User talk:Smjg/Archive 5

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 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breeder (cellular automaton), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puffer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

SVG on fair use logos

Regarding your edit here, can you explain what you mean by "'low resolution' and 'inappropriately in JPEG format' are independent of one another"? Vector formats inherently have no resolution, unless they contain raster elements, in which case it would not be inappropriate to store it as a JPEG anyway. The only reason to use an SVG would be so that it can be losslessly scaled, in which case "resolution" is meaningless. I would agree with leaving the {{Bad JPEG}} template in place, but it should be replaced with a similar-resolution PNG, not an SVG. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the image in question with a PNG, hopefully this should resolve the issue (File:Bullseye-logo.png. Given that it's currently only used on the Bullseye page, and that page only uses 160px-200px (I think it looks a bit better at 200px), I'm thinking we might want to actually reduce the resolution of the image to 200px, since anything higher should be unnecessary.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 21:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Most-perfect pandiagonal magic squares

This refers back to your contribution made on 25 July 2006 showing, inter alia, that there are three essentially different most-perfect pandiagonal magic squares. No source was shown.

The following extract is from 'The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences' (OEIS sequence reference: OEIS: A051235)

"Number of essentially different most-perfect pandiagonal magic squares of order 4n. "Let N = 4n = Product{g}[(p_g)^(s_g)] (p_g prime) and let W_v(n) = Sum{0 <= i <= v-1}[(-1)^{v+i}BINOM(v+1, i+1)*Product{g}BINOM(s_g+i, i)] then a(n) =2^(N-2)*(2n)!^2*Sum{0 <= v < Sum{g}s_g}[W_v(N)(W_v(N)+W_{v+1}(N))]."

I am assured that, for n=1, this formula shows that there are 48 essentially different most-perfect pandiagonal magic squares. Will you comment, please?

Sherwin35 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it's always nice to hear from somebody showing an interest in my contributions.

It would appear that the sequence on OEIS is based on a different definition. There are 48 if you consider them to be equivalent only by rotation and reflection. But panmagic squares have another equivalence – moving the top row to the bottom, the left row to the right, and so on. Still, it's a bad description since it doesn't say what constitutes "essentially distinct", and I for one would naturally expect a sequence described as such to recognise this equivalence. For the record, I just searched OEIS and found OEIS: A160540.

However, my contribution didn't say that there are three most-perfect 4×4 panmagic squares, merely that there are three 4×4 panmagic squares. Though they do happen to be all most-perfect. And OEIS: A160540 has in its description a slightly different additional condition.

But indeed, I'd like to discover how may distinct panmagic squares there are of each size a fair way beyond 4×4. And then maybe submit my findings to OEIS. — Smjg (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

PS Hope you don't mind me linkifying the sequence number in your message :)

Cinderella

I saw you have had some contributions in the article. Currently, the article is missing a major section about Cinderella's origin and history prior to written work on Cinderella. Sure, some ancient stories related to Cinderella were mentioned somewhere in the article, but they are not in the section where they should be. I believe the "origin and history" of Cinderella has enough merit to deserve a section of its own. I'm making a request to ask you to add my suggested section into the article. You can look for your own sources of your choices. Here are some sources I've found: 1, 2, 3. I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't think I can do it even if I want to. It's your choice to do it or not though. Thanks!146.151.91.70 (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

please don't defaultsort game characters

In most cases their surnames (if they have them at all) are just unimportant. For example, just nobody ever thinks "Kasugano"[1] when they look for "Sakura from Street Fighter", and many or most people won't even know she has a surname (in games she's just Sakura[2] and even on Wikia in the article title she's also just Sakura[3]). As such, it only confuses people who want to find something in categories. The exceptions of this are extremely rare, one of them is Wesker from Resident Evil where nobody thinks of "Albert". It all depends on how the characters are addressed in games, and consequently by media and gamers. The exceptions should be selected only case-by-case (you can see how they are called in their articles, this should tell you what name they're know as). So please revert all your defaultsorts unless they actually apply. Thanks. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact the article should be titled "Sakura (Street Fighter)", already many characters follow this convention and she's even one of only 3 Street Fighter exceptions [4]. Like with Charlie (Street Fighter) instead of "Charlie Nash". But it only shows how completely unimportant most of these surnames are. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And now to only add to the user confusion, for some reason you only did it with females anyway. So really, please revert it all. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@AggressiveNavel: The standard way to alphabetise personal names is by surname first. OK, so some people (such as Madonna) are normally known only by their first names, and so filed by that name, but their articles are generally titled as just the name by which they are known (or in some cases, that name followed by a disambiguating label). If some such articles are titled contrary to this principle, this is an issue with the article title. Generally it is presumed that, if an article about a person has a forename+surname title, that is the name by which the person is known, and therefore the name should be alphabetised in the standard way. If it isn't, then the article title needs to be amended first things first. If I'm wrong, please point me to the relevant WP policy.

