User talk:Smjg/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I just thought the page needed to be deleted, since no page on Wikipedia contains the wiki link The Bloody Crown.--TheVampire (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@

The Bloody Crown

. I wasn't sure whether that would generate a notification.

But as for that page, pages are not "dependent" on other pages that link to them. I realise that G8 doesn't have a precise definition, but common sense tells me that just being an orphaned page doesn't qualify. — Smjg (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No objection to the speedy deletion. I created the category under the impression that there were at least one or two articles that would fit, later realizing that they were historical theatres, not theatrical companies.Bjones (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it Sekmai Bazar?Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Sekmai where the same message was posted. — Smjg (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to write a page for Joseph Gurney Barclay (Astronomer), but am having difficulty editing the template FRAS (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@FRAS: Hmm. How did you try to create the article? Did you just create a new page and enter "{{biography}}" as the content? I'm not familiar with this template, but I did notice on its page this instruction you appear to have missed:

This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:Biography}}).

It would appear to me that this is your first step towards being able to actually get the content into the article. — Smjg (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK I'll try that FRAS (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing and helping me with my edits recently. Well I've just withdrawn my

@Beyoncetan: Therein lies the problem - I'm not sure how articles like this should be titled either. The best suggestion I can offer would be to post the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music. — Smjg (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smjg: All right. Thank you Smjg for helping! Beyoncetan (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I must have messed that up and restored Blythwood's previous version of the template when attempting to get a simultaneous edit through. Wasn't intentional. --

OK to delete, I am brand new and not ready to fully create it - I just want to be sure I can create the same page name later when I have some proper content and citations done. Golfher (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Golfher

@Golfher: Once you have some proper content, you should be able to re-create the page at the same title without any problems. — Smjg (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Smjg. Thanks for your interest in the above page. I can understand your edit but in fact by keeping anything on this page, you keep it in mainspace which is not allowed for pages relating to WikiProjects. I thought that after moving the content of the page to

@Ipigott: This is exactly what the speedy deletion templates are for - getting a page deleted if certain criteria are met. One of these criteria is an inappropriate redirect from the main article space to project space, user space, etc. On the other hand, blanking the page is of no benefit and merely confuses anybody who stumbles upon the page. (BTW, I've heard some say "off of" is acceptable in the US, but even so it's certainly an informal usage and to be avoided in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if any of my other examples are.) — Smjg (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I expect if you add the correct one of the two you suggest, the page will be taken off of the mainspace. I've seen "A dog refers to an animal that barks" or something similar as the first line of the lead in many articles. I assume it is American usage.--Ipigott (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@

use-mention distinction or oversight thereof. Indeed, I've just found something specifically about use of this on WP: Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use of "refers to". — Smjg (talk

) 13:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Then, what is the purpose of bunch of these redirects ([1]) if no page links to them, but to the redirected page of

@AirWolf: Half the point of redirects is for the benefit of people, who are likely to search for a topic by a particular name. In particular, "Uzice" is a very likely name by which people will search for any of these three settlements. Also, if a disambiguation page doesn't have "(disambiguation)" in its title, then as a general rule we should still have a redirect to it from a version with "(disambiguation)" in, so that pages can deliberately link to it and bots will know it's deliberate and so won't flag the link.

If you feel that a page should be deleted but it doesn't meet a CSD, then the best thing to do is to use the

WP:AfD process. — Smjg (talk

) 17:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not pointing that topic, indeed I agree with the current state of disambiguation page. I'm asking you about ([2]), what was the problem other than for the technical reasons to remove these nonfunctional redirects? All of these names are very closely associated with the city of Užice (which redirects prove): Titovo Uzice, Titovo Užice, Uzhice, Uzhitse, Uzicani, Uzicans, Uzice, Uzice Municipality, Užicans, Užičani, Užiče. However, none of them have links to them, but to redirected page, that is my point.--AirWolf ^talk 17:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:AfD if you feel any of them should be deleted. — Smjg (talk

