It has come to my attention that some Wikipedians try to drag me into fighting on edit wars on their behalf (for example, by asking me to revert their opponent's edits). I prefer to stay out of this. I'm just here to make Wikipedia a better place. Pm master (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
@pm master : I am editikimployment integrity testing for my I/own psych course as a part of an immersing learning. Wordsproject. I would like to know which part of my changes I was making of the 954 that I did were considered promotional of a survey when I was only following peer review feedback and did no such promotions JAShelton (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@pm master : Do you know what the Stanton Survey is? It is the name of an integrity testing survey. It is a company name that is in survey format, but it is used in integrity testing and has been used for decades. It is in the article as an example of integrity testing assessment of which it is in fact an assessment not a survey or self promotion.JAShelton (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Pm master: Concerning the development of the Change Management page, I updated my profile so you can see that I am a reliable source Ronkoller (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, unreliable sources is the reason that I am editing in the first place. I hope you are not confusing the name Kotter with Koller. John Kotter wrote a book called Leading Change and was the keynote at the Association for Change Management Professionals conference this year. All of the sources are peer reviewed and reliable, and have nothing to do with me personally.
The Hiatt citation, which I noticed you inserted last year, is not reliable. That page does not have any references.
Ronkoller (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Pm Master Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources to see that academic and peer-reviewed citations are more reliable than web pages. This is what I'm trying to do in the Change Management page -- add academic and peer-reviewed citations that are NOT mine. You can check my page to see my publications and ensure no overlap.
Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia Reliable Sources page:
What counts as a reliable source
The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.
Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.
Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test. Ronkoller (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Pm master:: I hav written a page on Data Flow Diagram. Why are you removing all my edits? Please report me the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.73.185 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Pm master:: I have edited a page by the name DFD but you are reverting it. I have not violated any of the copyrights and has edited as a part os assignment in WP:IEP. So please provide me with the reason. -User:Unmeshsphalak
@Pm master:: My additions to the Swim Lane diagram page may have been naive; my purpose is simply to obtain attribution for my creation and development of the concept and artifact. EMorgas (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your work on cleanup! There are a LOT of unnecessary External links listed in articles, aren't there? Some are strictly spam, but sometimes editors inadvertantly list online references as External links, or they think that it's useful to create a mini-Google list in the article. While you're working on removing External links, consider moving all External links to the article's talk page. A couple of truly useful External links can always be added once the article is fully referenced. Here are some wikilinks you might use to explain why you removed External links from an article:
Your username is new, but you seem familiar with Wikipedia, so your help is especially appreciated! Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam is doing all they can to keep articles clean, but they can't do it alone. Welcome! --SueHay 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sue!Pm master 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the UK Team Building Association link from the page about team building. This link had been there for more than a year and the association is a not for profit organisation. You claimed it was commercial. Please can you explain?
>> March 28, 2011 I don't understand why you removed the added citation to the Project Management Professional page. It was a) requested by the page and b) links to a non-commercial site with 20 or so pages of content on the PMP examination.
I am trying to capitalize categories, but once capitalized, the link is lost and it's not recognized by Wikipedia! How can I do it?
{{helpme}} I'm trying to add twinkle, but I'm a bit confused, where is this monobook.js file? Thanks! Pm master 00:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}} Miranda, thanks, I have no intention to fight wars or whatever :). But it looks like a cool tool that I can get used to. Anyway, I've added twinkle's code to the page, yet still I can't see twinkle. Am I missing something?
{{helpme}} Sorry again, I did everything, restarted the browser, cleared my cache. Which page should I go to to see twinkle? I'm really sorry but I'm still not able to see anything. Is there a link that should appear on my site or something?
