User talk:Smjg/Archive 4

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

Unreferenced template on Tony Parsons (British journalist)

Hi there. You recently added {{unreferenced}} to this article (subsequently changed by a bot to {{Unreferenced BLP}}). I wanted to draw to your attention that the article is in fact referenced, albeit badly, and have removed the template. The 'External Links' section contains two links - one to a collection of his columns at The Mirror, which is of dubious use as first-party sources are not usually acceptable; but the other is to an in-depth article about him by The Guardian, here, which is entirely acceptable as a reference. This may seem like a trivial matter, but there's an urgent need to reduce the number of unreferenced biographies of living people on Wikipedia, and that process is slowed by people tagging articles as unreferenced when they aren't. Just remember that 'unreferenced' doesn't mean 'no in-line citations', but rather 'no references, external links, or mention of any sources whatsoever'. An article that has even a single useful external link is not unreferenced. Thanks for reading, and happy editing. Robofish (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of vegetarians

For your information, we are trying to get the list to FLC, so we've been planning to replace all the entries with mem or some other table. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


My fault. It sounds odd, but I did something wrong reverting my bot edit... anyway: the bug was fixed on monday. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Cardiff template

As a result of your name change to this template, the link to edit the template on each page of the template are broken. Please change the name of the template on each of its articles to reflect its new name and correct this, or I shall move the template back to its original name. Thank you. Welshleprechaun 09:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're telling me. The page is at Template:Economy and industry of Cardiff. Now that you've changed the parameter back, the edit link isn't working on any page as far as I can tell. I've just reinstated my tweak, and now the edit link is working on those pages I've checked, regardless of which variation of the name the page actually uses. Please give me an example of a page on which it fails with my fix in place. -- Smjg (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
On each page that is linked on the template, such as Brains Brewery, go to the template, and click 'e' for edit. Watch what happens. This is is because the template is written on that page with a capital I, but you have changed it to a small i so it doesn't work. Therefore you must change {{Economy and Industry of Cardiff}} to {{Economy and industry of Cardiff}} on every page which has the template to correct the link. Welshleprechaun 11:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Watch what happens? I get the edit page for Template:Economy and industry of Cardiff, completely as expected. What is it doing for you? Maybe you need to clear your browser cache. Besides, compare these:

{{Economy and industry of Cardiff}}

{{Economy and Industry of Cardiff}}

What's the difference? It's so hidden that, when I c&p the HTML code of the two instances into Notepad++, and normalise the line break irregularities and then run its compare facility, it tells me they're the same byte for byte. -- Smjg (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You need to make the same edit that you did to Welsh National Opera to every article that has the templae otherwise the link will be broken. Welshleprechaun 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What was the point of just repeating what you already said? How about answering my questions? -- Smjg (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Tetris variants

Hi Smjg, I'll assume that [1] this revert was an accident, since you went back to an old spam-filled, unverified revision with the edit comment "rvv; unref". I've put it back but let me know if you have a particular issue, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any spam, let alone in the diff for your latest edit. Only a list of Tetris clones/variants, which is the whole purpose of the article. And graffiti and MoS violations I've no idea why you keep reinstating. -- Smjg (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please compare the two revisions again: I'm not reinstating any graffiti or MoS violations, I'm removing it. Compare the old section "Clones and unofficial variants" with the newer "Unofficial games" section. The former is the unverified mess, the latter is a verified table. An IP keeps restoring an ancient rev. of the article as a form of harrasment. The article's current state is correct and I want to make sure you're not going to revert it again. Marasmusine (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have viewed that diff enough times already. Now tell me how "Platform, Developer, Year Released" isn't an MoS violation, and how "aasqasq" isn't graffiti. Besides, that section may be an unverified mess, but just yanking the whole section isn't the way to deal with it. The very existence of the templates {{unreferenced}} and {{cleanup}} says this for itself. There are many unverified messes on WP. If we just deleted them all at sight, WP would get nowhere. See also WP:PROBLEM. While it's about AfD, the points raised there are matters of common sense that apply just as well to deleting sections. -- Smjg (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Platform, Developer, Year Released" exists in the version you reverted to, too. So if you want this splitting into three columns per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables), I can do this. Reverting doesn't fix that.
  • "aasqasq" must've slipped in some time ago. I didn't see it because it is only visible from the edit page. This is a minor issue that can be fixed without reverting.
  • "Yanking the whole section". The way to deal with it is to vet each entry for verifiability. This is what was done, some time ago. What you see in the table are the entries in the old list that could be verified through reliable secondary sources. If you wish to restore other entries, the onus is on you to provide suitable sources.