) 17:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I started ot do the Islamo-lefitst redirect, ang got distracted. I'm sorry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just creating article on this. Shall undo your reversion to the redirect if that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not OK to have a page that's literally nothing but a link, but not done as a redirect. As such, I've changed it back to a redirect, albeit to the new page. — Smjg (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

But do we actually need the redirect page at all? It redirected to Llanvihangel Crucorney when the farm house didn't have its own page. Now it does, what purpose does the redirect serve? Ditto the redirect here, [3], for Court Farm Barn, Llanthony Priory which redirected, inaccurately, to Llanvihangel Crucorney. Given that I've now created articles for both, aren't the redirects superfluous? KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: If an entity doesn't have a page of its own, but has a section describing it on some other page, then it's reasonable to have a redirect to that section. Indeed, this is why {{R to section}} exists. But it does seem to me that there was never any section on Llanvihangel Crucorney about the farmhouse, and therefore the redirect shouldn't have been there. Of course, now we have an article to redirect it to. I suppose it isn't really necessary to have this redirect, given that

• a search regardless of capitalisation will bring up the article
• it's now orphaned but for here
• it's unlikely that anything outside WP links to it, since the page it previously redirected to didn't have any real info on it

If you feel that the redirect should be deleted, feel free to

RfD it. — Smjg (talk

) 12:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you pissed me off a couple of days ago and you've just done it again at the above article. If you don't understand the Indian caste system etc then please either ask first, educate yourself or don't edit in the area. It is subject to a sanctions regime for a reason - see

@

WP:A3

.)

Now that you've put in some replacement content, I guess we can let the issue lie now. Still, please note what I have said for future reference. I have noted what you have said. — Smjg (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I won't note what you said. I've been round the block and do not need the preachings of someone whose user-page is written in the third person. You comments are misplaced: you obviously do not understand why I did what I did, why it was OR, and why I later filled it with a list. Like I said, if you don't know, and don't want to learn, about caste-related stuff, it is best not to edit in the topic area. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush:

• I do understand why you did it. This doesn't change the fact that removing all content from a page, instead of going through one of the proper deletion processes, is inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia.
• Why should I understand why somebody else posted original research on Wikipedia? Furthermore, if you claim that something is OR then the onus is on you to provide evidence of your claim.
• Inappropriate edits are fair game to being reverted. There is no requirement for the editor who does the reverting to have knowledge of the subject area in order to do this.
• At the time of my reversion you had not yet filled it with a list, and therefore this is irrelevant.
• What has the style in which my userpage is written to do with anything?

As such, if you ignore my advice, I will have no sympathy if you are blocked. — Smjg (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to know, to how to change the title name of the page Arra Tv which I had cereated recently , instead I like to change as " ARRA Tv ". Helloashok (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Helloashok: Thank you. :)

Once you've made a few more edits, you should begin to see the 'Move' command described at

WP:RM

.

BTW I have noticed that the channel's website mixes the forms "ARRA TV", "ARRA Tv" and "Arra TV". Do you know which is officially correct? If not, you may wish to try and contact them in order to confirm it. :) — Smjg (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the 'follies' continue [4] --220 of ^Borg 06:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Indeed. I'm not sure how best to deal with what's going on here. For the record, DJ Latino Prince's last edit was to tag it for SD on the basis that "we are no longer working under the name J&A Records". Obviously, if a business has changed its name, the answer is not to move the article to the new name, not to delete it. Trouble is we're not sure what the new name is, and moreover there seems to be a COI at work here. — Smjg (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Though I think you meant "...he answer is not to move the article to the new name."?
Article has also been PRODed since: "Subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Lacks significant sourcing unconnected with the subject." [5] 220 of ^Borg 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You recently warned me for supposedly trying to vandalise Wikipedia pages. I must inform you that I have committed no such action. Why in the world are you blaming _me_? How did you even find me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.21.66.144 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@113.21.66.144: It's quite simple really. Do you see a "View history" link at the top of each page? This shows who has edited the page. Since you weren't logged in, the edit has been logged against your IP address. If it wasn't you then it was someone else using the same IP address as you – hence the notice displayed at the bottom of your talk page about creating an account.

