User talk:Pmsyyz

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

Archived for the first time after 7 years, 11 months: User talk:Pmsyyz/Archive 1

Firefox article needs you![edit]

Your edits have been dearly missed at the Firefox article. Come back! Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Split from 'Toyota 86' article[edit]

There is a discussion about whether the BRZ should be separated from the Toyota models or kept together. Talk:Subaru BRZ#Split from 'Toyota 86' article.  Stepho  talk  09:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Article lead sections[edit]

Regarding this: please see WP:LEAD. The lead section should be an adequate summary of all of the article's key points, not some sort of brevity competition. A 32K article should have a multi-paragraph lead, not one three sentence long which provides only the very barest context. I'll be re-tagging this until I can work on it myself unless it improves significantly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

... upon further inspection, it appears that this account is primarily used for the purpose of removing {{tooshort}} tags. Given that you apparently have a rather non-mainstram interpretation of what constitutes an appropriate length for a lead section (namely, that a single paragraph is perfectly acceptable in what appears to be every case), it is wholly inappropriate for you to be removing hundreds of tags placed for this purpose per week. Please stop doing this immediately: removing valid cleanup tags is disruptive, and it wastes the time of editors who place them in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So lately I've been focusing on beautifying the encyclopedia by removing tags that do not apply. I probably remove only 30% of the ones I look at. I'm sure editors put them there in good faith, but some are no longer applicable, and others never were.

I can concede that I might have been wrong on Smart card. [1]

Examples:

  • [2] lead is 8% (131/1512) the word length of the body, appears quite good, and nothing on the talk page about it missing anything.
  • [3] lead is 7.4% (124/1675) the word length of the body, nothing on the talk page about it.
  • [4] lead is 5.5% the word length of the body
  • [5] lead is 6% of the article body, but 8.8% of the only section that bears summarizing in the lead. I don't see anything in the short "Early life and education" and "Personal Life" that belong in the lead.
  • [6] In the two years "Lead too short" was at the top of the article, it didn't encourage anyone to improve it, and it isn't warning readers of any possible major issue to keep in mind while reading the article.
  • [7] the lead is the article.
  • [8] the lead is the article.
  • [9] lead is 13% (63/480) of the body.
  • [10] lead is 5.4% of the body, a bit short, but it provides a good overview.
  • [11] lead is 7.7% of the body.
  • [12] lead is 9.7% of the body.

You appear to use a tool to add a great many of these tags without looking closely at the article. Use your eyes at look at these lead sizes verses article body size: [13], [14], [15]. Do you truly think the lead to body length is too short on these?