Check out a "diff" page (see Help:Diff). For example, go here. Click "[rollback]" and see what happens; as Miranda mentioned, WP:TWINKLE should have basic instructions. Note that the script does not work in IE. Also, please read through the definition of vandalism and take a look at the warning templates (which are strongly, strongly encouraged for use.) Best of luck, GracenotesT § 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! just wow! Thanks guys and girls! Pm master 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed an external link to this website: www.bealeader from the following article Leadership. My point was that the website had no content of its own (and it was only a one page site), someone re-added the link, saying that the "The content is the guide to the sites". I was reading WP:EL carefully and I wasn't sure what to do... Shall the link to stay or go? Thanks for your help. Pm master 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comments I added in the talk section of the team building article. I am annoyed by the overzealous editing of links to valuable content. --executiveoasis 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}} Hi, it seems that the article Team building has been reduced to a stub by a user claiming that the whole thing is a spam. The article was not bad, granted it had some spam but I don't think this is enough reason to stubify it... I don't think this action is helpful to wikipedia. Help please...
Revert the article back to the edit before the edit you mentioned, to do this, just click the history tab, click the cur button on the edit before the edit you mentioned, copy all the text in yellow and the gray near yellow, click the edit tab, and paste all that text and press sumbit! Need more help? Put the help me template back on this page! - ~VNinja~ 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}}
Hi, sorry guys/girls to disturb you about this, but since I'm relatively new about to Wikipedia, I still need help. I reverted the edits of this user Busy Stubber on an article called Earned Value Management, the problem is that he took it personally and he's accusing me of being the same person who actually was against removing the article at the first time (please see his socket puppet section below). I've seen other edits by this user and he doesn't seem to have a very good spirit when dealing with people and throwing accusations here & there. I want to report this user, but I'm not sure where this status falls, is it vandalism or something else.I appreciate your help. Thanks.
It appears that you are in the early stages of an edit war. Discuss it with Busy Stubber on the talk page, and look for his reasoning. If he assumes bad faith or is unwilling to work towards a solution, drop a note on my talk page and I'll introduce you to the various options you'll have. It might be worth discussing it with him on his talk page. Removing template.
Have a nice day,
The Rhymesmith 04:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 04:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why my citation and changes were deleted and was reverted to the previous state when the information there was incorrect. I changed the percentage assigned to different sections as per the recent guidelines. What is there is incorrect. Besides, I also added that the number of questions asked is 200 but out of that 25 questions are pretest and as such are not marked. What is the trouble with that????
hi pm master, the notation "Leadership Psychology" im my oppinion, the notation (which has been there since 2006) belongs in wikipedia because, that so far is the only article that addresses leadership through adjustments to environment. that is a valid process and and many large organisations subscribe to it. "self promotion", there is a quotation by me yes (is that self promotion - there are many experts quoted on wikipedia) - also, that quote has appeared on numorous blogs around the world. i would assume that means people find it useful.
if you have any suggestions on making the notation more to your liking, please let me know
Carmaz 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pm master, After reviewing the policy on external links at WP:EL, I agree with some of the changes that you have made. I merely want to caution you on one point, don't marginalize spamming by applying the term were it does not apply; it is the equivalent of calling juvenile vandalism as terrorism. We’ll lose the impact to fight spamming on a large scale if we nitpick on minor problems.
{{helpme}}
The Leadership article is in desperate need of a Wikifairy. I'm trying to locate an active one with no luck. Could you please help me on this one? Thanks! Pm master 00:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
I noticed that you removed links to Monte Carlo Simulation and List of Project Management Software from this article. I am unclear as to why this was done as both are relevant to risk management and should be included in the section to 'See Also'. Please let me know your thoughts on this.--Tilleyg (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also removed a recently added section on risk equalization at market level. You seem to think that this is not risk management, presumably because it is not what most individuals or companies faces with risk do. But I would argue that at the level of society this is a risk management process because it is intended to share risks (or stricly speaking the cost burden of unevenly distributed risks) amongs all members of society by a financial re-allocation of insured risks known as risk equalization. It may not fit into the textbook defintition given above it in the text but then writer of that text did not write the definitive text on risk management for all time. If you do not think this is risk management, please tell me what you think it is and where it should be explained in WP. To me Risk Management is exactly the right context for this.--Tom (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
autorun demonburrito (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed, thanks fixing it. Don't know how it happened.Pm master 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I commented on your discussion on the Project Management Scheduling Page.