Also, when starting a new discussion on a talk page, please put it at the bottom, not the top. This is a Wikipedia standard. — Smjg (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. That's what I get for manually typing stuff instead of using Twinkle.

In case you didn't notice, there was an in use tag on the article as I am in the process of writing it.

@

Batreeq: I did notice that tag. The purpose of it is to warn people that they are liable to experience edit conflicts if they try to edit the article - which clearly wasn't the case as the page hadn't been edited at all in the 2½ hours since the tag was added. My action was really just a temporary measure on the basis that the page had no real content at the time, and it was trivial to reinstate the article once some real content is written. Now that content has been added, I guess all's well now. — Smjg (talk

) 13:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smjg: Sorry, I got confused. Batreeqah ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, tagging

@RHaworth: That the target page is about the fauna of a completely different country, of course. And moreover, there's no corresponding article to be found about the Dominican Republic whatsoever, so it doesn't seem to be a case of inadvertently targeting it at the wrong page. Moreover, have you even looked at the history of that redirect page? — Smjg (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please look at the history of the page - it had no content and redirected to Oecanthus Paul venter (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paul venter: So what?

• Why would redirection exist if we weren't meant to use it?
• The point is that page blanking is not the way to go about getting a page deleted. The exact reason for which you think it should be deleted is irrelevant.

— Smjg (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please try to remain polite......there are rules for using a redirect page, and there are requirements for creating a page. If the page has no content, as is the case with Oecanthus rufescens, then THAT is sufficient reason for deleting it. Paul venter (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paul venter: Was I impolite? If I was I didn't mean to be.

But I was not arguing with you wanting to delete the page. I was talking about the fact that you blanked the page instead of nominating it for deletion. Have you read the

Redirects for discussion, so feel free to go ahead and nominate it. — Smjg (talk

) 11:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting Paul venter (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paul venter: At the top of that section: To delete a redirect without replacing it with a new article, list it on redirects for discussion. — Smjg (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Then kindly do so......Paul venter (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Things are stable for the quinolones, so you might undo you actions there. If you look at the active editors on those topics, you will notice that we have been doing a lot of "renovating" related articles. Thanks. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@

db-nocontent}}. We need suitable replacement content for the page (or if it's a duplicate, then the page to be redirected). — Smjg (talk

) 13:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever. You can see that a couple of editors are working to combine two near duplicates. But suit yourself.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

how can i delete my account and all actions? — Preceding

@Air06saw: You can't:

• Actions cannot be deleted, but individual edits can be reverted, if it is reasonable to do so.
• User accounts cannot be deleted – see Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts.

— Smjg (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I had left a message on the talk page. I didn't blank the page, it's left over from a double redirect and I accidentally created it. The article had made it sound like there were other societies like it but that isn't true, so the creation of that page was facetious. --

@

db-author}} or {{db-error}} would be the best deletion template to use. — Smjg (talk

) 22:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I'll use that in the future @

talk

) 02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I am the organiser and contact point for wiki loves monuments in Malaysia. I am working on My monument list, saved the pages because while I was creating a page someone edited my page. so had to secure the page name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammarah Khalid (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarah Khalid: What do you mean by "contact point for wiki loves monuments"?

You don't have any pages in Wikipedia (apart from User:Ammarah Khalid and any subpages of it you create). You can't secure a page name. Once you've created a page, anybody is free to edit it. It's how Wikipedia works. — Smjg (talk

) 10:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's my situation with Abigail (Bible), where you recently reverted my blanking of it.

As it stands now, the redirect is not used within Wikipedia -- the only link to it is on its talk page. There are two Abigails in the Bible, and this one leads to the (by far) more obscure one, so if anyone ever does use "Abigail (Bible)" they'll likely go to the wrong place. I'm thinking it should probably just be done away with (a little googling says RfD might be the forum for this).