And that "some reason" is that I happened to look at Category:Female characters in video games and find that a lot of them were filed by first name, and so 'corrected' them. I just hadn't got as far as looking at other categories. — Smjg (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

They're not "some people" or persons, they're characters. You've made such a mess even Alexandra sisters now have different sorting, because one (Cassandra Alexandra) has her unimportant surname in the article and the other one (Sophitia) not. Not to mention all the male characters. It's just chaos now, so fix it back. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Where does the meaning of "people" begin and end? In my mind they can be either real or fictional - most nouns denote the nature of an entity within the entity's scope of existence, whereas "character" is unusual in that it says something about the scope of existence. Anyway, on the basis of what you say, determining which form is the common name needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, not just changing them all en masse, which is bound to incorrect some of them. And you're wrong about all the male characters being filed your way. Even if it were so, it would be very unlikely to remain so for long because of other people making this same change independently of me or each other. In the absence of a clear policy, they're bound to be in a mess. — Smjg (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Smjg. You have new messages at WP:BOTREQ.
Message added 22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:DESQview 2.8 screenshot.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DESQview 2.8 screenshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Can you create a template please for Port Vila Football League with all the editions of the competition, I do not know how to do it. Also with VFF National Super League. Thanks!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25, it isn't clear what exactly you're asking me to do or why you're asking me. Could you please be more specific? Maybe give an example of another page that has something like what you're after? — Smjg (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I am asking you because I edit now pages on Port Vila Football League, it was a disaster and you reverted the page 2010–11 Port Vila Premier League, the problem was the line, in some pages was shorter and in other pages longer. Thats why I redirected, my mistake, I am not an expert in editing, I just know football.

Example of template : [5] Every football competition on Wikipedia have templates with seasons, to can choose faster the edition you want to read. Every football competition apart from this one I edit now, and a few others from Oceania football. Do you understand what is missing now ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Just reminding you to mark your CSD pages as patrolled! :P JTtheOG (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Crosscut edit

If you would, when you make proposed updates please include a reason, otherwise -- like your crosscut edit -- things can look like vandalism. Thanks for your explanation on your revert revert. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Damotclese Did my edit initially look like vandalism to you? I don't know why you thought that. OK, so maybe my edit summary was confusing to the uninitiated. I think it was Michael Hardy who coined the line "a dog is a term used to describe an animal that barks" (please correct me if I'm wrong Michael) – the point being that it's an illustration of the kind of mistake being corrected. I have found myself correcting so many instances of this that it was simplest to just use this line in most instances. Maybe I'll just have to think of a clearer line to use.... — Smjg (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

King Of Ink Land Body Art The Extreme Ink - Ite

Hi I got his name in that form, eventually, because I spoke to him personally on Facebook. He was the one who corrected me as I'd originally wrote his name slightly wrong, and on the second attempt, had forgot to put the 'O' of "Of" in capitals, which is of course wrong. It's a very difficult name to get exact, as I'm sure you can see, so it's not surprising that the press spelled it slightly different ways, too. Huddsblue (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And to clear things up, the edit on the first page from a mobile is his edit, he wanted to clear up a couple of things that the press had got wrong Huddsblue (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Name change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battenberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

Mark your CSD pages as patrolled. :) JTtheOG (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello Smjg. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Sabastion of deportia. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks, LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 15:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@LoudLizard Thank you for pointing this out. It took me a few moments to find the link (on other MediaWiki wikis, I've seen 'Mark as patrolled' as an option in the header when viewing a page diff), but I've found it now.

Small pedantic correction: It's actually ShortPages rather than NewPages that I'm patrolling, but I don't suppose that makes a difference in this instance. — Smjg (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries, just thought I'd let you know. I think the page in question must have been a short new page! LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry

that you reestablished the redirect at Heads and Tales. April is women writers month in some corners of wikipedaia and Heads and Tales is an important book by a notable woman, Malvina Hoffman. So, a week or so ago when I discovered that there was already a redirect there I plopped in that little stub as a place holder until I got a proper article together. I will take in out in a week or so after I have something a bit more substantial. Or, put another way, cwis. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

Why shoul it be a redirect existing under Basketball at the 2002 Central American and Caribbean Games? Is better to delete the redirect and it appears as red link, so someone should know that the article do not exist. Osplace 01:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Osplace, the point of my action was to undo the blanking of the page. Blanking pages is not an appropriate course of action, since blank pages are still visible to the general public. If you feel that a page should be deleted, then please take the appropriate action as explained on WP:Deletion policy. — Smjg (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Viliumes

what ist Viliumes? --Tabbelio (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello Smjg. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at San Francisco Lodge Spa. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 20:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I do know better, but slipped up in this instance. — Smjg (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the message regarding page blanking.