May want to take in Account that projects range in size from a few hundred dollars to tens of billions. Some of those require a staff of professional schedulers to manage. Project management is a skill set, not an industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 25 September 2009
I saw that you reverted my changes to this article, but your edit summary ("no need to stubify the article") didn't give me enough information to understand why. I've reverted it back, and gone into detail about each edit at Talk:Project Management Body of Knowledge/Archives/2009#October 2009 cleanup. If you have any issues with my edits or want to change things back, can we discuss it there? Thanks, Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to discuss it here, we'll discuss it on the page itself. Thanks. Pm master 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Pm master. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello and good day! I would like to advise you to add citations and references to the article in order to back up information about it. I understand you claim it is important and will simply be recognised by experts in the field, however Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which should be accessible by everyone, and as such it is policy to have articles written in such a way that they are suitable for those interested in the topic, no just experts who already know about it. Additionally, information that is not verified cannot be kept in the page. Rather than revert other editors who are attempting to improve the article, please add references and citations to back segments up when re-adding them. Also please assume good faith of other editors, they are not attempting to vandalise the project, they are attempting to improve it, just as you are, and thus the best results will be achieved by working together and on project guidelines and concensus. Thank you for your time, and happy editing! --Taelus (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PM Master. I note that you recently removed the external link to the Visual PMBOK(r) Guide from the PMBOK article. Could you please reevaluate this decision on the basis of the value added by jospar.com? While it is a condition of jospar.com's license agreement with PMI that people sign up for the site -- the Visual PMBOK(r) Guide delivers surprising value for free to people who are attempting to master the PMBOK. I invite you to signup at jospar.com and evaluate the value delivered for free by the Visual PMBOK(r) Guide. Davidjosparcom (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy PM Master, How is a creative commons site with this much content freely available for the taking spam? I hate spam links as much as the next guy and it surely is not my intent to spam wikipedia, however I was trying to link in relevant sections. Thanks in advance for your kind reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.231.123 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I thought I would draw your attention to this article as you were involved in discussions about its notability: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Guide_to_the_Project_Management_Body_of_Knowledge It has been nominated for deletion, feel free to comment on the relevant project page. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely familiar with TW but you questioned my edits and external links and it appears that you deleted them without first checking them out. All external links went to non-commercial or government entities that are the centers of excellence on this topic. EVM originated in U.S. DoD and many of the pioneers and original research of the methodology needs to be made available in the entry. The books that I listed (aside from my not having a direct connection to those books and references) are considered to be the core guidance on the topic. Many of the authors give their publications away at no charge when requested. NDIA PMSC, for example, provides specific guidance to commercial industry on EVM implementation under government contracting and works with government agencies to clarify the guidance. PMI and the College of Performance Management are viewed in the U.S. as the non-profit professional organizations that have the core responsibility for ensuring quality and refereeing development of the process. I understand that there has been abuse of the site in the past and through LinkedIn I was one of the individuals who dealt with that issue. But the edits provided should be considered non-controversial and certainly are not entirely commercial in nature with the possible exception of the books listed. Of course, then Wikipedia should probably not reference books by, say, historians on any historical topic or mathematicians on any mathematical subject. I'll be happy to provide specifics but I'm not using TW.Nicholas Pisano (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mar 15 2010 you removed my paraphrase of a Dilbert cartoon satirizing CMMI and left the following message on my talk page.