One could turn it into a redirect, but I think the hatnote on Abigail and Abigail (disambiguation) cover all the required territory just fine. So, if you were me, what's my best move here. Do I RfD it, or something else? I RfD'd a couple articles successfully before -- is the process the same for redirects? Alephb (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: It is indeed odd that Abigail and Abigail (Bible) go to two different Biblical characters. On this basis, the best course of action is to redirect this to the disambiguation page. Indeed, there's a template: {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, for redirects from disambiguating titles that are still ambiguous. I'll amend this one now. — Smjg (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. Alephb (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As with the previous occasion when we differed regarding India-related stuff, you do not seem to know what you are talking about. Maintaining the "integrity" of the project is fine and well but it involves some common sense and that article is typical of "Indian names" nonsense created by SPAs. It had also been subject to socking and caste puffery, and had never been sourced since creation. There is a reason why we have two different applicable sanctions regimes that cover it. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: What are you talking about? As far as I can see, the edits I have made to that page are constructive. And I am very familiar with WP's policies and guidelines. Indeed, I'd say your edits were not constructive. You have made a change that reads to me as being in direct contradiction with the page you linked to, and moreover ignored the edit summary to this edit. Repeatedly referring me to the same page doesn't change what it says. — Smjg (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The revert you made on the article that goes against MOS:BOLD. I did not ignore the edit summary as I kept the bold in the lede, where it belongs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: What do you mean it "goes against MOS:BOLD"? I am asking you to explain this claim, not repeat it. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that you've checked through the section to make sure you read it correctly.

I have now read it several times, and it doesn't indicate that what I have used it for belongs only in the lead/lede. But it mentions the following uses of bold among others:

• "to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section" – not applicable here.
• "terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections" – applicable here.
• "To follow the 'principle of least astonishment' after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section" – applicable here. OK, so they're not all at the beginning of the section you removed them from, but I say common sense applies here. — Smjg (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading, "in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article". If I'm reading that correctly, it states one or the other. If you'd like, I could confirm the correct use at the MoS page, or you could do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: My second bullet point doesn't have any restriction on where in the article it applies. On this basis, I say what I was doing is correct. Applying common sense (see the box at the top of that page) also leads me to the same conclusion. — Smjg (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The second bullet point is actually very clear it says that if there is a redirect to an article or to a sub-section. It redirects to the article and so the first entry can be bold. On that basis, what you were doing was wrong. But you don't believe me and you think you're right, so again, would you like to confirm at the MoS page or would you like me to? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: What do you mean? "The first entry can be bold" says nothing about the other instances of the terms. And the phrase "terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections" doesn't distinguish between the first instance and other instances either. True, the sentence does have the phrase "the first occurrence of" earlier in it, but the scope of this phrase is ambiguous, and so you can't claim one interpretation is right and the other is wrong. Furthermore, you've done nothing to address the common sense argument.

Anyhow, I'll start the discussion on the MoS page when/if I decide it's worth it. — Smjg (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I started and it has concluded. My understanding was correct. The way I worded it was that the current wording was confusing and I was seeking clarification of the MoS, which was done: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FText_formatting&type=revision&diff=804135639&oldid=803998454 . Notice the use of "first occurrence in running text". Bold should only happen once in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Hi, I made important changes on the Parchi page because I am an employee of the production house which produced this film. We have not released the date of the film as well as the music composers hence it was a wrong information posted on the wiki page. Any changes made from my account are authorized because I am employee of IRK Films and thus have complete information on the film Parchi and IRK Films. User:Imran.IRK Films (talk), 23 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran.IRK Films (talk • contribs)