I hope this clarifies. Marasmusine (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. Who said anything about splitting it into three columns? And which of my edits contains "Platform, Developer, Year Released" with that exact capitalisation?
  2. You didn't just not see it. You stated "I'm not reinstating any graffiti", i.e. that you had examined the diff carefully and established that there was no graffiti being reinstated by your edit. But at least you've removed it again now - thank you.
  3. I must've missed the discussion. And besides, suitable sources for what aspect of them that wasn't covered by the links that many of them did have? Still, now that you've cleared up the relation between it and the "Unofficial games" section, I guess you're right that this extra section doesn't belong. Still, at the moment only 5 out of the 9 entries in that table are referenced, whereas several of the ones in the deleted section had links. But you could just as well ask which are notable enough to be included, or how to assess.... -- Smjg (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, the MoS issue wasn't too major then, and you've fixed it thanks. Just some final thoughts. Yes, I was blind to the graffiti in the diff, I was focusing on the larger difference lower down, sorry. The current entries with no citation are those that have a full article of their own. The games that were removed had either ELs to the primary source only (Scrablet, Vertris, etc), or didn't resemble Tetris at all (Galactrix). For inclusion, it looks like we're currently going with the bare minimum of one reliable, secondary source. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved article

Its good that you informed GTBacchus of your follow-up section at the talk page, but a move that has had a previous consensus should be requested rather than done manually. I reverted your move in accordance with the consensus at the talk page, but I think its alright to open another request for the same move. Dan56 (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


I've added "weekly" to the ESA article, to clarify how much is paid.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


The illustration you queried is a photograph. It was taken by myself in about 2003 using a Casio QV-10A camera (my first digital). It was reduced in size to illustrate my autobiography, before submitting it to Wikipedia .

DonJay (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Multisided record

I've answered your question on Talk:Multisided record. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicky Morgan

Think I owe you an apology. Loughborough is a key marginal and the article like her predecessor, is prone to attacks by both enraged SPAs and students. I'd promised to shorten the article and I'm afraid I missed your tidy up edit. JRPG (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quorn logo 2010.png


Thanks for uploading File:Quorn logo 2010.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The file page states what article it was used on, so I don't know what your difficulty is. But since it's been replaced by an SVG version, from my point of view the PNG can be deleted. But then again, I've just noticed the GFDL issue addressed in {{Vector version available}}.... -- Smjg (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the bottom left side of the image description page you'll see "File links" and for this image you'll see "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file...", which means it's not being used here (pretty typical with the replacement by other versions). Nothing to do here, it'll get deleted in time. Skier Dude (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Generalisation of area codes

Hello, I have been watching your editing of various NI articles, on the topic of dialling codes - and I am not familiar with WP policy on these formats. Is my understanding correct that you are editing extended dialling prefixes such as (028) 90 (Belfast & selected Greater Belfast) to reflect the three digit code(028) (Northern Ireland, All) only, where citations are unavailable for the inclusion of the first 2 digits of the main number, or is it the WP norm to include only the first 3 digit code? Thanks ☮KEYS767talk 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of WP policy or convention, it's a matter of fact. The dialling code throughout Northern Ireland is 028, simple as that. -- Smjg (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Underground stock

Please see Template talk:Infobox Underground stock#Additional parameters. Peter Horn User talk 23:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

America Hoffman

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Smjg. You have new messages at Bkonrad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Direction in infobox writing system

I noticed your comment about a lack of writing direction in the infobox Writing System, and have started to make some preliminary moves on that front. I'd appreciate your input and suggestions. Vanisaac (talk)

Your edit to Template:Uw-date...

Hello, Smjg

I have reverted your edit, since your edit would have defeated the purpose of the template. We do not often send it to people who have a valid reason to change dates and we don't want all of them to immediately think "well, I did have a good reason" and never to think that their good reason was "because I personally love it".

