User talk:Pmedema

Archives

List of web based file managers

A bit over a year ago, you commented in the afd discussion for Comparison of web based file managers. It was shortly thereafter reposted by its creator as List of web based file managers, which is currently on afd itself. I invite you to participate in the new discussion. —Korath (Talk) 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Basil MacLean III article

Peter: You just did some nice editing on the court-martial article -- one in which I attempted some clean up. Thank you for deleting and moving the info.

Given your interest in the subject (e.g., courts-martial in your neighbor to the south), I invite your attention to Norbert Basil MacLean III. This article, as I see it, is a vanity piece developed to praise MacLean and his efforts to promote a change in US law. One editor -- Mattwashdc -- is the (if not only) contributor to the article. For my part, I've tried to edit out misinformation and extensive POV. Also, I've initiated a GA relook on it and tagged it as COI and cherrypicked. (Moreover, more tagging is certainly justified.) Not only does the article fall below GA standards, MacLean himself is not notable. Finally, Mattwashdoc has put MacLean into several other articles to promote himself -- I mean, Maclean -- by means of multiple Wikipedia references.

But a second opinion is needed. (This is especially true because Mattwashdc has reverted some -- not all -- of my edits and tags without explanation.) With this in mind, I ask that you give a gander and your opinions.

Thank you so very much.--S. Rich 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK... I'll nibble a bit. It seems alot... OK... I'm a bit board recently with AFD so... I'll do some investigating. I'm confident of a neutral point of view. Don't be surprised if I don't find much wrong. The only thing so far regarding the article is that WP:OWN regulations are coming into play here. Pmedema (talk)

Thanks so much. Actually there is a lot to chew on -- not just nibble. The history and talk pages give more details. But your suggestion regarding ownership is very interesting and helpful. My concern on this stemmed from reading & revising articles on courts-martial. I came across this, which is MacLean's personal effort to make changes in the law. But his contributions really aren't that much in my opinion. Your take on these issues, limited or expansive, is appreciated.--S. Rich 21:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Peter, your work on this is greatly appreciated.--S. Rich 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

the best guidance I can see is in WP:SOURCEACCESS. But it really does not help us. This is more and more of a problem as newspapers, etc. are going to subscription access.--S. Rich 03:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another guidline that I'm finding needs to be looked at by the editors of this article is WP:DETAIL and the style in which the article is layed out. So far, in my opinion, there is way to much detail, POV issues, citation issues, and even some WP:COATRACK issues. I will be consulting with some other editors to possibly get some direction on shortening the article and making it more concise. Pmedema (talk)

Norbert Basil MacLean III

Hey Pmedema, do you have an idea of what resources you need? Any specific articles you need access to? Otherwise, I can't really help you, since I don't know anything about this man. bibliomaniac 1 5 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

noted some difficult citations on User:Bibliomaniac15's page. Pmedema (talk)

Thanks. I'll use my university and public library databases to locate the citations as best as I can. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, would you please go to your preferences and activate your email? I need to be able to email you the articles I find. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - email set up... didn't really need it before... Knew I would have to eventually Pmedema (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a pretty general rule, news articles after the 90s are pretty hard to track down. Leave the refs in there, but do your best to supplement them. In the end, the facts you cannot verify should not be there, per WP:V. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sMiLe... Ok... in other words... Don't be too heavy handed. Understood. Thanks for your opinion/direction. Pmedema (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and friends -- your work in following up on my request has greatly exceeded my expectations! While I hope you continue, I want you to know that I greatly appreciate all that you have done.--S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter: I invite you to take a look at Norbert and see what you think. From my view, Mattwashdc has bitten the bullet and let go of his RGW effort. With this in mind, your review and stubbing of the Equal Justice article were a great help. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would have been doing more but I just got back from vacation for the last 2 weeks. I'll be having the article on my watch list and look forward to working with you again some day.Pmedema (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Norbert Basil MacLean III.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

understood... I will review and correct. Thanks. Pmedema (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- reviewed - reference was not correct and bot fixed it. Unfortunatly it falls into the discussed WP:RS issues within the page. This section will be removed at a later time if no other resources can be found with the same information.Pmedema (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir bin Mohamad

I believe I have done the editing for this article "up to the quality" that you expected.--Huayi (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrang!

It's on a subject that I know nothing about! I could not even begin. Still, I've done some copy edits.--S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

smile... just thought you might want to try something different:) Pmedema (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I really need it! And it looks like BLP has spoken up -- he does not like my latest proposal for his bio. Thus, AfD should be the last and final step.--S. Rich (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on BLP submitted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 9--S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum Excavation

Peter - thank you for your comments. I'm a nubie to Wikipedia and trying to understand wikifying. Please be patient with me and I welcome your comments. Whusebo (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zecharia Sitchin

I hope you do not mind, but I have moved your message at WT:Identifying reliable sources to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Zecharia Sitchin which I believe is the correct place. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... Thank you very much for your assistance! - Pmedema (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the I-Fly article

Hi Peter, I have just expanded the I-Fly article with some more sources and an image that I found. Do you think that in its current shape it has a chance to pass WP:CORP? I really dare say that there are many airline articles around here that look much worse. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of last surviving Canadian war veterans

You participated in a discussion respecting the proposed move of this list. Unfortunately, the proponent of the move initiated overlapping merge, move and AFD discussions, causing some degree of confusion, when it appears that his objective was to merge this list into one list for North American veterans. If you are interested, the actual merge discussion is at Talk:Last surviving United States war veterans#Merger proposal. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brad Wright (blogger)

The article Brad Wright (blogger) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails relevant notability criteria, particularly WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Claret Ash 00:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wright on Health

Hi, I see you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wright on Health. I was wondering if you'd also like to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wright on Health (2nd nomination). Claret Ash 12:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your invitation to participate. I am indifferent towards this article and hold no comment for Delete or Keep. I'm sure the consences in AFD will be appropriate. Pmedema (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from way back

Hello, Peter. I wanted to drop a line and say I remember quite fondly the interaction we had 2 years ago. You awarded me my first barnstar, and I still value it far beyond the others. Since then, I've gone on slogging away at WP and have racked up a bunch of edits, plus a couple of other nice barnstars. My engagements with you were worthwhile and they, for better or worse, were most encouraging. Again, many thanks and best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is very nice of you to say and appreciated. I still do check in and once in a while check the Afd areas. Unfortunately, with my work and family, I find that I haven't had as much time to contribute as much as I did back then. Has something happened in your life that you are being retrospective or something just jumped out at you, reminding you and here you are.... --Pmedema (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was looking at the mess of my userpage and thinking about a subpage for some of the stuff. That's why I saw the barnstar and thought about you. Your family is lucky that you have not become addicted. Best wishes to them as well. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd

Thought you would be interested to know I have nominated the page William Sledd for deletion, as you proposed should happen so long ago on that article's talk page. I would appreciate any feedback you have in the new AfD page. As far as I'm concerned, this person is not notable.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.102.180 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello P. I wanted to let you know that you forgot to sign your post here. Occasionally (though not always) the person closing an AFD will ignore an unsigned post so I thought I would let you know so that you can fix this. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pmedema. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pmedema. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pmedema. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]