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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

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 I'm sure editors put them there in good faith, but some are no longer applicable, and others never were.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

-dainomite   is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

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 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be consistent. See Second-generation immigrants in the United States. --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, thanks Pmsyyz. If you find one, please let me know. --McChizzle (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Serendi^podous 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here's some info: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22CC+coded%22+site%3Aaf.mil --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You don't say! The article said "tabs" not "tabbed browsing". Fixing... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Pmsyyz, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comparison of online music lockers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | {{yes|Yes (Chrome ext.)]}}<ref name="GooglePlayPlatforms">[https://support.google.com/googleplay/bin/answer.py?hl=en&

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

IE for Windows Phone has its own article. Internet Explorer 11 article is strictly about the desktop version.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet Explorer Mobile" doesn't exist anymore. They are no longer separate. "When Windows Phone 8.1 reached RTM, it included the same fast, standards-based, IE11 browser engine that powers the PC version of IE on the desktop." [16] --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. How did you reach from the quotation to "Internet Explorer Mobile doesn't exist anymore"? The quotation strictly refers to the engine (Microsoft Trident) and does say anything about naming and/or branding. Besides, we've seen marketting efforts like this before: Microsoft says "One Windows for all; a no-compromise experience" and ends up releasing three editions of Windows 8, Windows RT and Windows Phone 8. There is a huge WP:SYNTH warning here.

But this is just a minor issue. The subject of "Internet Explorer 11" article is strictly the desktop version; mobile version of IE has its own article. You see, the organization of Wikipedia (and the series of articles on IE) rarely adheres to what Microsoft deems correct for a while.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I classify Android Central as a blog, thus it is not reliable. Additionally, there's been mixed consensus over model number tables like that. Personally, I think it violates WP:NOTCATALOG. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any item under "Wikipedia is not a directory" that appears relevant here. Android Central could be called a blog, but is a large news site also. I'm looking for other refs. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the RFC discussion: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Major_change:_Journalism_-.3E_Original_reporting --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8N_Sad7wOlSbEpZOW1KTGdocThIQnRGRV9ROUdIalhhZkZr/view?usp=sharing

Same results have been achieved with multiple Nexus 5's using multiple system info apps. All state the screen size as 4.97". Manually checking the Nexus 5 system data via a terminal also shows the screen to be a 4.97" model from Japan Display Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.160.49 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to a reliable source with that information? --Pmsyyz (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pmsyyz, Why did you delete the author information at Berserker (Saberhagen)? Thanks! Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I can answer that: this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, how do I appropriately refer to the fact that the author is dead (R.I.P.) and there will be no more new Berzerker novels from Saberhagen? Thanks. Maksim-Smelchak (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but why would you? The guy has an article--that's where that information goes. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drmies. --Pmsyyz (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose is not to remove the comms. I'm sorry. BuddyCatLover (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you have recently added an image for the book 1636: The Kremlin Games. Great job! Would it be possible for you to upload missing book cover images for the other novels in the series?

• 1635: The Papal Stakes
• 1636: The Devil's Opera
• ✔ 1636: Commander Cantrell in the West Indies
• ✔ 1636: Seas of Fortune
• The Grantville Gazette (print edition, volume 1)

If you can do that, that would be great. If not, no worries. Thanks. 64.134.164.63 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Colorado Wiknic 2015

Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users in Colorado and their families are invited. New users are specifically encouraged to attend.

What: The Great Colorado Wiknic 2015.

When: Sunday afternoon, July 5, 2015, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our Attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Your hosts:  Buaidh  and  BikeSally  15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

Thank you for your message on my talk page regarding Electric Mills, Mississippi, and my apology for not writing before reverting. I've added a number of ghost towns to various states in the US, and it's always a tough call. The criteria to be a ghost town is pretty open, found here. I've discussed this a few times in the past with other editors and many seem to go with their gut feeling, including me. In some cases, where GNIS lists the place as "historical", it's almost certainly a ghost town, or one which has simply vanished. For example, in Mississippi, many river communities along the Mississippi River were washed away, or were buried under the levee. In the case of Electric Mills, it's still listed as a "populated place" in GNIS, and Google Maps shows a few house-like buildings there. Would adding it to "Category:Former populated places in Mississippi by county" be a better fit? I won't revert whichever you choose. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either is probably fine. It would be nice to know how many people live there now and what percentage of buildings are empty. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you move a page without discussion, please insure you make all associated changes that are called for by the move. Also, when you add a citation, include it at all appropriate locations in a format regognized for citations (the template makes it easy to do so). Thanks. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juhayman al-Otaybi wikipedia page having a tag Infobox criminal, could not make changes to it. Juhayman al-Otaybi neither represented to Umm Al-Qura University nor he was student. But still Google Knowledge base result shows his education refrs to Umm Al-Qura University, but has studied through Islamic University of Madinah. Our prime object is we dont want to see him in Google Knowledge base results as Notable Alumni. Please suggest how can we proceed to make the changes.

