User talk:Primium mobile

Welcome!

Hello, Primium mobile, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me or an experienced wikipedian like Sango123 and JoanneB and leave your message on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Once you've become an experienced Wikipedian, please take your time to visit this page:

WikiProjects

Anonymous _Anonymous

Don't forget to sign your posts

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching my typo at Vanessa Paradis! Safehaven86 (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It took me three times reading it to realize why it sounded weird. Primium mobile (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sorry, I took your reply badly, and then you in turn seem to have felt pretty much the same about my (admittedly) irritable one. I guess this about is par for the course for online forums, where one only has the words on the screen to go by to determine tone. Btw, I certainly wouldn't presume to compare our relative levels of reading! (My point was that such measures are irrelevant.) Best wishes, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize. I was wrong to start out with you the way I did. I was having a bad day at work and looking for somewhere to vent. As much as I like to pretend that I am rational and don't do that kind of thing, the reality is that I am just as human an anyone else. I went to that page and just saw it as someone else trying to add something new that I had absolutely no conception about either way. I should have given more thought to what you are saying. Whether or not I agree with it, it deserved consideration. So I am sorry. Primium mobile (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize! Thanks for the reply, though. We had remarkably similar reactions I think. Naively as it turns out, I really didn't expect the proposal to be particularly controversial (apart from sourcing issues perhaps). Personally, I find some of the underlying questions regarding selection of eligible items on the page, such as confirmation bias ("common" is that which I know to be a misconception) and post hoc provision of reasons for ineligibility intriguing, but I don't want to bore everyone by insisting on such arguments... so I'll back off for the time being, at least. Having grown up in Britain with the famous spaghetti bolognese (and worse [1]!) before living the vast majority of my adult life in Bologna, I have a dual perspective. Italians in general take their food and culinary traditions rather seriously. From their cultural perspective, the choice of pasta to go with a sauce is not nitpicking at all, though from an Anglo-American standpoint it may (and to visitors often does) seem so. Anyhow, buon appetito! my friend. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My revision 525620404 to "Risks to civilization, humans, and planet Earth"

Hi Patrick,

As the author of Apocalypse When? (Springer, 2009) I revised Risks to civilization, humans, and planet Earth mainly to include results from this book, which do not appear in the current Wikipedia article. You responded, "You turned the article into an editorial, not an encyclopedia entry." I interpret editorial to mean opinion piece. I don't understand because I thought I documented the revision thoroughly.

I made numerous additional edits to make this article more readable including changes that users recommended on the talk page. But that can be another discussion. I think editorial is the fundamental issue and want to resolve that first.

Thanks for your attention, Will9194 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally liked the substance of your edits. It was the writing style that was inappropriate. It sounded like you were speaking to an audience, and that is not how an encyclopedia should read. (for example, you used the word "you" to refer to the reader several times.) It's perfect for books, but not a factual article. Articles here should just be matter-of-fact without the extra words that make it "warm".

Most of the article is already opinion. That can't be helped and there isn't much you or anyone else can do about that. It may be informed opinion, but it is opinion nonetheless. I don't really see that as a problem, and I don't think you do either. Addressing the reader and asking rhetorical questions in the article is what I meant by "editorial". That was probably a bad word to use.

I wanted to tell you on your user page before I reverted, but it did not exist at that time. Your version still exists in the article history, but I would highly advise discussing the changes on the talk page to the article before you make such significant changes. If I recall correctly, your edit added approximately 11K to the size of the article. That is very significant, and should be discussed before adding to an already well-established article. Thanks. Primium mobile (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KINGS smoking ban

I noticed on your revision comment you mentioned that as the manager of KINGS, you opposed the allergheny county smoking ban but not statewide. Why? If you're in allergheny county both would ban smoking in KINGS I would imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNikita (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Allegheny County ban was enacted well before the statewide ban was even considered. So any restaurants close to a neighboring county would lose business to restaurants in that county. I also posted this on your talk page. Primium mobile (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised. I would think there are also plenty of people who would go across county borders to avoid smoke. Probably more so than people who would do that to smoke. DeepNikita (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I remember we tried to go non smoking many times and every time lost up to 40% of our business. In fact, the Allegheny County ban only lasted a day before a judge struck it down specifically because of the impact it had on businesses close to the county lines. Allegheny County, if you don't know, is Pittsburgh. There were a lot of people, a lot of roads, and a lot of restaurants right near to the county lines. Primium mobile (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did it turn out when PA banned smoking in 2008? I'm surprised in 2008 you still had 40% of your customers smoking. DeepNikita (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't change much then because you couldn't smoke in any restaurant. Most of the clientele at Kings was older and blue collar. Many of them smoked. And in a group of people, if one or two smoked, the entire group generally went to the restaurants that allowed smoking. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that I personally opposed the smoking ban. I'm merely speaking of the financial impact it had on restaurants when smoking is prohibited in some but allowed in others a mile up the street. Primium mobile (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a curious question. How does the fact that your restaurant allows smoking affect the health insurance rates for your employees? I know insurance usually asks if you smoke but I've never seen a question about how much second-hand smoke you're exposed to at your job or at home. 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:4 (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify... It's been seven years since I last worked there. At that time, it didn't do anything. We weren't even asked on health insurance applications if we smoked. Now it's a moot point because you can't smoke in any restaurants in Pennsylvania other than bars that serve no or very little food and private clubs. Primium mobile (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of vandalism

Hi there,

Thanks for reverting borderline vandalism edits like this one. I came across this user and have reverted most of his/her changes.

It'd be useful if you could note what you're doing (i.e. reverting or whatever) in the edit summary so it makes it clearer that the work's already been done (I had assumed someone wrote a subsequent legitimate edit on top of that piece of nonsense until I realised it was a vandalism reversion). Once again, thanks for the fixes.

All the best! Ubcule (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubcule: Sorry. I was getting a little frustrated. I'll remember to put edit summaries in the future. Primium mobile (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the good work! Ubcule (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Primium mobile. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Primium mobile. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]