That might justify removal of "The film is scheduled to be released in November 2017", but does nothing to justify the removal/blanking of the entire section. — Smjg (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the entire content because I'm in the process of making an official page that has authorized and original content since I am an employee of the production house of the page that claims incorrect information on the PARCHI 2017 film page. I wanted to make official pages of IRK Films and Parchi the film from my own account here and those already posted on wikipedia were made by an unknown person who does not have the correct information. So if you can entirely remove the page Parchi (2017 film) it would be better because I've already developed the content and encoding of references against each statement I will incorporate into the page "Parchi the film 2018". Also, the administrators of wikipedia are very rude. I made an account only last week and Im still getting the hang of how wikipedia works but three different administrators sent me very rude messages against any change i make on the unauthorized Parchi page. How do i verify to wikipedia that I am the authorized person who should make pages associated with the films made under IRK Films Banner because im an employee of that company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran.IRK Films (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:COI for more information. — Smjg (talk

) 14:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I didn't mean to blank it. Very well aware of the etiquette as I tag for speedy deletion often, didn't mean to do that! Ss112 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Smjg. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

I was in the middle of starting a new entry and you tagged it for deletion. Please, give me some time to start filling it in. Thank you. Tmangray (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tmangray: I see you've added more content now – thank you. For future reference, Wikipedia guidelines give a window of 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for speedy deletion as A1, A3 or A7; in this case, it had been 17 minutes, not 2-3 minutes as you stated in your contestation message. Moving forward, you may wish to use the draft namespace or draft new articles offline before publishing them. Just a thought. Good luck. — Smjg (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 12:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I did accidentally turn that page into a blank page. I actually asked for help about it on the help desk. I had actually accidentally created a whole new page for

The same user who tried to nominate it for deletion is trying to force me to delete it because he won't get his way. Could you explain about this to him? He's also an edit warrer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iftekharahmed96

You disagree with me only to agree with me and then disagree with me again? I'm not forcing you to do anything. You just refuse to explain as to why you've created a list article for a company that is no longer active since 2011. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm writing this message regarding the article

But part of what to consider is whether deleting the page is the right course of action. In some scenarios such as this,

redirection may be a better option. — Smjg (talk

) 01:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SILF is not only the acronym of Syrian Islamic Liberation Front but also of Spanish-Italian Amphibious Brigade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.149.40.13 (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@82.149.40.13: What exactly is your point? Currently, there doesn't seem to be an article for Spanish-Italian Amphibious Brigade. But if an acronym has two meanings, the correct course of action is to either:

• If the meaning it currently redirects to can be considered the 'primary' meaning, then keep the redirect, and add a hatnote to point readers to the other one.
• Change the acronym from a redirect to a
  disambiguation page
  .

— Smjg (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on

02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

.

Apologize, now i know what's with the history merge. <Personale talk/> 06:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Shiuli

"Tree of sadness" and "Tree of Sadness", both are redirects to the page Shiuli. But the second redirect is useless since it is violating WP naming conventions and the first one is sufficient. That is why I nominated "Tree of Sadness" for deletion. I hope you understand now and delete the page. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RfD. — Smjg (talk

) 10:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be a waste of time, please think again, as I had explained before this redirect is violating WP naming conventions and lying useless and there is an alternative form of it already in existence which is also of no use, so this redirect is clearly out of place. A good decision for speedy deletion. You may discuss it with another admin. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RfD. None of us can override this. — Smjg (talk

) 20:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philly shrug

The article Philly shrug has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No in-depth significant coverage.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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.

I am notifying you because you declined a

WP:G7 deletion here. – Fayenatic London

21:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambig CSD

Re Skandha (disambiguation), the explanation in the new page curation tool gives the following:

Unnecessary disambiguation page — This only applies for orphaned disambiguation pages which either: (1) disambiguate two or fewer existing Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or (2) disambiguates no (zero) existing Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. (G6)

This only disambiguates 2 pages. One, Skandha, would be the primary topic, as it has no parenthetical descriptor in the title. I think you should undo removal of the tag. Natureium (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:CSD is the official word on this, so what this says takes precedence over anything in the page curation tool. But clearly the discrepancy needs to be resolved somehow. — Smjg (talk

) 15:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask at the NPP page why there's a difference. Natureium (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How to write an article written in Meetei Mayek script as well as in Meetei language.

