Jump to content

User talk:Pm master

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note on Edit Wars

[edit]

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]

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Pm master! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Kuru talk 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Why my Page is reverted?

[edit]

@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]

Hi, Wikipedia is not the place to promote surveys, regardless of the reason Pm master (talk) 11:23, 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]

There are actually 2 problems with your edit: Unreliable source and you are promoting your own website/article. Pm master (talk) 08:09, 23 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]

[edit]

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?

Hi! I'm assuming you're talking about the following: www.teambuilding. I checked this website and I agree with you, the link is not 100% commercial (though you're hinting somewhere you're gonna charge for membership beyond the first year). However, the problem is that I was not able to see this link other than just a promotion to this site. This website has virtually no content of its own... In case you're interested in adding relevant links to wikipedia, please check the WP:EL! Thanks! Pm master 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>> 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.

helpme

[edit]

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?

I am not sure what you mean, could you provide an example and put back {{helpme}} when you do so we know to check back.--Commander Keane 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pm master, check WP:NAME for capitalization of article titles and capitalization within articles. Check WP:CAT for categorizations and naming conventions. I don't think you'll be able to add new categories until you have a longer user record, and capitalization in Wikipedia has rules. If you truly need a new category, drop me a message on my discussion page and I'll help if I can. --SueHay 03:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{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]

The monobook file is located here: User:Pm master/monobook.js. Miranda 01:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you shouldn't be vandal fighting just yet, since you are new. However, you should be familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's five pillars. Miranda 01:01, 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?

Clear your cache, and restart your browser. Miranda 01:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{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?

The instructions should be shown on WP:TWINKLE on how to install the tool. Miranda 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I've taken a try at deleting it. The referenced site looks like a commercial site consisting of links to other commercial site which would be deleteable as linkspam if added individually. You were perfectly justified in deleting it in my admittedly fallible opinion. --Finngall talk 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Finngall Pm master 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the link got returned again, so I asked for another opinion from a more experienced editor (my sister, actually). She replaced the link with one from the Open Directory Project--the site itself is far less commercial and includes far more links to other leadership articles. If the original link was placed in good faith, then those who placed it should be satisfied. If not and the other link is returned, then they're obviously linkspamming and should be slapped down accordingly. Thanks again, and take care. --Finngall talk 16:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I noticed that... Hopefully that guy will get eventually tired. Thanks again! --Pm master 22:48, 15 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 VenomousNinja, and thanks for your help, the problem is I don't want to have a conflict with the user who stubified the article. I'm trying my best to do things the right way here. What do you suggest?
Raise the problem up in the talk page of the article in order to avoid a reversion war. Miranda 04:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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]


Hi The Rhymesmith, thanks a lot for your help. I discussed the issue with him and I feel he's going to be cooperative and everything will be ok once again. Thanks a lot for your help! Pm master 04:19, 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????

reference to change on leadership article

[edit]

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]

Hi Carmaz, thanks a lot for your answer. It's good that you agree with me that there's self-promotion there. The thing is, the leadership article needs a complete rewrite, it's very long with a lot of information that is really not relevant. I really suggest you take a shot at rewriting, or at least modifying the article in order to make it meet the wikipedia standards. I think your experience would be very beneficial. Since you're very famous on the subject, you don't need to self-promote yourself, other contributors will write about you and your work (I have to tell you I personally visited your website and I think you're quite experienced). One thing I haven't mentioned is that the information you added is subjective (I don't know if you agree with me on this one) and, consequently, not really encyclopedic. Thanks! Pm master 04:44, 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.

Hi and thank you for contacting me! The main problem is that you were citing a small blog post as a reference. Pm master 21:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme request

[edit]

{{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)

I'd say it needs a rewrite more than a wikifairy. If you do want to find one, check the attached category for someone who's around. However, I'd suggest that leaving a message on the talk page for the business wikiproject might be more effective. --Sopoforic 02:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Management

[edit]

{{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 Tom... I answered in the talk page of the article. Pm master 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

[edit]

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]

bad twinkle edit

[edit]

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)

Project Scheduling

[edit]

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

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

[edit]

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.

