User talk:Smjg

Archived discussion:

• /Archive 1 — 2004–2005
• /Archive 2 — 2006–2007
• /Archive 3 — 2008–2009
• /Archive 4 — 2010–2013
• /Archive 5 — 2014–2016
• /Archive 6 — 2017–2018

Hi Smjg, you reverted my edit without checking. I have deleted wrong redirect from Nick Santonastasso to a wrong person, some Vitaly Zdorovetskiy which is not him at all. Somebody is trying to get some fame for Vitaly on Nicks' count. reverting your edit. pls do not change. QuantumShadow 13:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantumShadow (talk • contribs)

@QuantumShadow: No, I didn't. The point is that blanking a page is not the way to go about getting it deleted. But it would appear that you hadn't read the message I'd left on your talk page before blanking it again, otherwise you would know (a) not to blank pages (b) where to find the correct way of getting a page deleted.

Furthermore, redirects are not exclusively for synonyms. "We don't have an article about this, but here is a page that covers the topic" is a valid semantic. OK, so maybe the target page doesn't exactly cover the topic, so to speak. Therefore this one might be worthy of deletion, and following the correct process might lead to it being deleted if that's what you're trying to achieve. — Smjg (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smjg, Sorry by accident I havent filled it yet. So it is indeed my fault I left it Blank. I saw a redirection from Sheen Khalai to Kakar Pashtun tribe. Sheen khalai does not refer to a tribe, the person who did that does not know the meaning of it. Sheen khalai literally means Blue face dots (which Pashtun and Baloch wear all over the Afghanistan area). It does not refer to any specific tribe. How can I can change that and how should I tackle that? Should I make a new wiki page for it?Casperti (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In India, the term "Sheen Khalai" refers to the Kakar tribe of Pashtuns, as this reference clearly shows. The redirect is fine as it is. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read the page before you tag it, especially if it contains templates like {{in use}}, {{under construction}} and {{in creation}}, because chances are the page authors are still actively working on them. Tagging the Rock and Roll lists as A3 messed up my edits because I was in the middle of editing them. Please keep this in mind next time. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 12:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob3512: I did read the page. And I saw that it has no content. None of the templates you have cited constitutes content. Furthermore, guidelines state that an article is fair game to be tagged if it still has no context or no content 10-15 minutes after creation, which was the case here.

I see you've added content now - thank you. But what was the point of creating these pages before you've even started on the content? It would work as well to hold back pressing the Save button until you've got some content on the page, even if it's only a stub. Just something to note for future reference. — Smjg (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just came across this (checking out this) and I'd thought I'd seen it all. All three templates mentioned above say hours to days for waiting time. And I checked and that text in the templates hasn't changed for months to years. Perhaps you ought to go find those guidelines and start a discussion on how to reconcile the practical (hours/days) with the impractical (minutes). I think you'll find everyone amazed at such broken guidance and happy to fix it. wikt:gobsmacked Shenme (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shenme: Hmm. You've got me thinking. But on balance, I'm not convinced there's any real issue here. The templates talk about hours or days in relation to removing the template, not in relation to tagging the article for speedy deletion. As such, I think the time windows given in these templates are independent of any CSD time windows.

Furthermore, it seems to me that these templates are designed to be either added to an article that already has content, or applied to the initial stub of an article, not as a request for more time to write the initial stub. If you need some time for this, you can just hold back creating the page in the first place. Furthermore, if somebody does create a page with no content on and it gets deleted as A3, he/she can subsequently recreate the page after drafting some content.