Fleet Command (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

But the way it's written, it reads as an instruction to never change the format of a date, even if the MoS dictates that the format needs correcting. And so those who receive the message will either:
  • get back at the person who reverted it and then posted the template to the effect of "you're as guilty of it as I am"
  • be turned off fixing dates that actually are in the wrong format
Maybe there's a better way it can be written.... — Smjg (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely: First, your "unless there is a reason" would increase the chance of "you're as guilty as I am" instead of decreasing it by giving them an early incentive to resist. Second, the message mentions a Wikipedia policy. One should be too stubborn to disregard that. As for not fixing the wrong dates, I think he won't miss the "strong national ties" clause. But the way you did it, it basically reads "please don't change the date formats but be aware that this message is not meant for you and so don't bother reading the rest". Fleet Command (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi, could you please tell me why you are removing services that are still operating? --MSalmon (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If the services aren't run by Kinchbus, they are completely off-topic for an article about Kinchbus. — Smjg (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
They are run by Kinchbus --MSalmon (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Not according to the sources I have cited in my edit. What source are you going by? Moreover, you still haven't answered me on why you're also undoing my formatting cleanups. — Smjg (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
These and and go on Travlineeastmidlands and type in Kinchbus all timetables are there --MSalmon (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that section of the Traveline site before - when I go on Traveline it's to look up buses between specific places. As it happens, when I searched for those routes the other day those services were either not showing at all or showing as operated by a different company. But at least there's one explanation now: some of these services are split between two operators. Do you reckon Kinchbus have abandoned their website then? — Smjg (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
They just haven't put the timetables for the 21, 70 & 123 on the website yet. (The 21 is also run by First to Thurmaston & the 70 is also run by First Mon-Sat daytime with evening buses now run by Coachmaster) --MSalmon (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The table of routes is fine the way it is as it is better to read --MSalmon (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "better to read"? And in how many people's opinion? Moreover, "Railway Station" is not the proper name of any place. Meanwhile, I've started a discussion on Talk:Kinchbus. — Smjg (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Tanni Grey-Thompson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics (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) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

St Paul's Day listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect St Paul's Day. Since you had some involvement with the St Paul's Day redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cybercobra (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Daphne Fowler and CJ de Mooi

Okay, thank you very much! It looks much nicer the way you've done it anyway. (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant

Hello, you should see the article in Wikipedia in Spanish.

André Martín Espinal Lavado (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean you copied the information from there? It does seem that somebody got confused early on. But given that there are purportedly 37 million Spanish speakers in the US, I'm surprised that nobody's corrected it until now. But I guess there's a lot of cleaning up of foreign language WPs to do.... — Smjg (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ball's donated artwork

Steve Ball donated two pieces of art to the Commons, graciously.

There is no point in slapping the art with a tag.

  • If you think this is a matter of life or death, you are wrong and should do something else.
  • If I wrongly thought this was worth his time, then I would write him directly and ask in the politest manner to please try to provide a newly formatted version.

However, Ball is a lead software-engineer for Microsoft, and thus one should be careful about presuming to know more about image formats than he does.

