User talk:Smjg/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Smjg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
AfD nomination of Easy Access
An article that you have been involved in editing, Easy Access, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Access. Thank you. Zondor (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Humble pie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Proof that 22/7 exceeds π
Why is it that in you proposal to move Proof that 22/7 exceeds π, you make no attempt to give any REASONS? Are there reasons? If so, you should tell us what they are. If not, there should be no such proposal.\
The tag actually says that if it can be rewritten to be a suitable encyclopedia article, then that should be done. But it is already a very good enclopedic sort of article. It seems to me that that phrasing is disrespectful to the people who have worked on the article unless you at least ATTEMPT to explain what is unencyclopedic about it.
I really find it hard to be patient with such a suggestion when not even a hint of an attempt to explain reasons is found in the proposal.
Please set out your reasons, and do so quickly. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
rv: For An Angel, just because you didn't watch the other programmes doesn't mean they don't exist
- I understand what you're saying, in fact I haven't even seen all the ones that are listed and yet I still believe they exist. But I have done research and haven't been able to find any proof that there are others. However, if you know of any others then why don't you just add them? For An Angel (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does the archived talk that was referred to in my edit not already answer your question? It seems to to me. -- Smjg (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice that. Have you considered the possibility that maybe you are confusing them with someone else? From what you said I've tried looking for anything about it and couldn't find anything. There is also the chance that whatever documentary you saw them on wasn't notable enough to be added. Can you remember anything else about it? For An Angel (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Crawley neighbourhoods map
Hi Smjg; please see the reply to your points at the talk page. If you could correct the colours on the map based on what I've said, that would be very helpful. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for doing this so quickly! Much appreciated. Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to do it, I was the one who deleted the trivia section from Neg Dupree. I don't really edit Wikipedia often, but that section just struck me as being without merit and the guidelines suggested removing inappropriate trivia. The only one that seems at all relevant is "Neg is club captain for his non-league football team Esprit F.C." but I thought given the overall length of the article such a minor fact wasn't really worth mentioning. I'm aware now that this may not be in keeping with Wikipedia's editing standard (which I shall have to brush up on), just thought I'd explain my reasoning, as some of those trivia points definitely needn't be there. Not Worth Waiting For (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your recent message.
The images I have uploaded are Pass Certificates that I have achieved by passing a series of Test of Competences under the Road Traffic Act 1988. These documents did include my personal details, which I've obviously edited out.
Can you please advise me what exactly the problem is, as I don't understand.
Thank you.
Rplyons (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
In that case I have made an error - can you please delete it asap.
In addition to this, can you also do the same to the following images, which I have recently uploaded:
a) D10V_Front_0503 b) DL196_0406 c) DL196_0406_Rear d) DSA10_Front_0207 e) DSA10_Front_Old, and f) DSA10_Rear_0207.
It's only the 1st time I've uploaded images and didn't fully understand the Copyright section. My apologies. Rplyons (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Laura Robson
"Please look at what I am undoing"? Yes I removed a link to a Laura Robson fansite that has already been removed from the article four times in less than a week by several other editors. Fansites have no place on wikipedia articles, and that one adds no further knowledge to our understanding of the subject
LOL, yes I see what you mean, it was a dual entry and I only removed half of it. Doh. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Year/date formats
The huge majority of year articles are formatted according to the style I maintain and have been for a very long time - it is the ones in the so-called "house style" that are a small minority. Deb (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Geographic Center of the US Cleanup
Sorry--I forgot to put your changes in after I had restored the picture. My bad.. Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
On Wiki:Project Years
I would be happy to change any dash styles but I was just following the rules. So please clarify on how the date range should be formated. I was opting for this (-) because there was em-dashes (—) and (-)s were in use, but rather I was told to use an en-dash (–) for date range due to Wikipedia:MOS. —— Orion11M87 (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- The style I changed it to (full day/month given at each end, unspaced hyphen) is one I've been implementing for a long time, because it looks tidiest under the constraints of the current house style for the year pages. It seems nobody's sure how it should be done - that's half the point of the debate that's underway. -- Smjg (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- A spaced en dash – is the preferred method. Tony (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- My question is what's best practically, not what some authority prefers.... -- Smjg (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- A spaced en dash – is the preferred method. Tony (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops
That edit you reported to me was an accidental revert; I didn't add the orginal content. Thanks. Message from XENUu, t 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Laura Robson
Removing the autoformatting (which only has any effect for readers who have logged in and set their date formatting preference) simply revealed to you the inconsistent formatting that had always been there. More than 99% of WP readers are not logged in and therefore get no benefit from autoformatting - they've always been seeing the inconsistent date formats. I recommend you switch off your own date preferences, then you'll see the mess that most readers see normally. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Date formats
Hi,
I see you have been improving date formats. Did you know that there is a handy tool that will audit the date formats for an article? In just one click, you can set all the dates to the format that you think is best. For example, it has 'buttons' such as
- 'All dates to dmy'
- 'All dates to mdy'
If you want to use it, just add
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
Then clear your cache using the instructions on that page (i.e. if you use Firefox just press Ctrl-Shift-R). Then when you next edit a page, look in the 'toolbox' on the left of the page below 'What links here' and you will find a list of date related functions. If you need more information, just ask. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Your edits broke my references, but don't panic, I've fixed it back. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hensel twins again
Oops, sorry!! I really care about those two, and that's one of the few articles I actually try to keep accurate, THANX! TechnoFaye Kane 02:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The X Factor (UK series 5) tables
