User talk:Smjg/Archive 3

Another editor has added the {{

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Sorry--I forgot to put your changes in after I had restored the picture. My bad..

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

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)

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!

That edit you reported to me was an accidental revert; I didn't add the orginal content. Thanks. Message from XENU

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)

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');

to User:Smjg/monobook.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)

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)

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!