Also, please do not template regulars. Templating my page with a welcome to Wikipedia was silly. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The template I placed on this file's page was perfectly valid. It indicates that the image is in JPEG format and shouldn't be, simple as that. Nothing to do with whether it's a matter of life or death, or whether it's worth the time of the individual who contributed it. The point is that somebody who finds it and does have the time and the skill can produce a version in PNG or SVG with none of the lossy compression artefacts.
Moreover, I'm not "presuming" to know anything. Any fool can see that a line art image (a) gains ugly artefacts when it's been saved as a JPEG (b) doesn't have these artefacts and tends to be a smaller file when it's saved in a lossless format such as PNG. Any fool can also read the WP articles on these image formats.
As such, your comment is a feeble attempt to appeal to authority instead of trying to learn the facts.
I admit I failed to notice the link to an SVG version - I don't know how this is implemented, as it doesn't appear in the page's code. Still, said SVG version is something else that needs work.... — Smjg (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Ball is an authority on many matters, who has been gracious in his dealing with Wikipedia. Mr. Mathematical Scientist, let me know when national and international news agencies interview on anything.(16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)~) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why not nominate this image for deletion? If JPGs are so downright evil that we mustn't sully the project with them, then let's not mess about, huh? Drive these unclean compressed images back into the sea! How dare these JPG perverts upload these dirty, dirty things.
PS - Mediawiki is crap at handling PNG thumbnails. Chances are that most readers (you've heard of those, right?) will see a worse image from PNG than from JPG. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Re your recent edit summary, "Unconstructive, trolling template and on the wrong project too."
  • Unconstructive - explain please.
  • trolling template - explain please.
  • on the wrong project too - had failed to notice that it was on Commons, as the edit link here on WP was blue. Good catch.
Smjg (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The only function this template has is to insult other contributors. It implies, pretty firmly, that their uploads aren't up to standard and aren't welcome.
For drawn line-art, such as your File:Irrationality of sqrt2.png, then there's a reasonable argument that SVG versions are objectively better, for real, concrete reasons. For JPG vs. PNG there is no such reason. Are PNGs even any better? The format might have some advantages, but Mediawiki handles them poorly and the thumbnails are often ugly.
What are you asking for here? That we should mechanically convert an existing JPG to a PNG? Ridiculous! That editors should go away and Try Harder next time?
It's also noticeable that this template is used by editors who've applied the template to more editors than they've offered images of their own.
Why did you add this template? What are you trying to achieve by it, other than to drive contributors away from the project? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you nominated all maintenance templates for deletion, simply because you feel that they are personal attacks on the contributor who caused the article/media to need maintenance? If not, why not?
Now to the point: Maintenance templates are not meant to be attacks on the contributor, and construing them as such will get you nowhere. Nor are they meant to be attacks on the contributed material. As I began to say, they are designed as requests for articles or media on WP to be improved by somebody who has the time/inclination/knowledge/skill to do so.
"For JPG vs. PNG there is no such reason." How do you mean? What evidence have you that all the knowledge the rest of us have about why JPEG and PNG are suited to different kinds of graphics is wrong? As for scaling problems, JPEGs suffer from these as well if not more, and in any case it's something to investigate. Can you give me some examples of the ugly PNG thumbnails you're talking about?
Anyway, there are a number of possible ways that a bad JPEG can be dealt with:
  • Converting it to a PNG - it isn't ridiculous in the case of simple images that are meant to contain only a very small number of colours. And it isn't very difficult to do - WP:HRCS (which is even linked to from the {{Bad JPEG}} template) gives one such technique; there are others. I would probably have done it myself if I wasn't in the middle of trying to do other things at the time I spotted it.
  • The contributor, if he/she still has it in a lossless format (e.g. a PSP or Photoshop file) or can easily recreate it, can resave it as a PNG.
  • If the nature and purpose of the image suit, somebody else could make a new image from scratch to replace it.
  • Even if none of the above is feasible, it serves as a reminder that non-photographic images (with few exceptions) shouldn't be saved in JPEG format.
But whatever is going to happen, you have no right to retract somebody else's request like this.
And before you ask, I do have a message I sometimes send to users who upload bad JPEGs.... — Smjg (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Andy removed the template from Ball's artwork, which may be justified per consensus: You agreed that your template was from the wrong project previously, so I don't understand why you say that he had no right....
I explained why your templating the file did not seem helpful, given my familiarity with the file (and my having asked Ball for a picture in the first place).
Then you made a snide remark about his possibly being responsible for something Microsoft did, so violating WP:BLP. Please remove your nasty suggestion and then this paragraph.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, so it might have been reasonable to remove it from the WP file page on that one count.
When you say "familiarity with the file", what do you mean? Has Mr Ball told you that the JPEG artefacts are part of the artwork?
As for the "snide remark" as you call it, it isn't clear to me how the BLP policy applies when (a) it's on a user talk page, not in the article space (b) the statement is not in any way presented as fact. But I've removed it anyway - after all, it didn't really contribute anything to the discussion. — Smjg (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You should read WP:BLP, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia. 19:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talkcontribs)

Labeling good-faith edits as vandalism

RE your "rvv" edit summary

Calling another editor's good-faith edits "vandalism" is severely uncivil, and I suggest you stop violating WP:Civil, [2], since you've been cautioned before:

Previous caution about "rvv" (revert vandalism)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to make three points.

  1. I did, in fact, briefly look at the talk page, where I saw a general consensus to remove the tag. I'm afraid I missed your comments.
  2. You marked your reversion "rvv". Calling good-faith edits vandalism is a serious breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility.
  3. I apologise for any inconvenience. I should have taken more time to examine the talk page.

Deltabeignet 04:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"RVV" seems to be a favorite edit summary for you:

  • This "rvv" label seems like biting a newcomer, who hasn't edited since. The editor seems to have been removing a red link, which violated the WP:MOS deprecation of links in captions. This seems unlikely to be vandalism in fact, and policy specifically cautions against labeling possibly good-faith edits as vandalism.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The one you seem to be primarily drawing my attention to was six years ago. Six years is a span of time in which any individual is bound to have made many mistakes. Nobody's perfect.
Sometimes it's hard to tell what's a good faith edit. But I am inclined to argue that the following are seldom, if ever, good faith:
  • reverting an entire edit in which several different kinds of changes were made, without first looking at it properly
  • removing a maintenance template that was placed in good faith when it has been neither discussed nor actioned
  • edits that consist of nothing but blatant incorrections to spelling, punctuation, grammar, markup syntax or the underlying information content
Of course, it might be the case that some of these are liable to be done accidentally by newbies who haven't yet grasped the concept of a wiki. And thinking about it now, I suppose I do overuse "rvv" quite a bit. But looking through the last two years' worth from the edit summary search you've linked to, the majority of them seem to be reasonable.
Still, I will think about it and try and use better edit summaries in the future. — Smjg (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking about it, and for your resolution. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Re "Ajax

... I've replied here. Paul August 22:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


talk:Silent Night#Recorded versions by popular artists section I had the same concern but took a different approach. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Billie Piper Talk Page

Hello! I opened a vote on the Billie Piper talk page. See: Israell (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Smjg.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)