There is nothing in his article or the university's article. He's not in the category Category:Umm al-Qura University alumni I'm not sure where the info is coming from. Maybe it is old info. --Pmsyyz (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, can you please add his education at the right side of the article Education: Islamic University of Madinah. I have just added Education tag to the main body. I couldn't make the changes at the right side because {{Infobox criminal in the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younusm (talk • contribs) 05:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Younusm (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cyberjets has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, no sources cited.

While all constructive 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there is no great reason to keep the article. I guess I mainly created it to point to both groups, as a redirect could be only to one or the other. --Pmsyyz (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmsyyz. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Proposal:_return_section_title_to_.22Future_launches.22.
Message added 00:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noticed you recently made an edit, right about the same time a proposal began on the Talk page about that. You may wish to weigh in on that discussion. Cheers. N2e N2e (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmsyyz. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmsyyz. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmsyyz. 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]

Clearly, your edit to Uber was made in good faith. However, I strongly believe you are mistaken. It looks like the New York Times incorrectly assumed the speed limit was 45 mph but were mistaken. I've added a citation that explicitly covers this. That is, the citation explicitly notes NYT got the limit wrong. I'm very happy to discuss this if you still think NYT is correct, though. I'll watch your talk page for a few days. Regardless of who's correct, I sincerely thank you for your edit. Very often, people just make edits like this without bothering to care about WP:V, but it's clear you did research before making your change. --Yamla (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the explanation. I'll also do more research. Pmsyyz (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Very happy to be shown wrong here, if you find anything more. I think there are still a lot of unknowns with that particular incident. --Yamla (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully some press will ask a question about the speed limit at a press conference. Although not citable, the Google Street View data convinces me. I'm sure we will eventually get a NHSTA report with the speed limit mentioned. Pmsyyz (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am sure we'll eventually get the official report. Where I live, speed limits are very frequently different from those that show on Google street view as a result of construction. Winters really take a toll on our pavement here in Canada. Anyway, I leave it to you if you think we should just remove the mention of the speed limit entirely, until the NHSTA report is available or until this issue is specifically addressed more widely. If you think it should be done, I wouldn't object to you making that edit. I do still believe the limit was 35, as the police reportedly stated, but... it's hard to find consistent, objective facts here. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like to remove the mention of the speed limit. Very clear in Street View.[17] Also, while I would bet lidar could have been off for testing, I doubt anyone would program it to violate the speed limit while testing. That source is right, super pedestrian hostile to build a brick pathway and then put up a sign that says don't cross here. Pmsyyz (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the speed limit was changed from 45 to 35, either permanently or because of construction. But I'm speculating, based on the reports of the 35 mph limit. I expect Uber grabs the speed limit data from their mapping source rather than reading it from current road signs (Google street view lags months or sometimes years). Regardless, I think we have a consensus here. I think you will remove any mention of 35 or 45 and we'll wait for the official report. Thank you for your calm discussion here, I appreciate it. --Yamla (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 October 2012 at 17:17 (UTC), you added a list of unit awards to the article Air Force Network Integration Center. You didn't cite your source at the time; where did you find that information? I ask, because for one such period listed (1 Oct 2006 – 30 Sep 2008) for the AFOEA, AFNIC was still AFCA, yet when I search AFPC's Air Force Recognition Programs site, the only "COMM AGENCY" unit awards were for 7/01/1994 – 6/30/1996, and 4/01/1997 – 9/30/1998. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Cyberspace Capabilities Center#Awards --18:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Magecart 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 a club, society, or group that does not credibly 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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete so I can improve it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmsyyz. 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]

