User talk:Pnm

re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/sidebar. No problem. Your revert regarding the MS/MS Windows order makes sense, and I did hesitate before swapping them. --trevj (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the importance of

You PRODded this article, and it was deleted.Undeletion has now been

The related Marine Software Engineering was also restored at REFUND. Take a look, feel free to AfD at your leisure. l'aquatique[talk] 05:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

has now been completely removed from Wikipedia. I hope you can sleep better now.

I noticed your recent cat change, and commented here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Stephen B Streater (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! --Pnm (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently participated in this discussion. There is now a follow-up discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The CFD discussion that you started on Feb. 7 has been procedure closed today, with the result being effectively no consensus. I am just wondering what your intentions for the category are. Will you restart another discussion about including Computing in the main topic category?

On a side note, I noticed that you categorized Computing under Digital technology. I think this is too narrow, given that analog computers exist. I think categorizing Computing under Technology is more appropriate. Is this acceptable? Regards, Rilak (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no consensus, Computers should be reinstated as a main topic classification, where it was at the start of discussion. (Computing is fine under Technology – it's a big topic. It's also fine under Digital technology – computing is overwhelmingly digital / analog computers are rare. --Pnm (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pmn, I have just started a project called "women of psychology." The project page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/women_of_psychology. This project's goal is to create and develop articles about women who have contributed significantly to the field of Psychology. At this time, there are relatively few articles about emminent women psychologists on Wikipedia. This project seeks to remedy this situation. I am currently seeking support from women's psychological organizations (AWP, APA Division 35, APA's International Office, others) for their help and support for this project. The first stage of this project will involve creating a list of notable women who have contributed to the field of psychology. As those accumulate, the next task with be to create articles with relevant, well-organized information about their contributions and their histories. I thought you might be interested in this project considering your work on "Women and Psychology." Any support or suggestions would be welcome.WebMaven2000 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pnm, thanks for your edit to

Referring to your remarks at Talk:C standard library, I think there's a difference between personal attacks and simply having a different point of view. I don't think I've made any personal attacks but I certainly have been the target of them and I'm disappointed that no one has stepped up to point out that such attacks aren't appropriate and, now, by the implication that there's little difference between 1exec1's behavior and mine. This is painting with a broad brush that if two people are having trouble getting along, they must be equally at fault. That's just not always the case and it's not the case here. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. I don't think I read so carefully as to identify this before, but you're right: I see that you didn't make personal attacks. Actually I can't find personal attacks targeted at you either (in this thread), though I might be missing them.

What I was responding to is what I perceived as a rude and dismissive tone toward each other, in posts you each made in the thread, and a perceived focus on what the other said and did instead of on what to call the article. That's what I meant when I wrote, "please lay off each other" and "please keep [the] page on topic." See your response to my initial comment, for example.