I like to write an article in Meetei Mayek Procees /steps to make allow the article written in Meetei Mayek script can be visible in Wikipedia. Awangba Mangang (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Awangba Mangang: Please see the previous message that was sent to you about this. I've just had a quick look, and it seems the process for requesting a Wikipedia in a new language is covered in meta:Language proposal policy. — Smjg (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Can you tell the reason for this revert? --AntanO 08:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@

Cavihemiptilocera exoleta, it appeared that you'd just removed the redirect by accident while correcting the content of the template, but when I saw a second one I was confused. Was there something you were trying to do? — Smjg (talk

) 10:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, I tried to fixed which turned to error. Anyway, you have recovered. --AntanO 10:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

2017-18 Boston Uprising season

In regards: 2017-18 Boston Uprising season

It originally was a redirect of the modification 2017–18 Boston Uprising season, one of several subarticles I created/deleted since notability standards couldn't be met. All the other redirect modifications have since been deleted e.g., 2017-18 Dallas Fuel season; 2017-18 Houston Outlaws season; 2017-18 Shanghai Dragons season etc. I noticed the Boston Uprising somehow slipped through, I think maybe because of the Bot edits?, hence why I requested the deletion.

talk

) 11:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:TfD. — Smjg (talk

) 11:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smjg: Apologies in advance as I'm still trying to figure out this whole deletion procedure, so might sound a bit ignorant.

So let me work this out. I created 2017–18 Boston Uprising season; Bot then creates modification 2017-18 Boston Uprising season; a reviewer then blanks and redirects 2017–18 Boston Uprising season -> Boston Uprising due to notability issues; Bot then fixes modification's double redirect 2017-18 Boston Uprising season -> Boston Uprising; I then successfully {{db-author}} 2017–18 Boston Uprising season, however the modification can't be deleted which all stems down to the original redirect by the reviewer.

What a drag. So if you don't me asking, what would you suggest I do? Do I just place {{delete|G6}}, would that suffice? The fact the last redirect modification remains is going to irritate me to no ends, especially after I was told redirecting was pointless as the subarticles weren't useful/common search terms.

talk

) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki nV: I see what happened now. The bot retargeted this as it was a double redirect. Agreed, it doesn't make sense to have this one odd redirect, which would have been deleted under G8 if the bot hadn't retargeted it. I'll tag it as G6 with a link to this discussion. Hopefully we can get this sorted out. — Smjg (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks.

talk

) 14:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the redirect. Some might say it should have been taken to RfD, but it's basically an author-requested deletion so I didn't bother with that bureaucracy. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of

Hardened Gentoo

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Hardened Gentoo 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/Hardened Gentoo until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ... ( Almost pointless informing you ... as you've simply been reverting changes by a what likely was a single anonymous user rapidly switching ip's ... who if a regular user would likely have been blocked. Thankyou ) 05:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Thank you. It's probably not this user's fault that he/she has a dynamic IP address, and moreover as a result may not have seen all of the messages left on his/her various IP talk pages. But it doesn't look like this user was deliberately switching IPs to try to avoid being blocked. And I'm not sure how many of the history comments this person saw either. Still, it was somewhat ridiculous to think it's OK to blank the page as a substitute for deletion if a deletion request was declined.

I suppose there must be a good way to reason with IP hoppers, but I'm not sure what it is. Do you have any thoughts? (Probably something worthy of discussion there.) — Smjg (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Hoppers ... well one learns a new term every day. This was a very fast hopper. Looks similar to a fast hopper who prod'd about 8 articles a month or two ago after disrupting some of them. I de-proded about 75% due to invalid no reference claims .. at a quick look I was finding feasible references of these. The problem is no accountability and pointless trying to leave a message on the talk page. What somewhat surprises me is the range of IP addresses used ... I must admit I have not tried to locate them. One thought would be to semi protect pages if any fast-hopping IPs are about. ... perhaps after the third disruption. The second would be not to entertain an AfD request by an IP user if disruptive editing by an IP user has occured. Just some thoughts. 06:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I know what you mean - for some reason my ISP gives me all manner of IP addresses, and even the first byte varies (though there are some recurring patterns). I maintain a website that uses MySQL, and I keep having to add more IP addresses to the remote MySQL whitelist. I agree, it would have been sensible to get the page semi-protected. — Smjg (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect at Ƣalib

