User talk:Smjg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussion:

Re: Ooops[edit]

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)

@TheVampire: The unrelated edit I was referring to is my one just now to Set phrase, which I did in a bit of a hurry and my browser pulled up an edit summary from my previous edit to 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)

Re: Category:Theatre companies in South Carolina[edit]

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)

Sekmai[edit]

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)

Gnaphosa[edit]

Gnaphosa orchymonti is synonym for Gnaphosa dolosa, see World Spider Catalog, see, see Catalogue of Life: 30th January 2017 --Zeljko (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Gurney Barclay (Astronomer)[edit]

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:
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)

Re:Return of TLC tour[edit]

Thank you for noticing and helping me with my edits recently. Well I've just withdrawn my deletion of Return of TLC tour because I did come up with some ideas but still, i'm having trouble naming it correctly. Should I name the article TLC 2016 tour or 2016 Tour? Please help! And thank you! Beyoncetan (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@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)

Southern Cooking reflist[edit]

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. --McGeddon (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting page - can you reply ?[edit]

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)

WikiProject Women in Red/female bio editathon advice[edit]

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/female bio editathon advice I ought to blank the original page so that it can be deleted. While redirects are usually useful in safeguarding access by links to the original page after a move, this is an exception. I see now that my edit comment was probably not sufficiently explicit. But don't worry about it too much. I'm sure someone else will pick it up and take care of it. (BTW, I like your examples of common grammatical errors on your user page although I fear some of them are acceptable in the U.S.) --Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@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)
@Ipigott: {{db-rediruser}} is just a redirect to {{db-r2}}, which is the general criterion for inappropriate redirects from the mainspace to another space. But I'm pretty sure "A dog refers to an animal that barks" isn't an Americanism. Rather, it's a semantic error based on the 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)

Užice[edit]

Then, what is the purpose of bunch of these redirects ([1]) if no page links to them, but to the redirected page of Užice? The question comes from the logical standpoint, and not based on WP:CSD. Thanks!--AirWolf talk 17:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@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:PROD or 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)
@AirWolf: How do you know that these redirects are nonfunctional, i.e. aren't pointing anybody who searches for these phrases in the right direction? (There's a further possibility that some of these might have links to them from outside of WP.) Again, my point applies about using WP:PROD or WP:AfD if you feel any of them should be deleted. — Smjg (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

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

Llwyn-celyn farmhouse, Llanvihangel Crucorney[edit]

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 PROD or RfD it. — Smjg (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lamba (surname)[edit]

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:GS/Caste - and associating last names with castes is fraught with difficulties, eg: see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: When you say "it is OR", do you personally know the editor who added that info, and as such know that said person did the research him/herself? Furthermore, if a page contains no content suitable for Wikipedia, then the answer (if you can't find suitable content to add in its place) is to nominate it for deletion (in this case, I think WP:PROD would have been best), not to remove all content from the page. ("Lamba is a surname" doesn't constitute content because it does literally nothing but repeat what the page title says - 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)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg 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 Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page. This will enable you to move a page to a new title. Alternatively, you can follow the process 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)

J&A Records[edit]

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)

Warning for vandalism[edit]

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)

Eudeno[edit]

Yup. That's what I get for manually typing stuff instead of using Twinkle. TimothyJosephWood 17:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Files (iOS)[edit]

In case you didn't notice, there was an in use tag on the article as I am in the process of writing it. Batreeqah (Talk) (Contribs) 04:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeq (talkcontribs)

@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, not vandalism[edit]

OK, tagging lists of reptiles of the Dominican Republic for speedy was not vandalism but it was certainly questionable to say the least. What grounds have you for saying it was "created in error". A more appropriate speedy tag might have been the DirtyPo tag but that deletion criterion has the condition "recently created" which certainly does not apply to this redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@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)

Oecanthus rufescens[edit]

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 deletion policy yet? I think this would need to go through 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)

Quinolones[edit]

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)

@Smokefoot: No I mightn't, because doing so would leave the article in a state that would, in the lack of a suitable version to revert it to, be {{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)

deleting account[edit]

how can i delete my account and all actions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Air06saw (talkcontribs) 22:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Air06saw: You can't:
Smjg (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

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. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mychemicalromanceisrealemo: I see now. It looked as if you were trying to delete the title the page had been at for a long time, but I realise now it was part of a chain of moves by you in the space of a few minutes. On this basis, I think {{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 @Smjg:--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

how can i change my username?[edit]

please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Air06saw (talkcontribs) 14:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


Not creating Blank pages its work in progress.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Abigail (Bible)[edit]

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)

Indian stuff[edit]

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)

October 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Heisenbug, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. See MOS:BOLD. It's absolutely simple so a series of question marks in a revert are unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 5 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)

Kideko listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kideko. Since you had some involvement with the Kideko redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GQsm Talk | c 15:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Parchi[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs) 13:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Imran.IRK Films: It appears that you have a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Articles are edited by members of the general public, not by representatives of the subject of the article. Indeed, people who have a close connection with some entity are discouraged from writing or contributing to an article about that entity. Please read WP:COI for more information. — Smjg (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pi filter redirect[edit]

I attempted to redirect Pi filter to an appropriate place, which is NOT my article on Capacitor-input filter (I wrote the whole article, so I know very well what one is). My edit disappeared! When I attempted to revert the last edit, the page was blanked, not what I intended. While I was mulling over the problem, you intervened. There is no article on Pi filter, so it is anyone's guess where the page should direct to. A Pi filter can properly be 1) bandpass filter, 2) bandstop filter, 3) high pass filter, 4) low pass filter, 5) noise filter. I use and recognize Pi filters every day, for example, in audio equalization circuits. If someone would point to one of those and call it a "capacitor input filter", I would know that person was ignorant. The article on capacitor input filter makes no mention of Pi filter. A capacitor input filter is simply a capacitor, and implies nothing else. In the vast majority of cases, the capacitor is followed by either a regulator or a voltage adjusting resistor. I'd be happy to simply delete the Pi filter page until a proper article is created. I'll redirect the page to the Electronic filters article, since a Pi filter is really just a general purpose 3rd order filter, as per the above. Sbalfour (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)