I assert that Scott Adams is a widely respected cynic on business management, which he expresses in the form of a cartoon strip. In the strip about CMMI he makes a valid cynical point. There needs to be someway of expressing such cynical viewpoints in Wikipedia articles so that promoters of concepts don't have carte blanche, which appears to be case in the CMMI article. IMHO, it is virtually an advertisement by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at CMU. This is a serious NPOV issue and should be addressed in the CMMI article. Do you have any ideas for doing this? Roesser (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PM Master. Over, the years, I have uploaded quite a bit of material to Wikipedia, including but not limited to the PM pages. Most of this info is still there. One issue that has always bugged me with the Critical Path Method page is the (obsolete) AOA diagram (other contributors to the page over the years have also criticized this). So yesterday I spent several hours creating and uploading a PNG file of an AON diagram. I included not just float, but critical path drag computations, based on my book Total Project Control (John Wiley & Sons, 1999) and on an article by William Duncan (author of the 1996 PMBOK Guide), both of which I referenced. Drag computation is an important addition to critical path quantification, and there are even software packages that compute it. You removed the article with a comment somewhat to the effect of "Don't advertize your website." Believe me, my goal is not to advertise either myself nor my website (which was not mentioned), but to promote better project management (a cause that I believe is aided by the Total Project Control methods in general and critical path drag computation in specific). Drag exists on every critical path -- one can choose to ignore it, or to compute and manage it, but it's always there. Computing and managing it can lead to shorter and more efficient schedules, more targeted schedule recovery techniques, and money saved (and in certain applications, lives saved). I am happy to have my name, as well as the names of my book and articles, removed from the page -- I included them as reference to show that there is a published record. There are many organizations using these techniques, and PM software packages (with which I have no financial arrangement) that compute drag. You seem like an eminently reasonable person -- please tell me what changes I could make to my edit that would let you allow inclusion of the critical path drag computation. (Also, I really feel the AON diagram is an important inclusion.) Thanks, NuggetKiwi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuggetkiwi (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, "Who is Remington Rand," which I cited as a participant in the development of the Critical Path Method (CPM). I cited a paper, Critical-Path Planning and Scheduling, presented by James E. Kelley of Remington Rand and Morgan R. Walker of DuPont, and published in the 1959 Proceedings of the Eastern Joint Computer Conference. These two gentlemen were the principle parties in the development of computerized implementations of CPM in the late 1950's. Remington Rand was the company that developed the UNIVAC I, 1103A, and 1105 with Census Bureau configuration, models for which CPM programs were written.
Please be patient with me as I take my first steps as a Wikipedian. I respectfully request restoration of the changes and citations I contributed to the article on the Critical Path Method. I look forward to your comments and questions.
Schedulosophy (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to make quite a few more changes, a little at a time. So, we'll be chatting more, I am sure. I will appreciate you oversight. Schedulosophy (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pm Master, I am writing to ask for your assistance in editing an article since it looks like you know quite a bit about project management, write and edit based on your opinions, and also since RHaworth suggested I reach out to someone not associated with my company to get unbiased comments and help in getting the page included.
First some background: I work for a company that produces project management software called ManagePro. A Managepro page has been put up in the past and deleted for advertising. I recreated the page under my user page (Tswelch) to make edits. Someone then userfied the page to Tswelch/ManagePro. I asked RHaworth to read the article and make suggestions. He then said I was a sockpuppet for Rbrim and Scanplan and asked if I had done what he suggested (seek unbiased advice and help from another wikipedian).
Can you please take a look at this article User:Tswelch/ManagePro and offer any suggestions to me that might get it approved for inclusion on wikipedia? Yes, I do work for the company, but the software is notable and worthy of mention. I believe you will give your honest opinion, even if that opinion is that it is hopeless to get ManagePro mentioned in wikipedia. Thank you. Tswelch (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Tswelch[reply]
Pm Master, I am writing to ask for your assistance in editing an article since it looks like you know quite a bit about project management, write and edit based on your opinions, and also since RHaworth suggested I reach out to someone not associated with my company to get unbiased comments and help in getting the page included.
First some background: I work for a company that produces project management software called ManagePro. A Managepro page has been put up in the past and deleted for advertising. I recreated the page under my user page (Tswelch) to make edits. Someone then userfied the page to Tswelch/ManagePro. I asked RHaworth to read the article and make suggestions. He then said I was a sockpuppet for Rbrim and Scanplan and asked if I had done what he suggested (seek unbiased advice and help from another wikipedian).
