User talk:Pmj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; 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[edit]

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[edit]

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·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 {{hangon}} 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[edit]

Instead of making an inappropriate comment in your edit summary about my edits [1], 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[edit]

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[edit]

Thank you :) Sue Wallace 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You say erb, I say herb, let's call the whole thing off.[edit]

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[edit]

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. Graham87 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Merge discussion: Touring car and Tourer[edit]

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

Competition between Boeing and Airbus[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Bowl of phở for you![edit]

Pho in Saigon.jpg Bowl of phở for you!
Thank you for your edit on Human rights in Vietnam. Propaganda and fabricated evidence has no place on Wiki. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your problem?[edit]

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)

  1. Please see WP:AGF.
  2. 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)