Regarding reverts to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

[edit]

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]

Please disengage with the other users attempting to improve the page. The other users are acting in good faith in order to improve the project, and are indeed following policy. Please avoid assuming bad faith of other editors, they are only trying to help. As soon as the article is well referenced, then I am sure that all will be in agreement with you. Good luck and happy editing. --Taelus (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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]

Hi David, there are 2 problems with your link: 1) It's 100% commercial, and 2) there's a conflict of interest as you seem to own the site. Thanks for your understanding. Pm master 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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]

Your recent edits

[edit]

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]

Notification of AfD of potential interest.

[edit]

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]

Earned Value Management Edits

[edit]

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]

I will revert back my edits, my mistake. Since your username is new and you added a lot of links I figured you added spam. I have one problem though with the PMI College of Performance management, which is just a link to a commercial website. Please review the link to this website, thanks.
Thank you very much for accepting the edits. The PMI CPM website may appear to be a commercial website by the outside observer but it is the website of a non-profit, almost entirely volunteer professional organization. They do not have a large full time staff. Like many non-profits in the U.S. the organization generates revenue through advertising from commercial entities on its website and in its publications. Non-profits cannot depend solely on contributions or membership fees. Full disclosure: I have been a member of PMI CPM going back many years to when I was an active duty U.S. Navy Commander. The organization began life as PMA (the Performance Management Association) and merged with PMI when that organization became the de facto leader among professional organizations in the U.S. for the project management profession. I also served on the board of PMI CPM as a volunteer (all board members have real jobs and put in many hours a week of volunteer work because of their commitment to the development of the profession) and I was the V.P. of Communications. In my role there I was the editor of Measurable News and in charge of the website. I created a firewall between the commercial interests involved in the organization and the professional development aspects. I think during my tenure that I was known as being an honest broker, given the competing interests and self-interest found in any professional organization. For example, despite the controversy regarding it I actively encouraged new contributions to the literature and published much of the first research regarding Earned Schedule, despite my own personal misgivings regarding the validity of the concept. Aside from PMI CPM I am also a member of NDIA, AACE, SCEA, PMI and NCMA. Thus, my interests are not parochial. Both civilian and government personnel in the project management profession (and the EV sub-category) participate in these organizations. In some cases the U.S. federal agencies have actively (and informally) delegated roles to these professional organizations to augment EVM and PM guidance. For example, the NDIA PMSC has an implementation guide that is coordinated with the federal agencies such as OMB and DCMA to clarify detailed issues of implementation in private industry when government contractual language specifies the use of EVM. So there are not always clear cut lines in the profession, which is why I expanded the section to take into account the relevant sources given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that will draw different levels of expertise. I have worked in academics and feel that it is always a good idea to point people in the right direction and let them then draw their own conclusions, as long as we hone to the standards of objectivity and intellectual integrity. I would like to add a bit more content in a couple of places. For example, a seminal document in EVM is the work of Dr. David Christensen from 1993 where he was invited to come into the U.S. DoD and review project performance on key programs to determine the point at which cost and schedule trends could be significantly influenced. This original research, which was augmented a few years later, is considered the cornerstone of why we use techniques like EV in noting cost and schedule performance and how to leverage new technologies to provide better and faster information before being locked in to a particular result. Almost all research on EVM since that time refers back to Dr. Christensen's study. This study can only be found on the PMI CPM website library, btw. Back when the OUSD(AT&L) website fell into disrepair PMI CPM became the recipient of much of the content from that site. Thus, this is another service provided by that organization that can only be provided by raising the necessary funds. Final disclosure so that you understand my perspective and possible biases: I am the CEO of Safran North America, which is a project management software manufacturer. EVM is a subset of what we do though most of our income derives from commercial project management. My personal involvement in the EV profession goes back 25 years to when I was a U.S. Navy program manager and contracting officer. I retired from the Navy in 1997 and have worked for C/S Solutions, Deltek and now SNA--all software companies. So I would not undermine my own integrity by blatantly attempting self-promotion on Wikipedia. I've worked too long and hard to establish my professional reputation. I do appreciate your watchdog role and understand that it is needed given the previous self-promotion and abuse that has occured in many entries.Nicholas Pisano (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMMI

[edit]

Mar 15 2010 you removed my paraphrase of a Dilbert cartoon satirizing CMMI and left the following message on my talk page.

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to CMMI. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Dilbert is not a reliable metric to assess CMMI, thank you. Pm master 14:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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, I am quite familiar with Diblert, but I think it still hasn't reached an encyclopedic status, where we quote lines from cartoons to post on serious articles. If you think the article is not balanced then please quote from another source (I'm sure if the claim is legitimate then there are multiple sources supporting it). I don't think quoting a cartoon expressing its opinion on something helps the article. Again, if you don't agree with the CMMI article as it is right now, please find a serious reference to quote from.Pm master 19:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Reading the CMMI article again, I totally agree it is not balanced, but again, cartoons are not the best reference in this context.

Critical Path Method

[edit]

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]

Hi, thanks for the info. I have reverted my revert, your edits are now visible. Take care and please accept my thanks for making the article better. Pm master 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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]

Need some advice

[edit]

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]

    • You will see that this message was mistakenly posted in "critical path method" above. When I tried to remove it from that section, I was disallowed because the edit was seen as un-constructive.68.116.39.69 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Tswelch[reply]
Hi Tswelch, my personal opinion is that your product is worth having an article on Wikipedia. I advise you take a look at the following pages Wrike and Clarizen to have an idea on how to create a better, more objective article. It's very important to reference your article from reputable websites (you already did that, but more is always better) and the article has to be objective. You have to understand the editors are doing their job, it is against Wikipedia terms to create an article about your company. Please explain on the talk page after you create the article why it should be there. Let me know after you create it. Allow me to have a conversation with the above editor on your behalf. Take care!

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]

Hi Tswelch, would it be possible for you to fix the info box (the last section)? The Criticism section needs to be completely re-written, it looks like a review.

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]

Hi, sorry for the delay. I have added the article and advised RHaworth. Please understand that although I believe that this article deserves to be on Wikipedia, I will not fight for it to remain there. If RHaworth or any other editor still deem that the article is not acceptable, they may remove it. Also I have noted some discrepencies in the article, you say that the company was founded in 1998 in the info box, while in the body of the article you say it's 1992, and the computer shopper article is dated 1992 as well. Please take a look or explain here.
Hi again Tswelch, unfortunately because your account is a suspected sockpuppet, I have decided to remove the article again from Wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion, but it was only after I added the article that I checked your user. Thanks for your understanding. Pm master 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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]

Articles for deletion nomination of ManagePro

[edit]

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)

Your signature

[edit]

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]

Proposed deletion of Change management

[edit]

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

There might be a notable topic here, or likelier a couple of notable topics that should be disambiguated ("change management" as in version control; "change management" for organizations). But the bulk of this article is unreferenced and unreadable vaporing: trivial, tautological, and uninformative prose of the kind that gives you a headache when you try to read it. Even the "referenced" bits are nonsense, too: The field of change management grew from the recognition that organizations are composed of people. And the behaviors of people make up the outputs of an organization. Betcha had to go to college to figure that out.