Can you please take a look at this article User:Tswelch/ManagePro and offer any suggestions to me that might get it approved for inclusion on wikipedia? Yes, I do work for the company, but the software is notable and worthy of mention. I believe you will give your honest opinion, even if that opinion is that it is hopeless to get ManagePro mentioned in wikipedia. Thank you. Tswelch (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Tswelch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.39.69 (talk) [reply]
Pm Master, I have re-written the ManagePro page at User:Tswelch/managepro and added several reference articles. Can you please take a look at it? I still feel it needs more editing, but I'm also ready for some feedback. Thanks in advance. Tswelch (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Tswelch[reply]
Pm Master, Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the box section at the bottom and changed the criticism section by adding quotes. Do you think it would be better to just write out the limitations of the software, or leave the remarks as they are? 68.116.39.69 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Tswelch[reply]
Hi Pm Master, I have requested feedback in the Request for feedback area here, but have not gotten any response yet. I know everyone that contributes is volunteering and it can take awhile. I've made changes based on what you and another wikipedian suggested and feel the article is much improved. If you feel the page is within wikipedia's standards, do you mind speaking with RHaworth? Tswelch (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Tswelch[reply]
Pm Master, I regret that you think I'm trying to trap you in some way. I was following the advice given to me by RHworth here. I am not a spammer and I am not a sockpuppet. I was upfront and informed you of the history of trying to get this article included in Wikipedia. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but it looks like there is a deletion review process available. I will try that avenue. Again, I apologize that you think I'm trying to manipulate you or wikipedia. Tswelch (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Tswelch[reply]
I have nominated ManagePro, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ManagePro. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pm master 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted the article myself as the original article write is a suspected sockpuppet. I don't want to be part of this... Pm master 21:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I don't know if you're aware, but your signature should link to either your userpage or your user talkpage (or both if you like), per WP:SIGLINK. Regards, --BelovedFreak 22:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article Change management has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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 {{dated prod}}
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 {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PM Master. Thanks for your input on the "disaster recovery" page. I've tried using the talk page for disaster recovery to get input on making some major changes to this article, but up until now I've only had a long discussion about the external links and haven't had any input re the article content. The article is not in a great state at the moment, and I'm slowly trying to make some changes as time allows. But even if the opinion is different to mine, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the content of this article and have some input on making it better.
I agree that the section "General steps to follow while creating BCP/DRP" is pretty good and so understand why you reverted to the version including this section. However Wikipedia specifically states that it is not meant to be a how-to, so I feel that as good as this section is, it doesn't fit the objectives of Wikipedia.
I'd also appreciate your input on a very big question regarding this article. The term 'disaster recovery' (DR) is used interchangeably with "business continuity" (BC) by some people (mainly in North America). Others differentiate 'disaster recovery' as being a subset of 'business continuity' (such as in Europe), with disaster recovery referring to IT aspects of business continuity, while business continuity covers all aspects of preparing a business for an adverse advent. If the Wikipedia article is written as these terms being the same, then we should have either a DR or BC article but not both. Otherwise if we have a DR and a BC article then we should differentiate between them (which kind of comes back to this section under discussion, since it refers to DRP and BCP as the same thing).
I'd appreciate your input on the 'disaster recovery' talk page.
Thanks
Dr-pro (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would appreciate it if you explained to me why you completely reverted my additions to the TQM article. The article you reverted back to includes wrong information and lacks citations. I welcome improvements but don't see your revert as an improvement to the page. What can I fix to make it to your liking? Dmalsobrook27 (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the link you removed qualifies as SPAM. I checked it earlier and there's no advertising, it's just a site that lists metrics for a number of open source projects. It's particularly useful and doesn't add information to the article, but it's certainly not SPAM. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I previously reverted an edit you made on the disaster recovery page and explained why (on this your talk page and also on the disaster recovery discussion/talk page), but I see that you again reverted to a previous version without explaining why on this page or on the disaster recovery talk page. Before changing the disaster recovery page again please discuss on the discussion page. Thanks. Dr-pro (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a note off on the talk page there about the article's status. Can you get back to me on it? Thinking of redirecting it again, or perhaps AfDing it, but willing to talk it over. SnowFire (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! First, thanks for removing the empty "references", I didn't realize it was still in there...
