake. I made a note. Thanks for explaining about categories. I'll keep that in mind. Still, most articles in this list belong in a subcategory, and not in the parent category. Probably keep organizational structure and organizational hierarchy in both. --Pnm (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Pnm, sorry to intrude here; I never bothered to remove your page from my watchlist after the template comments and noticed this discussion. You might want to check WP:SUBCAT and WP:DUPCAT, especially the part of the latter topic which mentions a specific class of category which "sometimes provide an exception to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory" (emphasis added), and suggests that in these particular cases it's a good idea for both the parent and child categories to have certain templates indicating they are exceptions. So while it's technically true that "it is okay for parent categories to contain child categories and pages belonging to child categories", this is obviously not meant to be the general rule. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links. Do you have any specific advice about the categories in question? I'm thinking of starting a discussion at WikiProject Organizations. Pnm (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment. If I get a chance, I'll try to take a closer look at the history and comments to see if I understand the open issues. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting my category edits. (1 2 3) If you disagree with what I'm saying, let's reach consensus through discussion instead of edit warring. This is the link: Category talk:Organization design --Pnm (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PNM, don't empty the categories please. You may add articles to the organization design category but don't remove the previous valid categories. Again, your account is active since the 12th of May (less than a month ago), and you haven't exactly build a reputation yet. Your previous edit about random variables pretty much says something about your random editing and categorization practices. Thank you. Pm master 21:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PNM, your are wrongfully categorizing articles under your new category, please read this clear definition of organization design, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organizational-design.html . Thank you. Pm master 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs)

Financial Regulator and Financial Regulation
Thank you for your message. Can I suggest as a compromise that when a person searches for "Financial Regulator" they are directed to the entry of this name but are given the option at the top of the page to be redirected to "Financial Regulation".Let me know what you think. Also I really admire the amount of time that you devote to wikipedia judging by the amount of contributions that you make, which in a small but not insignificant way makes the world a better place. Best wishes,Skreen (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 31
Hey, I closed this discussion as "merge". I could do the actual merging as closer, but I thought you or other participants in the discussion might have clearer ideas of how it should be done and might want to do it instead. It doesn't require any administrative tasks, just merging then redirecting. I figured I'd wait a few days and see if anyone wants to do it, then do it myself if not. Just letting you know in case you wanted to. Peace, delldot   &nabla;.  21:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Malware template
Thanks for your note. I have been working on some malware articles for a while, but had never seen this nav box until you added it to Anti-virus software! No problem - my "default" for navboxes is "alphabetical order", but perhaps another order is more logical in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This and that
Hi, Pnm. Good to see you again.

You've probably already discovered that a major difference between the ODP and Wikipedia (in addition to the amount of policy and guidelines) is that anybody can edit Wikipedia, whereas ODP tries to limit the editor pool to people who have demonstrated both good faith and the basic skills deemed necessary to contribute effectively (such as the ability to read and write) -- and exclusions and removals are done "behind the scenes," so there's not much "public" discussion at ODP of the issues with specific people. Good luck here (it can be interesting)!

I see that one of your contributions here was to greatly improve Template:Fraud. However, I'm dismayed to see that the template does not include several fraud topics (e.g., diploma mills) that I've worked on rather extensively. See Category:Résumé frauds and controversies, Category:Scientific misconduct, Category:Fraudsters, and Category:Confidence tricks for examples of some additional fraud topics that I think need to be folded into that template. --Orlady (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. Those sound like substantial related topics, and I'll take a look. Template:Scams was recently merged into Template:Scams and confidence tricks, and I haven't looked at Template:Fraud since then. My entry point is financial fraud, which is quite a different thing!


 * "You can edit this page" is indeed such a different, and wonderful thing. I'm amazed at the quality of writing skills editors have here, and how civil they are. While I make lots of mistakes, I'm amazed that I can be useful after such a short time, which I credit to the extensive guidelines. I've grown up a little, too.


 * You write like I remember, and it's good to see you, too. --Pnm (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Rivlins
You took out the clarification that Gary was not a relation to Alice. I put it where I did because Gary has not yet had his own Wiki entry created -- which is alright, I think -- but as I was helping introduce him to Wikipedia I thought the biographical clarification was important. I wondered enough about the question -- is this new (to me, to Wikipedia) figure related to a well-known public figure? -- to clarify it for myself. Since so far his place in Wikipedia is small, I don't think it makes sense to add Gary's non-relationship to Alice's entry. However, since her area of expertise, and her Brookings' statement, do overlap, generally, with the Payday loan subject, I felt further it was appropriate to clarify the non-relation when citing Gary. Now there's nothing. We're better off now?