So if I see any more in the future that don't appear to apply, I'll be bold and remove them, usually after checking the talk page, especially if the person adding the tag is just counting bytes instead of examining the actual article text. --Pmsyyz (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am very aware that the length of the lead need not be strictly proportional to that of the article. What it must do, however, is to adequately cover all of the points raised in the article. An incredibly simple rule of thumb for this is to check each paragraph / section in the body and to verify whether the subject raised in it is covered in the lead.
  1. In Pa Saikou Kujabi, the lead ignores 90% of Kujabi's career.
  2. Chris Morris (satirist) devotes exactly one sentence to the first eleven paragraphs of the career section (twenty years of the life of one of Britain's most high-profile satirists), two sentences to Four Lions and one to his private nature.
  3. I'll grant you Touchpaper, as though I have a deep distaste for single-sentence leads the article contains no actual content with which to populate it.
Now examining the ones you've given:
  1. Voltairine de Cleyre was a good call: the lead is fine (that wasn't one of mine)
  2. Luiz Felipe Scolari does the absolute bare minimum in that it covers the very highlights of Scolari's career, but it is nowhere near an adequate summary of the actual article.
  3. Daewoo Precision Industries USAS-12 omits any history, design, or usage information at all. A perfect candidate for tagging.
  4. Rajpal Yadav describes not a single movie the actor has been in and omits all career information save for present line of work. The article certainly needs improved, but the tag stands to reason.
  5. Straight razor was a good call (again, not my tagging).
  6. Gustave Aimard was accompanied by an edit which alleviated the problem, so I've no issue with that edit.
  7. Pico Turquino shouldn't have been tagged, so that was a good call.
  8. Denis O'Hare provides only the barest of context and omits any coverage of the actor's awards and personal life. The tag was appropriate.
  9. Sous-vide again provides only bare context: nothing on use, nothing on history, and only two sentences to summarise the rest of the article. Plainly inadequate.
  10. Jeans needs some serious work, but the lead still skimps heavily on historical and design detail. I tagged that myself to remind me to carry that work out.
  11. The Devil's Dictionary provides only bare context, with very little on the history of the work and insufficient description of its contents for an unfamiliar reader to truly get a feel for it.
I use a tool to add and date these quickly, but it is most certainly not without manual inspection, as I'd hope you'll gather from this response. The most important thing is coverage of the article body, rather than raw word count, but if the lead is three sentences long the chances are that it is inadequate no matter how hard the author has tried. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
{{Lead too short}} is just for lead length. There are different templates for poor lead context and the lead not providing a good summary of the article. Make sure you use the right one. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not correct (and if that were truly your rationale, you'd be replacing the tags rather than just removing them). There is a fork, {{inadequate lead}}, which someone unilaterally created based on this misconception (it's currently got ~50 transclusions), but it's not actually the case: {{tooshort}} covers any inadequate lead because as previously stated strict word length is only a useful heuristic to establish coverage. I TfDed it for precisely this reason, but unfortunately there was a poor close (by an admin who has since retired following wider concern over his XfD closures). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Colorado wildfires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake George (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) 16:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of United States Air Force bands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public affairs (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) 12:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin[edit]

If you want to remove the tag saying that the article on Bitcoin "may be too technical for most readers to understand" please start a discussion on Talk:Bitcoin.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you kind sir for the kitten! That was kind of you. The Country Girl (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

SPDY[edit]

Please start a discussion next time on the talk page. Does this help WP:BRD? Widefox (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Kealia Ohai[edit]

You deprodded the article citing that she has played at the highest level, the U20 Women's World Cup. No it's not as per WP:NFOOTBALL. Players who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match. U20 is clearly not senior level. Banana Fingers (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Playing in the U-20 Women's World Cup is the senior level for U-20 women. That's how I read WP:NFOOTBALL. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, clearly you read it wrong. It seems you've mixed up "highest level" with "senior level". The U-20 Women's World Cup is the highest level for Women's U-20 football but it is not senior level. There's no such thing as "senior level" at U-20 or any other youth level. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of online music lockers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mashup (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) 11:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of online music lockers for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of online music lockers 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of online music lockers 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 template from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Looks like it might stick around. I'm glad as I put a lot of time and effort into creating it. --Pmsyyz 20:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Heya[edit]

Hey there, I noticed you removed the refimprove template on the 24th STS page, thank you, I had forgotten to do that after I was working on the article the other day. Quick question for you. Would you want me to fix your ribbon rack so the top two are centered instead of on the right? If not no problemo. Cheers, — -dainomite   17:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. No thanks on the ribbon rack. I meant for it to look like that. Also makes it easy to add the next ribbon I get. --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Daniel Cremieux[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Daniel Cremieux 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 an organization or company, but it does not 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Cindy(need help?) 04:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I asserted notability so the speedy delete did not happen. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Next Protocol Negotiation[edit]

Hi, the more annoying merge tag is on the TLS article. May I invite you to add a comment to the merge proposal, regards Widefox; talk 18:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: BluejackQ[edit]

Hello Pmsyyz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of BluejackQ, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Send it to PROD or AfD instead. Claims are semi-valid. Article has been PROdded before with no consensus (see Talk page). Thank you. Alexf(talk) 18:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

History of YouTube[edit]

Please give a source for 0.99. My source said 1.99, so I'm standing by that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. It was on YouTube so I added that one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy memorial day Pmsyyz[edit]

NB generation change[edit]

Hi Pmsyyz. Iḿ writing about the wiki page about Noam Bramson. According to public documents, Bramsonś parents were immigrants from Poland and when he and his brothers were born in the United States, they became first-generation Americans. Your edits suggest otherwise, and I have previously corrected the error. Now that you know this, the edit to second-generation American should cease to happen. Thanks!

.Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policy1015 (talkcontribs) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be consistent. See Second-generation immigrants in the United States. --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't a source for this info. Was he born before or after his parents moved to the US? Without a source, it should probably be removed. --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Paulina Gretzky[edit]

The anon is a blocked editor. If you want to take credit for his edit, fine, but he has no business touching a Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article you created, BTC China[edit]

Hello Pmsyyz,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware, but don't waste my time finding the specific stub micro-type as it doesn't help build a better encyclopedia. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Air Force Information Management/Administration Badge[edit]

Pmsyyz, I saw your edits on the Obsolete Badges page and Air Force Badges page. Thank you for helping keep those pages up to date! It would help me with some other projects if you could point me to the source of your edits. What article or updated instruction has the information about the reintroduction of the Air Force Information Management/Administration Badge? The only one I can find writes about it being replacement by the Cyberspace Support Badge in November 2009. --McChizzle (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find a public reference either. It is from memo signed by the CSAF on December 8th, Subject: Approval to Reuse the Legacy 3A0X1 Occupational Badge. --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Pmsyyz. If you find one, please let me know. --McChizzle (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Top 25[edit]

For future reference, the Top 25 report is outside the Wiki mainspace. NPOV rules don't apply, and really could never apply to the report, because it is biased in its very construction. Serendipodous 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Open Automotive Alliance) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Open Automotive Alliance, Pmsyyz!

Wikipedia editor Versace1608 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Expanding this article will help readers who are trying to learn a thing or two about OAA.

To reply, leave a comment on Versace1608's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Open Automotive Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GM (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) 09:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit to 95th Fighter Squadron[edit]

I don't think your edit to remove the clarification needed tag on the lead for the 95th Fighter Squadron addressed the need for the tag. The fact that the 95th is an F-22 unit is not directly related to the fact that it is "combat coded." The fact that the squadron is "combat coded" is notable not because of the plane it flies, but because it is assigned to the 325th Fighter Wing, which is a training unit. WP:OR tells me that plans are in the works to reassign the 325th to Air Combat Command , which will presumably make most of the wing a combat organization. The problem is there's no explanation of what "combat coded" means in USAF jargon (which is used by the 325FW/PA press release cited). (That is, it will train its own folks to fly and deploy, rather than training other folks).--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked for an explanation, but I could find none on the web. I did see in a photo caption that it was combat coded, but no explanation. If we can't explain what we are saying in an article, can you justify having it in the article? --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's some info: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22CC+coded%22+site%3Aaf.mil --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I think assigning a combat squadron to a training wing is important enough to be mentioned. The press release is a source for the fact that it's an F-22 unit and that it's "combat coded." My suggestion would be to keep your changes (aircraft type and citation), but to restore the "combat coded" and "clarification needed" template against the possibility that someone can come up with a source for what "combat coded" means. If not, then we've just got some jargon.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
But it isn't a training wing anymore, is it? It was moved to Air Combat Command. --Pmsyyz (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like that is taken care of, so it looks like all is right (at least with that part of the article). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mergers and acquisitions by Yahoo!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sparq (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) 09:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 11[edit]

Hi.

Did you say you can disable a tab in IE9? How? Right-click on it and select "disable tab" or something?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You can disable tabbed browsing: Tools, Internet Options, Tabs, Settings, Checkbox for Enabled Tabbed Browsing. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/tabbed-browsing-faq screenshot --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't say! The article said "tabs" not "tabbed browsing". Fixing... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trevor Paglen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chantilly (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) 17:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)