I copied the list of examples from the German wikipedia, there it did not seem to embarass anybody. When I look up a Wikipedia article, I'm happy to get as much information as possible, and when I look up an article about software deployment, I am even happier if there are examples, so I can go on with my search. Why would you delete such a list which is of interest to many people? I don't want to just undo your change as you seem to be a lot longer in wikipedia business as I am, but I am certainly not of the opinion that such a listing is irrelevant.
Pinguinoverde (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following your revert of my TQM rewrite, I've put a proposed new rewrite on the talk page. The new rewrite does not change the writing style and does not remove any content except where that content is false, contradictory, tautological, or patent nonsense. Please take a look and confirm you're okay with it, and then one of us can update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.147.228 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I got your message on my talk page, but was unsure whether you are watching it or not, so I am adding my thoughts here as well.
Actually, my intention was far from spamming Wikipedia. I understand however that some edits I did are considered as such, and I don't want to argue here. However, I cannot understand that in the same go that you removed inappropriate external links, you also removed internal links and marked the corresponding edits as spam. I have undone these deletions (they were carried out automatically, I suppose), and have left explaining comments with each.
ZweiOhren (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you removed two links to scientific work on hybrid organizations from the Hybrid organization page as 'low content links'. Could you explain why you feel they are low content? Both sites are non-commercial, and discuss academic studies of hybrid organizations. --Philip1978 (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
The Modest Barnstar | |
Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Project Management Professional. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please take a moment to look up what we mean by vandalism, and use edit summaries with more caution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I made a mistake as I was referring to the data of 2010 and not 2011 where the percentages were mentioned. But still the part about 200 questions out of which 25 questions being pretest is correct. Why was that deleted?? And certainly it was no way an act of vandalism. I think it would help students to know that 25 questions out of 200 are pretest and as such they will only be marked for 175 questions.
Hi! According to WP:SIGLINK, editors' signatures are required to contain a link to either their userpage or their talkpage. Yours doesn't currently – please could you change this? If you're not sure how to do that, there are instructions available at WP:CUSTOMSIG. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 08:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pm master - ManagePro is up and running again. My POV about this (and just abouts everthinks else) is of course, 無 - --Shirt58 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ManagePro 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/ManagePro 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 good 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. UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On May 11, changes to Tuckman's stages of group development were reversed.
Can you identify to me the portions that were in violation of some copyright? Thanx Skipper Tryon2 (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pm master
PRIME is a newer method and it follows that not too many people have heard about it, it is still in the first year. I would expect Wikipedia not only to cover long established methods, but also newer approaches to stay up-to-date. Just deleting because you have not heard of it, seems - at least to me - not fact based. What would be the treshold of awareness or usage of a method to be included? To my person: I am a fellow project manager, too. And I have given support to create this project management method. Zugerbueb (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful not to mark edits like this oneasminor, as they should be subject to peer review. Edits that change the articles meaning should be marked as minor only when they're obvious vandalism, which was not the case. Diego (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Pmrich (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. The article has already been rewritten. The question was really if you had input or specific improvements. Pmrich (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pm master,
You have made a mistake in your commentary on my page contribution to Construction Management.
Before you comment on an original work you should first read it and learn from it before you criticize the work. There are no citations or credits because it is based on my knowledge and years of experience in the profession.
So take a deep breath and read my post, maybe you will benefit from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jskeith (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pm Master, To my knowledge I've never posted my email or business information on Wikipedia. Apparently you have seen it somewhere. I believe I did post my contact information to bunnyhop and logicalcowboy for their help with the article. The article itself makes no reference to any business or company. It does thoroughly define the profession of a Construction Manager and construction management as a delivery modality. If wikipedia wants to maintain any credibility at all especially on this CM topic you should reconsider your position on deleting this topic it is riddled with errors and from my conversation with CMAA they have not authorized any contribution to wikipedia on this topic. Also, the references ton the Construction Management topic lead to a Texas legislative document and PM Hut neither of these are authorities on the topic.