By way of response to your query. Swliv (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about non-relation in footnote? I've gone ahead and tried it out. A little bulky but I think a reasonable compromise. See what you think. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Linda Eagle
I have made several edits to this page based on your suggestions so that it will read less like a resume. I appreciate your help! In you opinion, are there any other changes that need to be made so that the tag can be removed? Thank you for your help! MeS2135 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Financial Risk
I noticed that you did a significant change to the Financial risk, including deleting the page on Investment risk. Looks like you cleaned up a lot of things, but especially with unilaterally deleting a page I think you should have added a section in the Talk page so that others could voice their opinion on the merge.Zfeinst (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. Thanks for doing that. --Pnm (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured lists
Hi, I'm not sure I understand this edit. All of the lists you added were already present at WP:FL. Did you mean to remove the duplicates after the reorganization? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. It was my mistake; I didn't realize they were already there. It looks like topics that overlap are listed once in the most appropriate category. Is there a formal way that's determined? --Pnm (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, I or one of the other FL directors just create categories somewhat randomly as we see fit. Feel free to make more minor adjustments as you see fit (larger reorganizations might need discussion at WT:FL). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article
Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Article: Racism in the LGBT community
I just want to let you know that it is nothing personal that I am going ahead with the Article for Deletion process. Please understand that last time there was no consensus and I think this time I can take it down. I feel this article is very sexualist and I personally think wikipedia wouldn't allow an article if the shoe was on the other foot (ex. Sexualism in Communities of Color). As an LGBT person of color I feel it is not only my right but my responsibility to take this down. Again nothing personal and I hope there are other articles we will agree on editing for the better of wikipedia.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the possibility of collaborating in the future, too. I certainly feel respected as a person, and hope I've conveyed the same to you. Thanks for the kind words. --Pnm (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

re: canvassing
I've tried to separate my personal opinion more clearly from the announcement. Feel free to edit it if you still believe it is too biased. Cheers, —Ruud 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic dispatch
Thanks for linking to the guidelines. I'll have a look, and update the page in the recommended fashion. dpol (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem with Factor_Analysis_of_Information_Risk
Thank you for your suggestions. Sorry, but I have not notice the Non Commercial (NC) in CC SH. Now it is clear to me and I will pay more attention while editing.

May I reinsert the reworded concepts, like in the following paragraph?

FAIR defines six kind of loss::
 * 1) Productivity - a reduction of the organization to generate value
 * 2) Response – the resources spent while acting following an adverse event
 * 3) Replacement - the expense to substitute/repair an affected asset
 * 4) Fines and judgements (F/J) - the cost of the overall legal procedure deriving from the adverse event
 * 5) Competitive advantage (CA)- missed opportunities due to the security incident
 * 6) Reputation – missed opportunities or sales due to the diminishing corporate image following the event

Thank you for your understanding.

--Pastore Italy (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "A reduction of the organization to generate value" is close paraphrasing, but the rest looks OK. It needs attribution, of course. --Pnm (talk)

Content
Yes if you see unreffed stuff that sounds false feel free to remove it. BTW I have created a little tag that I paste on peoples pages who add stuff without refs here Template:RSPlease Happy editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent welcome aboard. We can really us the help :-) Here is a page that outlines our most viewed works and thus potentially with the greatest impact both positive and negative.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Move of White hat (computing)
Just a reminder to change the numerous redirects which now point to White hat (computing) so that they point to White hat (computer security). Wiki software won't navigate double redirects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't see any now – maybe the bot took care of it. --Pnm (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like it did. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved
Last time I tried moving one of those articles at Requested moves, it didn't work, and I wanted to see the message about why that was. I ended up moving Action at a distance (computer science) to Action at a distance (computer programming). I didn't reverse this action, and instead just decided to give you a heads up about it and let you do as you choose. BE——Critical __Talk 19:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the reason – thanks for letting me know. I'll post a comment in the discussion. --Pnm (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)