I have replied :-)

Hi thanks for the message regarding page blanking.

I have replied :-) Huddsblue (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Danizh-Khan

Looking at the creator of the article Danizh-Khan talk history-he has had a long history it seems of deleting his pages he made and then blanking out his talk page to hide the evidence. Wgolf (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cooktown Hospital

The article Cooktown Hospital has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Oiyarbepsy. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Coldplaying, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My sloppy closures

• [6]

Thanks for fixing my mistake. In a rush to handle lots of RfD closures, I've mixed up my tabs for edit Talk:Slowest_organisms and edit Fastest_organisms! Deryck C. 18:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Lionel Rose (Colonel)

your CSD of Lionel Rose (Colonel) was way too quick on a new article please remember to WP:AGF when editors are actively editing an article. Gnangarra 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: Hmm. The tag was added 24 minutes after the article's creation, therefore outside of the {{hasty}} window. And while it had edits in the intervening period, not one of them added any actual content (as opposed to categories and an infobox).

So the question is: How long should we wait before tagging an article as A1, A3, A7 or A9 after the most recent (a) edit (b) edit that actually added content? At the moment I can't see anything on WP:CSD even about the 'hasty' policy, let alone any extension of it to pages that are outside the initial 10-15-minute window but are being actively edited. I think this needs wider discussion, so I'll post something on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. — Smjg (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

yeah someone was editing the article when you tagged it noting that during that time they were doing edits like that of more a experienced editor not one that quacked like a normal rubbish article and you'll see that an edit came in immediately after the tagging with content and sourcing (an edit conflict occurred) because the person helping had to explain that and how to fix it. What I said, and you repeated was that it was being actively edited at the time, it wasnt a hasty but rather an exercising of some commonsense, you know wait and see what develops. Of course there is WP:BITE to consider as well Gnangarra 22:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

<add> fortunately no harm was done, Gnangarra 22:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have been several times criticized that I'm "Biting new editors", so I'm cautious.Xx236 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

{{dttr}}

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I promise, I know what I'm doing - and will clean up after myself. These are part of an edit filter test that can only be completed in mainspace. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Smjg. I've declined the speedy tag. Please don't tag the few pages Xaosflux may be using in the mainspace temporarily. He's testing a new edit filter that is necessary to document a large problem being discussed at WP:AN at the moment. The few seconds of extra mainspace pages with titles clearly indicating they aren't on an encyclopedic topic will be worth the edit filter. Thanks for your understanding. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moto Hospitality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upper Crust. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Raoultella planticola

You posted this on my pag:

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Raoultella planticola. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. — Smjg (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If I can't delete it by deleting content, how can I delete it? It's a page based on hoax, this bacteria never existed and I saw it being used as an argument. So should I paste deletion policy there or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.207.247 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@37.47.207.247: I don't understand – how does "please see the deletion policy for how to proceed" not answer your question about how to get the page deleted? If you're having difficulty following the instructions, I suggest you go to WP:Help desk.

Also, while at it, I'll teach you a bit about how to use talk pages. New discussions go at the bottom of the page, not at the top. And moreover, each separate discussion should have a heading. Also, don't forget to sign your messages on talk pages – the easiest way to do this is to type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. — Smjg (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How to add header? And is there any wiki-basics written in a user friendly way? All this HTML just confuses me37.47.207.247 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@37.47.207.247: Wiki markup isn't HTML. True, some HTML tags are supported, but most of the markup you will use on Wikipedia is specific to the wiki software. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting? — Smjg (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Paul Berthon

Please understand, that Paul Berthon (lithographer) and Paul Émile Berthon (painter) are two entire different persons with two separate Wikidata files and two separate Commons categories. In all other languages the lithographer is named Paul Berthon, and in French and German languages the painter is named Paul Emile Berthon. I tried to correct this mistake of the English version, but I need now urgently your help. Please compare in Wikidata all language versions. I think, the English version of the Paul Emile Berthon article would be very useful to clear all questions. --Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support - but I need your HELP! --Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Szczebrzeszynski: You're throwing me in at the deep end somewhat, as I'm not really familiar with how Wikidata works. What are you asking me to do exactly - just cross-check the info in Wikidata with that in the various language Wikipedia articles for the two people, and make sure they match up? — Smjg (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've now had a look, and found the following:

• Full dates of birth and death are given for the lithographer in some language versions (and are in agreement therebetween), but Wikidata has only the year for each.
• Apart from this and the English version being under the wrong title, the various language versions agree with each other on the data points covered by the Wikidata page.
• Both articles for the landscape painter give his YOB as 1846, but in Wikidata it's 1845.
• Wikidata has the landscape painter's DOD as 15 February 1909, which seems to be a mistake due to confusion with the lithographer.

I've just put the full DOB/D into the English article. I'm a bit wary of making the corrections to Wikidata without properly knowing what I'm doing (in terms of references and such). — Smjg (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I would try to write the English version of the Paul Émile Berthon article, but you must first rename the present article.--Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Hopefully somebody will do the move soon. Unfortunately I'm not an admin so I can't do it myself. — Smjg (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Serbia in the Turkvision Song Contest

Smjg. The redirect on Serbia in the Turkvision Song Contest was actually done in error. Serbia have never taken part in the Turkvision contest. The creator of the article/redirect got very eager in starting up an article for a country that has never taken part in a contest. That is why I placed the speedy tag as nobody is likely to search for a country's participation in a contest that they have never entered and are not eligible to participate in. I wasn't too sure if WP:CSD#R2 was the correct tag, as the interpretation of R2 is very vague. In my opinion it would mean a a redirect leading to a redirect (or is that double-redirect?) Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: R2 is for cross-namespace redirects that are against the rules - most often redirects from the main article namespace into the User or Draft namespace. Maybe the criterion you were looking for is R3? — Smjg (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

R3 probably is the right one. Cross-wiki to me would be anything across Wikipedia including namespace, and not in the way you described it above (which I appreciate that by the way). Perhaps the description at WP:CSD#R2 needs to be better worded so that people know exactly what it means and not get confused by the vagueness of the context. Anyhow, do I really need to re-tag for CSD:R3 when we have established now that is what I should have used in the first place? Like I noted above, Serbia have not taken part in the contest, so to have the article title, albeit a redirect, is WP:TOOSOON and should in affect be deleted. Wes Mouse  ^T@lk 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Malaysia United Native Party, Malaysian United Indigenous Party

I don't know the subject. Only now I see that there are two versions of the same page.Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: Yes, I've just realised that myself. I see what this user has done now - a cut and paste move. I've turned the duplicate page into a redirect. — Smjg (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack

By calling me an unconstructive editor(!) you have added an Personal attack. See Wikipedia:WIAPA. -- » Shadowowl | talk 17:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: I didn't call you unconstructive. I called your edit unconstructive. There's a big difference. If a user makes an unconstructive edit, messaging that user to ask him/her to stop is a perfectly legitimate course of action. — Smjg (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm Shadowowl. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Fine. » Shadowowl | talk 17:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

See my above reply. — Smjg (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rules for a Knight

Hi, I saw that you had deleted the wiki page on the book "Rules for a Knight". I had created that page for the purpose assigning myself the article. One of my class projects is to create a Wikipedia article and I had planned on moving the article from my sandbox to the page when it was completed. I am going to recreate the page now. Mk edwards (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mk edwards: There's no such thing as assignment of articles to users on Wikipedia. Editors do not own articles. But if you need to create a placeholder article for the time being then please do so in the Draft namespace as LoudLizard has said. — Smjg (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is assigned to me on my class page so my instructor can see it. It is not assigned to me on wikipedia, just in my class. If, after I have posted the article in full you feel it could be better, by all means edit it. But for now, since my grade hinges on this project, please do not interfere. Thanks Mk edwards (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smjg. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smjg. 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)

Wikiwashing

Regarding Wikiwashing which you marked for speedy: I thougnt the template placed there was a legit way to indicate that it has a wiktionary entry. No? - Brianhe (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Did it have a Wiktionary entry when you created the soft redirect? It doesn't as I look now, hence my tagging it for deletion. What do you see, when you follow the link?

Furthermore, as I understand it, pages shouldn't be created on Wikipedia purely for the purpose of linking to Wiktionary pages. Rather, such soft redirects tend to be temporary cleanup operations that are eventually deleted (even if the Wiktionary page does exist). — Smjg (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You know I was sure there was a wikt:Wikiwashing but now I realize it's not there. I'm going to have to go back and see where it was or am I just mistaken. - Brianhe (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)