I would like to think someone in your position is a little more pragmatic in your judgments than what I've seen so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jskeith (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your spurious accusation of "vandalism" at [1] makes be begin to doubt your Good Faith. Is there some external reason why links to pmhut.com are precious to you? 69.1.23.134 (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pm master, could you take a look at the latest discussion on the project management talk page, and comment. User:Tony1 doesn't seem to agree on anything I say, for example my first and latest statement:
Now I know lay-out design is no exact science, but these are simple basics of Wikipedia article design. Could you comment on this. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why you thought Black Swan Blindness was spam. Note that it has popped back at black swan blindness. I am unwilling even to tag it for deletion. If you feel it should be deleted, I suggest AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the only reference, so I had to tag the article. --THEFOUNDERSINTENT PRAISE 11:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Since the University of Wisconsin reference is the one you have disputed, I think the two references for the 3rd paragraph, second sentence should be retained including the clause "and people-related skills to minimize the risks of project failure". People-related issues affect project schedules in a major manner.
By your criteria, the original paragraph that I have edited came from the Stellman & Greene Consulting LLC website which is promoting its consulting services and does not have any in-text citations.
On the other hand, one reference that you have essentially deleted came from a peer reviewed journal. It was an examination of a survey of 55 IT project managers and 19 experts with 21 references and citations where appropriate.
Thank you.
Pmresource (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert as you asked; but please explain why it doesn't make sense. Tony (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Executive pay |
I was hoping that I can explain the changes that I had made to the Executive pay page which you have removed. If you want me to re-phrase them, I can give it a try; I had already removed the external link. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia formatting and so even small tasks such as sending you a message are complex for me! Thanks. Shakunneed (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi Pm master,
On 30 October 2011, you reverted a change I did to the Project Management Professional article, with a reason that only confirmed you had reverted it. As I have said in the article's discussion page, as the article stands now, it is outdated (domains are wrong, percentages are wrong, reference to exam outline is to obsolete version). Could you please elaborate on the article's discussion page?
Thanks, Koornti (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone that's worked on it, you might want to check the latest edit of performance indicator and see what you think. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pm master, Wikipedia-articles currently have over 100 links to articles on PMhut, a number of those links seemn to have been inserted by you. As far as I can tell PMhut is a self-publishing website, without any peer review or notability requirements, and such would not pass the WP:RS requirements, and instead fall under WP:SPS. The exception of course would be PMhut articles that have been contributed by writers who are themselves notable. Have you considered this? Do you believe PMhut in and of itself with all of its articles is a reliable source, and if yes, on what basis.
Also: it seems that at least some of the PMhut links have been entered not by regulars, like yourself, but by one-time-use accounts, which makes it seem like the actual article authors may have come here to add a link to their article. Your thoughts and opinions would be highly appreciated. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pm! I know newcomers are yummy but save some for the rest of us, okay? This guy means well, I'm sure, but is probably limited in his command of English, and doesn't know how to contribute here, yet, besides. Probably a competence issue, but if people get shut down harshly in their first edit or two, many will be tempted to turn to overt vandalism, and none of us wants that. I reverted him once, without posting to his talk, myself, so my bad, too, of course. Hopefully the note I posted to his talk will help; if he wants to follow up on my suggestion there, I wouldn't see the harm in it; let him have something to be proud of, instead of being told he can't play at all. That's my suggestion, anyway; YMMV. If you feel like replying, I've temporarily watchlisted your page. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I have reverted your reversion of me on Centralisation, the page previously used the 's' spelling of Centralisation/Centralization, but was changed without summary. As the page is spelt with the 's', I think it makes sense to use the 's' spelling. Bevo74 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:SMART criteria#Requested move. We could definitely use some additional input. Yaris678 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2013 (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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tariq ibn Ziyad. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. clpo13(talk) 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must have forgotten about WP:BRD in your two-year absence from Wikipedia. You have to justify your changes when challenged. clpo13(talk) 00:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Amaury. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest that you stop warning / templating users entirely at this time. SQLQuery me! 05:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are an administrator, then can you please ask them to stop closing my posts in the notice page without even having someone looking at them? This is very serious and I am attacked left and right because I'm bringing up something very critical to Wikipedia. Also, please if you are an administrator, check my claims. Thanks Pm master (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]