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]

Thanks for informing me, I'll fix the article and get back to you....
I did some changes to the article and referenced it better, as well as removing the nonsense. As I said on the article talk page, it still has a long way to go... It is notable though Pm master 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Disaster Recovery article

[edit]

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]

TQM revert

[edit]

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 see now you made a note that say I violated copyright laws. Can we just delete that part. I was unaware that I did this. I cited everything I used. Dmalsobrook27 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Software metric

[edit]

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 Walter, I have visited the link, and I was redirected to a polish website that seems to contain some random experiments by students that are not beneficial at all to the readers of the article. Let me know if you think otherwise. Pm master 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Disaster Recovery Article

[edit]

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]

Conflict management article

[edit]

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]

Your edit of software deployment article

[edit]

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]

Hi, you're right. I have reverted my change. Pm master 00:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TQM rewrite

[edit]

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]

April 2011

[edit]

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, Obviously you are the owner of that website/product. You can't promote your own product/website on Wikpedia, regardless of how good and popular it is. Pm master 11:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Hybrid organization

[edit]

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]

Thank you

[edit]
The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

[edit]

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]

Hello, the problem with that edit is that it was changing some information backed up by some official information on PMI's website (claiming that the previous information was wrong), see http://www.pmi.org/Certification/~/media/PDF/Certifications/pdc_pmphandbook.ashx . This particular edit can be very harmful to PMP candidates, as it will make them take a wrong strategy for the PMP exam. Thank you. Pm master 11:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It still doesn't change the fact that the edits have nothing to do with vandalism. The talk page is the place for discussion, which should always be polite and objective. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a set of instructions for students, and if it is used as such, the relevant content can be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 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.

Signature

[edit]

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]

About ManagePro

[edit]

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]

Nomination of ManagePro for deletion

[edit]

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]

Revision history of Tuckman's stages of group development

[edit]

On May 11, changes to Tuckman's stages of group development were reversed.

  1. (cur | prev) 03:12, 11 May 2011 Pm master (talk | contribs) m (9,737 bytes) (Reverted to revision 425535946 by Pm master; rv copyvio from http://www.lightbryan.com/explain/tuckman.html. using TW) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 00:58, 11 May 2011 Skipper Tryon2 (talk | contribs) (31,521 bytes) (format correction) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 00:56, 11 May 2011 Skipper Tryon2 (talk | contribs) (31,523 bytes) (major rewrite adding content and references) (undo)

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]

All of it, just search Google for any sentence in your edit, for example "A second source of criticism concerns the extent of experimental rigor characteristic of the majority".Pm master (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRIME project method

[edit]

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]

Hi Zugerbueb,
Sorry for interrupting, but I know the answer here. This is a returning discussion (for years now) that we don't accept new developments in the field of PM to be mentioned at once in the Project management article. There are to many new developments and they cannot all be covered in that one article. That is why, the project management article only mentions the most notable subjects. Now you already added PRIME to the Glossary of project management and Timeline of project management, and that should be enough (representation of that new subject in Wikipedia). Your main concern should be the Prime project method article, you wrote. It doesn't meet the general notability guideline, see WP:SIGCOV. The fact that you have been cooperated in it's development makes it even more questionable, see WP:COI. It would really help, if you could add some independent sources to the PRIME article. Otherwise we would be forced to really delete it. -- Mdd (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this case is closed. What ever I have written has been deleted (see my talk page). I give up. The intention of writing in Wiki was not to sell and I do not think it would be a good sales channel anyway. I only thought it would have been maybe interesting for other people to know. Anyway, have fun. Zugerbueb (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

[edit]

Please be careful not to mark edits like this one as minor, 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]

Hi! I think I've marked it by mistake. I rarely mark edits as minor, even when they are minor! Thanks for the heads up.Pm master (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Article Rewrite

[edit]

Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Pmrich (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think it needs to be rewritten. The thing is like nearly every other topic on Wikipedia, you can have the same topic in different fields, and that's why you have the "For resource(biology) for example, see this article" at the beginning of many articles Pm master (talk) 08:41, 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]

Construction Management

[edit]

Pm master,

You have made a mistake in your commentary on my page contribution to Construction Management.