Hi, that was an instant revert of a controversial move when the original mover invented the word "Ƣalib" and moved the Ghalib article there. THe redirect can be deleted under R3 IMHO as there is little point to run a RfD discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Apologies - I should have realised it had been moved to this title only the other day and moved back again. So it's in the spirit of R3, if not the letter. — Smjg (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smjg: No worries. Actually, MediaWiki is to blame as it stopped recording page moves in the target page history, which confuses many people (me including). Cheers, 14:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass incarceration

Thanks for correcting me, I have never encountered this situation before.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian document markup users has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedian document markup users, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

Thank you for picking that up.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Clyde Phillips

There should be no links to disambiguation pages, so now that you made Clyde Phillips a dab page, would you please follow up and fix all the incoming links? (Dabfix and Dabsolver are helpful.) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gorthian: Did you mean to send this to me? I didn't change Clyde Phillips to a disambiguation page - User:Stretchrunner did. — Smjg (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies! — Gorthian (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Album of Pablo ruiz

Hi, there is an album in the wiki of Pablo Ruiz, i tried to delet it because the album doesnt exist, the songs listed belong to other singer call Daniel Rene. How can I change it to be the correct info?

Blutgirl (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blutgirl: Do you mean one of the albums listed under Pablo Ruiz (singer) isn't actually one of Pablo's albums? In that case, you would need to do two things:

• Edit the album page to correct the information on whom it is by
• Edit Pablo Ruiz (singer) to remove the incorrect album

I see that Daniel Rene don't seem to have a Wikipedia page at the moment.

If you need help with editing, I suggest you look at Help:Editing. — Smjg (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

In Miracle Land

Hi, I just deleted a redirect from the page In Miracle Land and would like to replace it with a full page about the album. You sent me a message saying not to leave it blank. How do I turn it into a music album article/page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.10.168 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@121.222.10.168: Just click 'Edit' and write the article. What's your difficulty? — Smjg (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, just wasn't sure if that was the way to do it. Do I need an account to upload an album art picture or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.10.168 (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@121.222.10.168: Retracting my previous comment – looking at WP:Why create an account? it appears that uploading images is something you need a user account to do. That page will also lead you to the page where you can create yourself an account. Also, whatever you do, please remember to sign your talk page messages. The simplest way to do this is to type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. — Smjg (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

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) 09:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

A Little Bitter (song)

You declined a speedy on this, but some others patrolling speedies have deleted similar nominations. I wish you guys would agree amongst yourselves, makes editing much easier. FWIW, I will continue to add recent duplicate redirects because there is no benefit for them and merely add to clutter. NB Note I haven't asked you to change your mind! --Richhoncho (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Oskar van Deventer