There's probably a good place to discuss stuff like this, but I'm not sure what it is. — Smjg (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smjg - I'm not sure I agree with you about My Two Loves (disambiguation) being G6 and not G8. It is a redirect that targets a page that is not a disambiguation page. WP:G8 is for "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" e.g. "redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles". This seems much more appropriate that WP:G6 which doesn't have an example that seems appropriate to these cases. Note that {{db-disambig}} has been moved from G6 to WP:G14. The difference is pretty trivial, anyway, so long as it's deleted! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me thinking. A page that is not a disambiguation page is not a non-existent or deleted page, hence my thinking that it isn't G8. So I suppose it depends on whether you can consider the redirect to be "dependent on" the page previously at the title My Two Loves. It's a grey area, I suppose. (For the record, the deletion log for My Two Loves (disambiguation) gives G14 as the criterion used.) — Smjg (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 4 have Wikipedia articles, why Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 1 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 2 don’t have it? BamZ412 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being like this. I’ve only realised this when 1.02 editor redirected Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 4. I thanked him for doing this. Please forgive me. BamZ412 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only joined on 7 June 2019. Before that, I was an anonymous user with different IP addresses and earlier today I accidentally logged out and edited as an anonymous user until my mom which she asked my dad on FaceTime before helping me to log in again. I joined Wikimedia Commons 13 days ago in Singapore time. BamZ412 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reply to me as soon as possible? Thanks. BamZ412 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Parrot RiscOS palette.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I blank the article First Lady of Sudan, because it had the wrong content. It was about the Vice President of Sudan & so I blanked. The article creator has been making many errors on Wikipedia, since his arrival yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Parrot 20Win palette.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: This image was uploaded for use on List of color palettes. But I see now that some of this article has been split off as List of software palettes, and moreover that someone has replaced this image thereon with the even lower-res File:Windows 20colors palette sample image.png. So I suppose we don't need both images, so this one can go. — Smjg (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful and research before editing. Arcgis is considered a reliable source. Arcgis shows that 179 people in the UK have recovered, its not an "April Fool's" joke. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: I did research. I looked at the page cited, and saw that it does not give any figure for recoveries. Furthermore, I had already searched the web without success for a more up-to-date figure and couldn't find one. So I reverted it to the last figure that the cited page gave, which is 135, as of 22 March. Please recheck sources before you make such accusations. But regardless of what the true figure is, the fact remains that the figure you gave is not and was not in the source cited. It's true that you've added a new source now, but you hadn't at the time. It's your responsibility to give sources when you add or update information on Wikipedia. And as I look now, you've left the original [1] cited. Where does that page give the figure you've just put in? — Smjg (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful how you talk to people. The "accusations" started with your bitey comments "April Fools is over", "Stop it", that source has been cited multiple times in almost every article relating to coronavirus, an editor editing articles on the Coronavirus should know where to look. For RS, arcgis is considered RS by current standards, the fact you continued to revert even after sources have been added is disturbing. The figure may not have been updated, regardless it is only reliable figure released. In the future, if you have a question take out the entire "recovered" section or start a discussion, do not revert with your antagonist comments. Thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: By "that source" do you mean A or B? You changed the figure to 179, with A still given as the source. As such, the article stated that A gave the figure 179, when it did not, and as far as I can tell never did. As such, you made an incorrect edit. Indeed, that page previously stated that a new process for collecting the recovery figures is in development, and that updates to the figure are meanwhile suspended. Now, A doesn't give a figure for recoveries at all.

When you first referred me to B, I looked at the page, and could not see the figure 179 anywhere. At that point I hadn't realised it gave two contradictory figures - 135 in the map box and 191 in the panel on the right. I just took 135 to be the figure it gives as it was the one I found first and I had no reason to suppose the page contradicts itself. But I think I searched the page for the value 179, and didn't find it anywhere, and so reverted your edit as it looked like vandalism. And I see you still haven't removed the citation of A from that figure. I'll do it now. — Smjg (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 179 is from Arcgis (Source B) on 1 April is was updated shortly after your revert I updated to 191 when I saw the updated figure from 2 April. And how could that possibly look like vandalism? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should everybody who's ever touched the coronavirus pages on Wikipedia know about source B? In any case, the fact remains that at the time of your original edit you had not cited that source.

I didn't say that your update to 191 looked like vandalism. I said that the change to 179 looked like vandalism. If one goes to a web page and finds that (a) a search for the given figure turns up nothing (b) the figure one does find is different (in this case, the 135 on the map) and cannot possibly be more up to date, naturally one suspects that the person who added the figure just made it up. — Smjg (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday on 1 April, Source B had the number of recoveries at 179. Today when I check again that source updated it to 191, which I updated on the Wiki page accordingly. Source B is the primary source used for a vast majority of coronavirus related figures. It appears that UK hospitals are not actively releasing recoveries therefore these figures are mostly likely to change significantly, however Arcgis is still the main source currently accepted. Some articles such as 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Wisconsin did not add a direct source and used a source without direct sourcing, these articles need to be updated with sources not reverted and removed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the article with a template "globalize". An IP removed it. Should that have been done?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: The IP certainly shouldn't have removed that template. If you look at the page history, you'll see that there have been no significant changes since it was added. Thank you for reinstating it. — Smjg (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was mine, but I'm sure it wasn't enough.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new numbers were added based on the information in the CSV file here (about 3/4 of the way). It is accurate, it is correct, and it is official. Do NOT revert it again. --Spaastm (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaastm: you only bothered to add that reference two minutes after you posted here. Smjg was right to revert your edits, and was right to warn you, as you've been repeatedly warned at your talk page before. It doesn't matter if it's accurate, correct, and official, you still need to add the reference. Capewearer (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaastm: Capewearer is right. Furthermore, the numbers you have filled in are not an accurate count of just the people who have died in hospitals and care homes as you are claiming. They are counts of people who have died in all settings in the UK. — Smjg (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smjg: Oops. Minor mistake. --Spaastm (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you recently gave Spaastm a level 1 warning for their umpteenth offence. Make sure to always check the page history when you come across a blank talk page — they had been removing the prior warnings. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Good catch, and thank you for reminding me. — Smjg (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Boomphones Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_42#Mutually_exclusive_tags, I wanted to let you know that I submitted a pull request to do some of what you asked for. Basically, it now also checks that:

• Only one of {{Bad GIF}}, {{Bad JPEG}}, {{Bad SVG}}, and {{Bad format}} is used
• Only one of {{Should be PNG}}, {{Should be SVG}}, and {{Should be text}} is used
• Only one of {{Bad SVG}} and {{Vector version available}} is used
• Only one of {{Bad JPEG}} and {{Overcompressed JPEG}} is used
• Only one of {{PNG version available}} and {{Vector version available}} is used
• The correct extension is used for Bad GIF/JPEG/SVG and Should be PNG/SVG
• Only allows JPEGs to be tagged with {{Overcompressed JPEG}}
• Only allows SVGs to be tagged with {{Bad trace}} and {{Bad font}}

How's that sound to you? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Amorymeltzer: Thanks a lot for your work on this. Sounds good on the whole. The combination of {{PNG version available}} and {{Vector version available}} is something to think about. It seems perfectly plausible to me that both a PNG version and a vector version of a given graphic could be available. That said, I realise it doesn't really make sense to say that both should be used in place of the image that the tags are used on.

Furthermore, am I right in thinking the file format detection is done using the filename extension? It would be better if it could be done using the MIME type - I don't know how easy or not this would be. I'm fairly sure MediaWiki allows you to upload a file and set a name with an arbitrary extension, or no extension at all, and it would still serve it (and perform image scaling, etc.) acording to the MIME type it was uploaded as.

(As an aside, years ago I proposed that we deprecate including extensions in the published names of images, but nothing came of it. But having Twinkle working on MIME types would make it future-proof in case this happens one day.) — Smjg (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points! I don't know much about MIME types, but it seems images other than SVG have the MIME type on the page content, with a convenient html element. SVGs for some reason just say "SVG file" without the html element. Weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smjg,

I believe you were the last editor of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_marked_graph

Can you add some more information to the article so that: - the figure is cited - a specific reference is made to resource places e.g. "Examples of resource places are the places r1 and r2 shown in figure..." ?

Thanking you in advance, Jacpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacpg (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and antidisestablishmentarianism is even longer still. But still trivia for the QWERTY article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Tearfund logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused non-free logo (new logo was uploaded, see File:TF GLOBAL LOGO.png).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It's Ok. Sorry it was a mistake ! Chesipiero (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you refused to delete the redirect. I made the same request before and there was no objection.--Sakiv (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: Aside from the fact that I don't myself have power to delete stuff, it looks like you're asking for the redirect to be deleted so that you can put a new article in its place. In the previous instance that I know of, you were trying to get a redirect deleted in order to move a pre-existing article to the title, which is reasonable. But here, it looks like you're wanting to start a brand new article there. In this case, you can just start the article there. The redirect page doesn't need to be deleted first. — Smjg (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:When The Pawn 2020 Vinyl Cover.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

I can't describe how grateful I am because you are contributing to Wikipedia. Imagine hundreds of millions of people who are reading Wikipedia every day to find accurate information. You are helping them to access this information. You are one of the people who help to create a better society and a better world. I know words are not enough but thank you for your contributions. V. E. (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert pages to random old versions when you edit them. I am referring to the Stock Aitken Waterman discography. I fixed the dates to be in the proper format but you reverted it to an older version of the page which contained no references, incomplete entries (everything post-1994), and incorrect dates. Do not do that. I will come to West Sussex, so help me God. JMwins19 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JMwins19: That wasn't my intention. As I was looking to see when the current layout of the article was introduced, I must have accidentally had one of these old versions open when I hit the 'Edit' link. Sorry about that.