May we please, politely, take this live? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:User GoogleChrome2. Since you had some involvement with the Template:User GoogleChrome2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – voidxor 23:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Svolvær, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tesla. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pmsyyz, I hope you don't mind. I have been creating article for a few key AFCS / AFCC organisations with the assistance of the Miller 1990 reference. I was amazed and thankful to find your draftspace article on the 1964 CG; hope you don't mind me mainspacing some of the content you created. You are referenced with a link in the establishing edit for the mainspace page. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Glad to see it. Pmsyyz (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pmsyyz, I appear to have changed my policies/focus since 2010 when I got the 609 ACS article deleted (!?%%). Somebody, using the 609 ACS deletion precedent, may come along in time and try to delete your 1876 CS article, so if at all possible, you could add other reliable references, not closely associated USAF primary sources, to the article. The 1964 CG is a larger entity covering all Air Force comms in SVN during the American War, so is not so vulnerable to such deletion arguments. Also potentially you could, if you wish, write a section at the USAFA article covering the communications units with the best available references, which would not be deleted, as its part of the very notable USAFA.. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Yeah, the only thing keeping me from moving it from my user space to article space earlier was the fear that it might get deleted. Good idea, putting more comm unit content in the main USAFA article as article contents don't have to be notable on their own. --18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Lineagegeek, User:Pmsyyz is very interested in the support entities for the US Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs. Any additional information you have for L&H of the 7625th entities (squadrons, the 7625th Support Group, and the 7625th U.S. Air Force Hospital) as initially described at User:Pmsyyz/USAF Academy MAJCON units would probably be much appreciated. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is so small compared to major commands, tracking USAFA units is not easy. One subset of this problem is the elusive 54th Air Base Wing. Apparently the base unit from c. 16 Jan 93 until the 10th Air Base Wing moved from England on 1 Nov 1994. The userspace page has suffered from quite a bit of link rot, too. I did notice that the Air Force History Index page cited doesn't use all the units shown (USAF Dispensary, Installations Squadron). For the (7625) units included:

The 7625th Materiel Squadron is the same unit as the 7625th Logistics Squadron. Last named 7625th Logistics Support Squadron.

The 7625th USAF Hospital was originally the 7625th USAF Dispensary. It was discontinued c. 8 Apr 1968 and replaced by the USAF Academy Hospital.

The 7625th Security Police Squadron was originally the 7625th Air Police Squadron (redesignated 8 Mar 1967). It was redesignated 54th Security Police Squadron c. 16 Jan 1993

The 7625th Civil Engineering Squadron was originally the 7625th Installations Squadron (redesignated c. 1 July 1960). It was redesignated 54th Civil Engineering Squadron c. 16 Jan 1993

The 7625th Communications Squadron did not replace the 1876th Communications Group, the 1876th was redesignated the 7625th (AFCC units were transferred to host command units 1990/1991. There was typically a lag before they were renumbered in the host command group of numbers). It was redesignated the 54th Communications Squadron c. 16 Jan 1993.

Not mentioned are the 7625th Supply and Transportations Squadrons, which are mentioned in the Air Force History Index page cited. The 7625th Comptroller Squadron was active from c. 1989 to c. 16 August 1992.

Units at USAFA not numbered 7625:

Band: Moved from Lowry AFB 1 Sep 1958 as the 739th Air Force Band, redesignated USAF Band of the Rockies 1 July 1993. Reassigned to Space Command 1 July 93, moved to Peterson AFB 31 October 1996, redesignated United States Air Force Band of the Rockies 1 May 1997, United States Air Force Academy Band 1 October 2003 and reassigned to USAFA, but remained at Peterson.

USAF Academy Preparatory School Not sure when it moved to USAFA from Lowry (probably September 1958, when the Academy did. I was offered a slot in the fall semester of 1958.)

Frank J. Seiler Research Laboratory 8 April 1963-c. 8 October 1982 (not a USAFA unit)

1959th Communications Squadron 1 January 1966-1 April 1972 (replaced by 1876th Communications Squadron when AFCS moved its SEA units to the US to retain their honors and history).

3253rd Flying Training Squadron From 1 October 1967 until transferring its assets to the 557th Flying Training Squadron (ATC unit) --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great info, thanks. --20:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this is great!! Is there any more information on the 54th Air Base Wing beyond the primary sources, others, that you're working from? Any L&H data anywhere?

The 54th Communications Squadron. Was it inactivated, and assets/personnel/equipment used to reactivate the 10th Comms Squadron? That seems to be what you're saying.. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated all the 7625 info in 1876th Communications Squadron and User:Pmsyyz/USAF Academy MAJCON units. Found a 7625 CPTS emblem also. --17:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CPT12 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]