Hello, I see that in June you added two "clarify" and a bunch of "when" tags to that article. While I agree that "jumbling" would need some explanation (though that would be a bit beyond the scope of that article, because it's a rather complicated subject), I'm not sure what you find unclear about the "pinching fingers" of the gear cube. Or was it just because of the use of past tense? I'd love to improve the article, but in that case I'm not sure I understand the issue. Yours, Judith Sunrise (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Judith Sunrise: Hi, thanks for your interest. The clarify request is applied to "was" – so yes, it's querying the use of the past tense. Essentially, the question is: Does this mean that early versions of the Gear Cube had this hazard, and it acquired the name "Caution Cube" as a result, but the design was subsequently improved to be safer? And if so, when? Or is it referring to the overall time that Meffert's were making it? Or does it mean something else entirely? — Smjg (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't own the puzzle so I don't know for sure. But I don't think that any changes were made for finger safety. I assume the past tense was used because the beginning of the sentence was in past tense. I'm gonna ask a friend who owns the puzzle. I'm not sure whether there's a way to find reliable sources though. Judith Sunrise (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The use of past tense in that article is overall problematic. The Gear cube is still mass-produced by Meffert's and you can but it on the website. Same for gear cube extreme; Gear Shift; David Gear cube; gear mixup; gear ball; mosaic cube; Rob's pyraminx; treasure chest; 1x2x9; the mixup cube by witeden can be found online in various shops (cubicle, amazon, ebay, cubezz); the MF8 Icosaix can be found online in some shops (cubicle, knobelbox, hknowstore, amazon and ebay); the lan-lan crazy comet can be found in various shops (cubicle, SCS, khnowstore). I think it's relatively safe to say that all of the cubes are still being produced. Judith Sunrise (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The only ones I couldn't find are the planets puzzle (though a version with 5 instead of 3 balls is still available) and Rob's Octahedron (Rob's pyraminx is mostly marketed as "Duo Pyraminx" now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith Sunrise (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Judith Sunrise: Hmm. So you could well ask why they nearly all say "It was mass-produced by Mèffert's". If you're confident that they're still being produced then we can amend this. (As an aside, the grave accent was added later – this is something I'm confused about. @Drabkikker: Do you have a source for this, or were you merely copying from Uwe Mèffert here?)

Yup, I was. But the accent is also found in e.g., this 1985 book by Douglas Hofstadter. Drabkikker (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Still, I can only wonder about this statement on the Gear Cube. I can see a few possibilities:

• Shapeways produced a version with this finger pinching hazard, but Meffert's subsequently produced a version that doesn't have this problem.
• Shapeways produced a version with this finger pinching hazard, and Meffert's original version had, but then they improved the design to avoid this problem.
• Recently made Gear Cubes still have this finger pinching hazard, and the "was" is in error.

— Smjg (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Judith Sunrise: I see someone has been making changes as we speak. But the changes don't seem to match up with the sources, which seem to tell me merely when production of them started. I guess one of us will need to make some edits on the back of these.... — Smjg (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Smjg: I've read here that the Shapeways version of the Gear cube had sharper edges than the Meffert's version. My friend who owns the puzzle said he never had a pinching problem.

Regarding the accent grave on Mèffert: Since the website is called "Meffert's Puzzles" I would at very least remove the accent from the company name. He also calls himself "Meffert" rather than "Mèffert" on said website, so I'd also remove it from the person's name. (according to MOS both self-identification and what name the public is more familiar with are more important than legal names)

The sources 172.223.245.94 is adding all point to the "twisty puzzle museum" at twistypuzzles.com. They state who first produced it and when it was invented, but not whether it's still produced. I think linking to Meffert's website would be a better source. Judith Sunrise (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

One thing 172.223.245.94 is right about though, is that the 1x2x9 wasn't invented by Oskar van Deventer (he invented a 1x2x13, Meffert liked it but then teamed up with another inventer who had already made a 1x2x9).

Does it make sense to write "has been mass-produced by Meffert's since 200x" or should I rather write "is mass-produced by Mefferts"? Thanks! Judith Sunrise (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirect removal

Hi Smjg, I didn't blanked the page. The page of Ashley Black redirects to a totally different page. I came across this and prepared a page of Ashley Black. Can you please check? Because I was about to update the page with new content and you reverted my edits. Should I use a different name or this name space is available please guide. TechGeekRon (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

According to this edit, you did blank Ashley Black. The only thing I reverted is this blanking – not a series of edits. What are you asking me to check exactly?

If you have some content for an article about Ashley, I'm inclined to say go ahead and add it in place. My reversion of the blanking doesn't stop you from doing this. — Smjg (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you. The page alreadyy had nothing. I'll upload the content I prepared as I have saved the code thank God. Thanks. TechGeekRon (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just uploaded content to Ashley page. Thanks TechGeekRon (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Smjg. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Speedy deletion declined:

Yuhanon Mar Dimithrios

Hello Smjg. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of