  • First what is currently on the Construction Management page is CPM not CM. It is incorrectly titled and a complete misrepresentation of what Construction Management is and it poorly defines Project Management.
  • Second the Construction Management is first a professional discipline not something anyone is qualified to do without an education.
  • CMAA is not the Authority on the profession nor an advocacy group for the degreed Construction Manager.
  • The Construction Management edit that I've placed on the page are strictly factual and do not promote any particular business however does present the CM business model for the profession.

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]

Hi Jskeith, Wikipedia is not a place for original work. Please check its guidelines.Pm master (talk) 07:03, 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]

Yes you did publish your contact information, your title, the website of your commercial company, your email, and the phone number to your commercial company. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConstruction_management&action=historysubmit&diff=443856543&oldid=443855522 . Wikipedia is not your own soapbox. Please don't revert my changes as vandalism. This is your first experience on Wikipedia and it seems that there are a few concepts you don't know about:
  • Wikipedia is the work of many editors (not just one)
  • Wikipedia is not the place for original work. Note that you admit that your edits are original work.
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pm master (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

[edit]

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]

It is vandalism. You are trying to pass "bicycle" as work in the "Work Breakdown Structure". If you have a better example than the one on pmhut.com from a better source then please share it (just don't try to vandalize the article with something that has nothing to do with a WBS) and remove the old one. Again, just don't try to add wrong stuff to Wikipedia. Pm master (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project management lay out

[edit]

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:

  • Wikipedia is an interactive medium, and figures can be read by clicking on them
  • With lay-out we should look at FA as example

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]

Hi Mdd, I totally agree with you. I have joined the conversation's on the article's talk page. Tony has made some changes to the article. The article is waiting for your feedback at the moment.Pm master (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blind swan

[edit]

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]

I should have explained. The problem with this article that it was promoting an author who was spamming Wikipedia with his hbr article. There were nearly a dozen articles spammed by the same hbr article.Pm master (talk)

Statement of Work

[edit]

You removed the only reference, so I had to tag the article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 11:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule (project management)

[edit]

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]

Revert request

[edit]

I will revert as you asked; but please explain why it doesn't make sense. Tony (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got it all wrong, having checked out the edits properly. Seems OK as you have it now. Tony (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Executive pay

[edit]
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]

Project Management Professional

[edit]

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]

Performance indicator

[edit]

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]

Thanks, I have reverted the edits, I don't know how come I let this one slip. Pm master (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's back.... Waleswatcher (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't see anything wrong with that edit. Pm master (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


PMhut as reliable source?

[edit]

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]

Yes, they're tasty, but ...

[edit]

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]

You're probably right. I have to say that the whole sentence, even before the edit, is utter nonsense. Pm master (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centralisation

[edit]

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]

I think we better make it centralization - but it's OK now. Pm master (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SMART criteria#Requested move

[edit]

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]

Update: Requesting a move was the wrong process. We are now discussing the title of the article at Talk:SMART criteria#Another discussion about the article title. The discussion is currently revolving around whether to go with SMART objectives, which is more formal and business oriented or SMART goals which is the more commonly used term, at least as far as Google Books is concerned. Yaris678 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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]

November 2016

[edit]

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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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]

Stop icon 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]

@Amaury: PM isn't listening to anyone atm, if he/she really understood then they would have heeded @Drmies:'s advice above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templating

[edit]

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]

I am an administrator. Other administrators have seen your threads as well. And, have asked you to stop. The first person to close your thread was an administrator. SQLQuery me! 05:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that you not once assumed good faith among other editors who saw (looked), and READ your differences. I hope you can cool down and come back to editing Wikipedia in a constructive way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a notice doesn't seem to have been placed here (perhaps an e-mail was sent out?), I'm pointing out to you that an admin other than Drmies has extended your block to "indefinite" as a probable compromised account. See this thread on AN/I for the details. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pm_master&oldid=1172483760"