I didn't suggest you were equally at fault. --Pnm (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, I don't think I have been rude or dismissive. Clearly, I have a different opinion, but I think I've been consistently respectful albeit firm in stating it. Take a look, e.g., at 1exec1's examples of what I've said that he doesn't like; there's nothing there to complain about. It's certainly not like being called out for lying, hypocrisy, disruptive editing (he doesn't understand the term) and ignorance. And note that his response that it's not a personal attack to call me an ignorant lying hypocrite because he insists that's true. There is a line; I don't think I've ever crossed it; I think he has, time and again and he's completely unrepentant. As for my response to your remark, which I assume is a reference to my comment that "1exec1 would have a better chance selling his proposal if he took it one article at a time and actually listened and responded to objections", I stand by that as constructive: He would have a better chance selling his proposal if he went at it one article at a time and actually tried to incorporate objections as opposed to simply claiming that they've been answered and should go away. Consensus isn't about winning an argument; it's about incorporating different points of view in search of something we can agree on (even if to say, it wasn't my choice, but it's clear that was the consensus.) Msnicki (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In that response to me, you implied he wasn't listening to you, which I think was rude. Then you called his arguments "silly," which I think was rude and dismissive, and called his proposal "dead," which is also dismissive. You wrote "1exec1 would have a better chance selling his proposal if he [...] actually listened and responded to objections," which patronized him and dismissed the points he had made. Earlier in the thread you presented "you don't have a consensus" as an argument against the move proposal, which is specious and thus seems dismissive, and wrote "you're not helping yourself," again patronizing and dismissive. To me it seems the line you didn't cross is the one between rudeness and a personal attack. I'm glad you're sensitive about and careful not to make personal attacks, though it'll be easier to collaborate with you if you can focus on the subject of discussion instead of the other person's behavior, and act respectfully toward other people even when they don't treat you the same way. It certainly is challenging sometimes. --Pnm (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to be fair about context, please? I didn't call all his arguments silly, I said he was "making silly claims that concerns about notability or WP:OR aren't valid objections." He does make that claim that concerns about notability and OR are not valid objections and that is a silly claim on WP; notability and OR always matter here, even if you have to agree to disagree whether the guidelines are satisfied in a given instance. And what's specious about pointing out the lack of consensus as reason not to do the move? That's not rude at all; that's just how we work. (And were you rude to dismiss my view as specious?) When he questioned what I meant, I answered respectfully, conceding his right to a different opinion. While my comment about listening to and responding to comments might have been better expressed as pointing out the need to incorporate objections, not just argue they're wrong, it is only half the sentence; the other half explains what I mean, that he "has been throwing out accusations of lying and hypocrisy, questioning others' good faith". My remark that he wasn't helping himself is a response to his false claim that I'd engaged in disruptive editing and an implication that I hadn't offered any arguments at all. My response was reserved, not rude. Now, I admit I'm not a perfect person, but to tediously take me to task for insufficiently turning the other cheek after being called a lying hypocrite – and to do it with a word here and a word there out of context – seems harsh in my book. How well do you behave when people call you names? I think I was pretty restrained and surprisingly respectful, e.g., here, acknowledging and respecting that his opinion was different and suggesting we drop the stick. What are your standards here? I'm wondering who among us could pass. With your "specious" remark and your own tendency to be patronizing ("Seriously, both of you.") even without provocation, it doesn't sound like you could do it.
I think I did stay focused and I think you're grasping at straws to justify having jumped to a false assumption, that if 1exec1 was complaining about me that loudly, I must have done something to deserve it. I didn't deserve what I got from him and I didn't deserve what I got from you, either. Msnicki (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your edit, redacting your "seriously" remark. Thank you. I propose we agree that we've worked through any differences between us discussed here, both of us satisfied with each other's good faith and genuine efforts to treat others with respect. Msnicki (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You were right, it was patronizing. Sorry for being aggressive and for taking "silly" out of context. I agree to assume good faith and approach the next situation with an open mind. --Pnm (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK, You're OK. :) Msnicki (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate your assistance. I'm not sure we agree that the split should have been made, but now that I've acted boldly, I'm glad you have contributed, adding the splitting templates to talk, and correcting the infobox. As I have said elsewhere, I've never done a page creation I felt might one day see AfD. I can see why others may not agree to the inherent notability of the list page, but I think that even you felt such a splitting was preferential to the over-weighting of the material on the main page. As I said to another editor on talk, this splitting may have the effect of taking some of the ip mischief pressure off the main page and applying it to a slightly less visible space. I'm glad to watch and shepherd the list. I think that in time it might be a much better work and given the extended success of the podcast, might actually become FL-class stuff. Thanks again for your contributions and stewardship. BusterD (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I think the split is a good compromise. Given that we were starting to discuss it, I don't see it as a content fork, and certainly a reasonable

WP:BOLD. So far I'm unconvinced about the list's notability, and was posting about it on the talk page when you wrote me. FL quality is quite a goal! It'll need more content attributed to secondary sources to avoid original research problems. I was glad to collaborate on this. --Pnm (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks =D this is my first year participating in Google Code-in, and updating the GNOME article seemed like a good first task. Pfjap.paco (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deprodded Amelioration pattern and added a reference I found in the ACM DL. I only quickly skimmed through it though, so I wouldn't mind if still want to send this to AfD after having taken a look at it. —Ruud 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I don't have access to the full text. Would you be willing to share the relevant pages? – Pnm (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant paragraph:

An anti-pattern has two possible forms: it either ‘provides knowledge on how to go from a problem to a bad solution’ or shows ‘how to go from a bad solution to a good solution’ [Cockburn et al. 2004]. The former will be referred to as a simple anti-pattern and the latter is commonly called an amelioration anti-pattern. If described properly, an anti-pattern also tells the designer why the bad solution looks attractive, why it turns out to be bad, and what positive patterns are applicable in its stead. Anti-patterns therefore concentrate on presenting negative solutions [Brown et al. 1998, McCormick 2004A]. Simple anti-patterns are thus not very useful to the designer, behaving as a mere example of what can go wrong; the amelioration pattern is constructive and useful to the designer since it shows how the bad solution can be refactored.