But as I look now, you've removed the 2020 section. Did you mean to do this? — Smjg (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ah I understand. I was just very confused as I’ve been trying to improve that article for a while now, and was unsure why months of progress on it were removed. And also yes, I meant to remove the 2020 section, those songs were not officially released in any way, only made as downloads from Mike Stock’s website. - JMwins19 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that your criticism is of me and not of a horrifying garbage page with (1) a name that has never existed anywhere and (2) "gustav"! Did you even read the edit summary & talk page, or did you just assume I am a newbie who needs your reprimand? I am in a huge rush today. Saw the garbage & did what I did hoping someone (like you?) would see to it that the page is tossed, not reinstated so that the garbage redirects to the king of Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing: I patrol Special:ShortPages semi-regularly. When I see that a page has been blanked, I habitually restore it and notify the blanker (except in cases of {{db-author}}). I realise now this wasn't the best course of action in this instance - sorry about that. Thinking about it now, I think {{db-error}} is best, so this is what I've done. — Smjg (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See edit history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constituency_LA-37_Jammu_-_4_(Narowal)&action=history

Not eligible for G7. Jeepday (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeepday: Sorry, my mistake. I misread the history and thought it was AdnanKhadim that had changed it to the "please delete it" version. Thank you for catching this and restoring the article. — Smjg (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message re. Blanking of Miss Molly:

Buddleja Lo & Behold 'Miss Molly' has been moved to Buddleja 'Miss Molly' in response to my request. I am editing the article and its name to update it. During the editing and moving process, Miss Molly, which had redirected to Miss Susie and has a similar name to Buddleja Lo & Behold 'Miss Molly', was blanked when the redirection was temporarily removed to simplify the move.

Miss Molly now redirects to Miss Susie, as it did before the editing and moving process began. Buddleja 'Miss Molly' is not blank, as it contains much of the information that was in Buddleja Lo & Behold 'Miss Molly'. Everything should now be correct. Corker1 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah LupangMalabo (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I deleted everything on that page because I plan to make that page a real one and not a redirect page. Cherrell410 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cherrell410: Then go ahead and write the article. No point pressing the Save button before you've started on it. Once you've got some content, feel free to replace the redirect with this content. — Smjg (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page Victorian Railways D class (1887) just contains a redirect to Victorian Railways D class (1876). I removed it as these are 2 different locomotives. Blank pages are harmful, but incorrect redirect are more harmful and confusing. There was no way of reverting it as it was the only revision. I don't currently have the time to make a full article. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) the article is already full of references that describe them as tea kettles anyway. Never write anything on my talk page ever again. GliderMaven (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But wouldn't it be better then, to simply say, "There are currently three territories sometimes said to be terra nullius." The border dispute isn't causing these areas to be terra nullius because no one is claiming them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin: Hmm. I suppose it depends on how you define a border dispute. Is it still a dispute if each country's position is favourable to the other? Where this is partially the case, is said part part of the dispute? For example, does "Egypt–Sudan border dispute" mean just the dispute over the Halaib Triangle, or the whole disagreement over where the border between the two countries lies (north of Bir Tawil and south of the Halaib Triangle, or vice versa)? — Smjg (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about, "two of these are associated with border disputes." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your change at fast fashion. We actually have that idea mentioned in an essay that accompanies the MOS: WP:REFERS. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I know about this already, but thank you. — Smjg (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In MsWord, the command to reveal the markup is "display codes". There are a bunch of them, for example Ms uses the generic Currency sign (typography) (¤) to mark end of each cell in a table. I agree that the wording could be improved but I don't think your version is any better. It is wandering off topic to list all the markup codes revealed when "reveal" [or whatever we call it]] is active. Can we work together to resolve? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: What is there to resolve? I can't see anything wrong with the wording I've instated. Furthermore:

• I don't know which version of Word uses the name "display codes" for this feature - I don't see it in the Word 2016/365 UI. But aside from this, we don't really need a name by which to refer to such a feature, let alone a cryptic, application-specific one; a description ("the display of non-printing symbols, such as tabs and paragraph breaks") seems adequate and clear.
• "It is wandering off topic to list all the markup codes revealed when "reveal" [or whatever we call it]] is active." I don't see the relevance of this. I haven't made any attempt to compile a complete list of "markup codes" in the article, and am not aware that anybody else has, unless I'm missing something?
• The phrase "switched on" is standard English; "set ""on""" isn't.
• I don't see what this feature has to do with a markup language.
• Placing the use as a feature toggle icon before the use as a non-printing symbol avoids an awkward forward reference.

But if you think the wording can be improved, by all means make a suggestion. — Smjg (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article No pants day 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/No Pants Day until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

A reasonable voice (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was there an issue in particular with my editing you wanted to bring up? Fephisto (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fephisto: I had to remind myself. Looking at your edits, the only thing to note that I can see is that headings should be in sentence case, not title case. — Smjg (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect NoneOm123 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24 § NoneOm123 until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Surprise album, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Single. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jvcnipper.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]