Hi, the week 10 table looks miles better now! Do you think it would be worth using that format for all the weekly tables? Cheers! JS (chat) 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see you have already done it. Never mind! Great job :-) JS (chat) 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry have to be quick, the final is only minutes away!! :D - But I think the tables look pretty good how they are at the moment. The other series articles (which I have not read) should be in the same format. However, I would suggest removing the mentor column for the reason you stated! Thanks and happy editing! JS (chat) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Re:Dates
Hi. Thanks for that, I hadn't discovered it. Looks like it could be useful. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is brilliant, it certainly speeds things up quite a bit. Thanks again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Automatic (Script Assisted) Date De-linking
Hi. I wasn't sure whether you were aware of this as I only found out about it myself this morning, but there is currently an injunction against using any bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise for mass de-linking of dates by the Arbitration Committee, For more information you can see: Requests for arbitration (Date De-Linking). TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Dates for Laura Robson
I didn't change the format of the dates. You did. I happened to write most of the article, so I used whatever date I felt like. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Beat the Star
Hi Smjg,
as you may know from the history of the beat the star page, I started this article last year and added most of last years content to it. As english is not my native language I am happy, that this work has now been continued mostly by wrightyboy and you. The main reason for writing this lines is that it seems to me that you added a references missing warning to the series 2 section of the article which was removed by wrightyboy and readded by you. While I fully understand the nessecity of references in wikipedia, I am unsure how to handle this case. The information in that section comes either from being part of the studio audience during the recording or alternatively from watching the show on television. It is highly unlikely that there will be any other way to reference this. So wouldn't it be ok to remove the references warning?
Also I have some ideas on adding to the article but would prefer if this was added by a native speaker. I am not sure if I should present this information here, on wrightyboys talk page, or the article talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bss04 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Magic String (programming) - Resolution section
Smjg,
You added the 'howto' tag to the Resolution section of the Magic string article. I agreed with this assessment (after seeing the tag and actually taking a closer look at things) and have rewritten the section to be more of a reference than an advice manual. I would like to remove the tag. I will be expanding this article significantly. The current context of the resolution section should be a nice guide for future edits by myself and others. If you get a chance, take a look. If you agree, remove the tag yourself (please leave a comment in the discussion!). Quite obviously if you don't agree, I'll be looking in the discussion page for your comments. Otherwise I will likely leave the tag up for a week from the date of this message here before removing it myself. Thanks, --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was rather inconsiderate, wasn't it? At least you could have rewritten it using both informations... reverts/undoes are usually reserved for when an edit blatantly decreases the value of a page.
Well, anyway, this is a note to let you know I reeditted it with some revisions.
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies regarding removal of the template. I should have checked the actual book first! I've now corrected the article. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
rvav Disco?
rvav? If I'm correct, this means "revert anonymous vandalism", right? I'm neither anonymous nor a vandal. The article's references are already chock full of disco's partially gay roots. It's a proud part of LGBT history. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Recently, you altered the highlighting color of the {{Reference necessary}} template. I appreciate very much that the previous color could be quite difficult to see. However, the new color — which I actually like! — is so bright and bold that it is having an unintended consequence: Rather than supplying the missing, verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), wikieditors are merely removing the tag from the article. I have found myself having to revert such edits, and place consequent {{uw-delete2}} warning templates on the appropriate User Talk pages, with growing frequency. Do you think you could choose a less dramatic, less bold color, that is still more visible than the color your improvement replaced? Thanks and thanks again for taking the initiative to improve this very useful template! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What?
Hi ive just been sent a message about my supposed change of an article. I have not edited any article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.196.174 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 October 2009 Again, it has happened a 2nd time. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.196.174 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The message you have just sent me is completely false, I have never heard of conyers school before and why would I want to edit it anyway? Please stop these accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.196.174 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I have read your second message, and it is completely untrue, I have never heard of conyers school, which is why I requested for you to stop with your accusations. I do not want to make an account as I do not wish to make any edits to wikipedia, i simply wish to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.196.174 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC) To quote what you said, 'one of YOUR edits', not my IP address' edits, so what you said is not true. I have read the message both times you have told me to. No-one else uses this computer, which has its own IP address. I have no reason to edit conyers school, I'd never even heard of it. You made the first accusation. All I am trying to say is you are mistaken, maybe you mistyped a number or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.196.174 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
something i want to ask you
Do you need cookies enabled to log in to Wikipedia?
98.177.155.42 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. -- Smjg (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, regarding this edit, I agree that the plot shouldn't be revealed in the section about the characters, but you say to see the talk page for reasons, and I couldn't find the discussion when I looked. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time#Spoiler Warning please!!!
- There you go. I forget when the rules changed to the effect of no inline disclaimers like these, but it's a mixture of discussion before and after the change. -- Smjg (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of UK telephone code misconceptions
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is UK telephone code misconceptions. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK telephone code misconceptions. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Re The above AFD and your comments.
Please see the comments you listed on this AFD, respectfully, I ask you to retract them, and have noted so. I have no agenda with regards to this nomination, and nothing I have posted is a falsehood - I don't lie on stuff like this. All I'm doing is nominating something which didn't look suitable for inclusion - it bothers me not one way or the other. Regards BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 06:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I've rewritten my point to be fairer now. -- Smjg (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)