—Ruud 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Seems like a distinction worth covering. I'd like to add/merge the information to anti-pattern and redirect there. I'll do that if you don't object. --Pnm (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds like a good idea. —Ruud 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the template message isn't perfect, citing oneself is a conflict of interest. You aren't giving your own source undue weight, but you're using it in an argument for notability – and you wrote it after it failed at Afd. In an open-source project the line between connected and unconnected is blurry, since anyone can volunteer to help with outreach. If the language of the template really bothers you, I'll write a new template which makes it clearer that you're connected with a major source used by the article. – Pnm (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the edit history can reveal that the weight of this reference wasn't really undue. Furthermore, the source was published when the article was userified, so I was unable to properly request uninvolved article to add this reference. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I agree you're not giving it undue weight. – Pnm (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming that the relevance of this template to the references situation is a subject of implicit consensus on Wikipedia, I have no objections. Sorry for taking Your time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such consensus, and you sound upset about it, so I created a new template {{Citation by contributor}}. I wanted to point out that there is a conflict of interest in citing oneself, and that identifying such citations improves Wikipedia by helping both readers and other contributors evaluate them accordingly. I'm sorry you felt put off, because it was not my intention. – Pnm (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This new template is all OK to me. Thanks! And thanks for copy edit! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your opinion is wanted at

It seems that I was misbehaving towards You. I would like to apologize for that. I hope that we can properly collaborate in the future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pnm. You have new messages at Christian75's talk page.
Message added 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Christian75 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drafting the section on scope at WikiProject Open Access. I appreciate your good will for what I am doing and would support any involvement you saw fit to have in this. Even though I made this project, I am cautious about moving forward with this before assessing priorities and making good decisions about what is most important and what I can do with the resources which are available. If you want to talk by phone then feel free to email me and we can arrange something. I would be interested to hear what you think it is best to do to improve public access to information on this topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Would you please do the upmerging on Category:Software systems per this discussion? I will delete the category after you do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All set. Thanks. – Pnm (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pnm. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, I think a common term used for these various "Openness" projects is Open movements or "Open" movements, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. I'd suggest that as the title of the WikiProject as it is all encompassing while "Open access" is not. What was your reason for choosing "Open methodologies"? (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_7#Category:Libre). Is that term used as an umbrella? I agree Libre was less than ideal.

I think there should be a section in Openness on these movements, as plenty of sources associate them so it wouldn't be original research.[6] For example, see Blue Obelisk.[7]

This was daft:

Hello, Pnm. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
Message added 15:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, I was trying to link my article to different Wiki pages that were relevant, to give people information about open source software, Linux ect. I'm sorry that because I linked it in quick succession it seemed like spam. I would like to replace the links and even make a few more but I will sure that they are relevant to the subject matter. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funckyfizz (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you identified yourself as the author of the article you linked, which means you have a

conflict of interest

. Please know that Wikipedia is not here to promote your article.

That said, we need to determine whether that article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for

reliable sources noticeboard

is a good place to have a centralized discussion about that.

If it's not an RS, we can consider it as an external link. However, I think it meets #1 at

featured articles

.

It's certainly not at all related to open-source political campaigns. – Pnm (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was immediately inclined to nominate the three categories you have just created,

Hello, I see you recently proposed a category move to free healthcare software. I'd like to propose a different name for this category, that would align better with existing article names (which is open-source). Can we discuss here? Category_talk:Free_healthcare_software? --Karl.brown (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at happenings and without an introduction, it seems vague like events. I also noticed that Category:Happenings was nominated for deletion. I think the close on Category:Events was reasonable given the comments, but it left the underlying problems there. I just got back from being away so I'll need some time to think about this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm assessing a lot of WP:COMPSCI articles and ran into the restructured WPDATABASE template. My immediate concern is that at this time all articles tagged WPDATABASE are being included in WP:COMPSCI. I'd rather this didn't happen, what can be done about that? More generally, what is the status of the restructuring and what needs to be done next? Thanks, Ideogram (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have listed yourself as a participant at

Category:FSF-approved software licenses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:OSI-approved software licenses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of free and open-source software, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pnm,

it is now one year since

As a visual token of the anniversary, I am adding today's Open Access File of the Day. Feel free to nominate files yourself. As of today, commons:Category:Open access (publishing) contains more than 15,000 files, of which about 2/3 are video and sound files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer.

Thanks for being part of the project, and looking forward to more interaction. With a smile, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Computing for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello. i am searching for a friendly editor for help in my references to my sand box. can you help with my concerns. Ghannam Wasif (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Category:Personal computer automation software, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation by contributor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Houghton 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/Mary Houghton 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 notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized programming languages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pnm,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xevus11 (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multi-touch mobile phones, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. uKER (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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.

Category:Mac OS is up for renaming, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 28#Category:Mac OS software. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yesno2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proprietary software, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary software until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]