User talk:Smjg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Villages in Sussex

Hi! I've just seen your comment about the Crawley "neighbourhoods", and I wholeheartedly agree with it. I had just written a comment on the Crawley article, asking why they all need to have separate articles: I'd noticed them all on Sussex stub lists. All it does to my mind is to lengthen the already overwhelming stubs that do exist. The current main article could have been better served by comparng the already existing villages with the current situation of the New Town, and left it at that. Peter Shearan 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

0207 & 0208 contribution

I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my rant about people's stupidity and ignorance concerning the phone codes! :) Eurosong 14:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A search on FACEBOOK for [0207 London] and [01179 Bristol] and [02920 Cardiff] will find other like-minded people. (79.73.206.117 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Get off of me!

Hi Smjg, from my (American) standpoint, "off of" is not to be deemed a mistake, as it has been used for, like, four centuries---long enough to be considered an idiom. Oh yep, and "comprise" in that sense has been in use for over 2 centuries. Your friend JackLumber 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone made a linguistic error 400 years ago doesn't automatically mean that it's no longer an error. If it did, then our language would be in even greater anarchy than it already is. Besides, it seems silly to claim a word has changed its meaning when it's being used to mean the opposite of what it really means.

People murdered in Biblical times. Does this mean that murder is no longer a crime? -- Smjg 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but if what was once an error becomes widespread and takes root, that's good enough for me. Words that mean one thing and its opposite are everywhere to be found---rent and derail, just to name a couple. Take February, for instance. The guy who pronounced it "Febbya-wary" first surely was objected to. But now that's the most common pronunciation in America. Until next time, Jack Febbya-wary 3, 2006 - PS Today I added "yard" to our list of words, and I used the word "comprises" in the sense that we both accept.

Well, even if "off of" isn't universally deemed wrong, it's a highly informal usage just about everywhere, and worth avoiding in Wikipedia. And by the way, it may be true that some words acquire meanings opposite to their original ones. But instances where they defeat the whole point of having two separate words (imply/infer is another example) particularly make me wince. These errors are the kind that I'm sure have not been established as standard English. And either way, it does no harm to change them to something that everybody agrees is correct. -- Smjg 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Body mass index

You're quite right about the charts listed below on the article; they're wrong. That's why i've put a cleanup on there so it'll remind me to look at the latest figures. You should be aware however, that, the figures change mostly every year and go against the average BMI recorded in any particular country that it's used in. Again, although you're correct on the issue i have to point out just how old the quetelet index (BMI) is. It's simply used as a general quotient - it is not used for accurate measurements; (note the information listed about how underweight or muscular specimens cause errors in BMI calculation). Just telling you, is all :-)

The magical Spum-dandy 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual place names

Hi. You might be interested in a/m undeletion. -- User:Docu

What is a/m? -- Smjg 10:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The above-mentioned undeletion/deletion review debate of List of interesting or unusual place names (the article is temporarily at Wikipedia:Unusual_articles/Places_with_unusual_names). -- User:Docu

The page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). -- User:Docu

Sorry about Human height reversion

Hi Smjg, I'm sorry I reverted some of the table formatting when trying to get back to a factually correct version. I did try to incorporate any useful changes but somehow I overlooked your edits. Junes 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

wikibooks

I left a coment on your wikibooks page on Wikibooks is not a paper puzzle book? --E-Bod 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I left another comment after finding what was confusing me. m:Wiki is not paper--E-Bod 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Crossposting

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)

Year pages

I see that you've gone through some year pages unlinkifying dates. Please don't. On these pages, all dates must be linked. This is because Wikipedia allows the user to change how dates are displayed, and when the dates are not links, this formatting becomes totally messed up to anybody whose date format setting isn't the same as yours. -- Smjg 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked for documentation on this before making these changes to standardize on a convention I saw inconsistently employed. The only thing I could find that made any reference to it was the Overlinking section of WP:MOS-L. The formatting of the wikisource at this level should have no effect on the rendered output. But I'd be happy to oblige your request. Can you point me at the WP guideline article that describes the exception you suggest? ◉ ghoti 02:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean; the personal preferences can cause links that look like dates to be munged in rendering. I see your point. Personally, I'd consider this a bug in MediaWiki; wikilinks are text, and should not be translated on-the-fly any more than plaintext. But given that this is the way of the land, I'll follow it. Thanks for your note. ◉ ghoti 02:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, there are good reasons for not reformatting dates that aren't links. Does June 10 mean the tenth of June or June 2010? We all know that as Wikipedia article titles, such things refer to dates of the year. But there could be some cases in which a month name is followed by a two-digit year - it wouldn't make sense to link such cases. An even more likely reason is that some articles will contain information about date formats; such information would be messed up if MediaWiki reformatted the dates. --- Smjg 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus-size model

I added the U.K. and Australian equivalents. Will this do? As I stated in the discussion, I think the continental sizes are better confined to equivalent terms in other languages, or else the numbers list will go on indefinitely, covering every separate sizing system in the world. KameraObscura 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)KameraObscura

Comparison of Text Editors

I just noticed that TextPad has acquired a "Yes" under "Window splitting" under "Multiple document interface"...

That edit was made by 193.252.110.23 (see here) on 29 August 2006 14:05. I didn't know it was an error - I just carried across the edit. --IE 11:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Humble Pie

I have put the copy-to-wiktionary tag on the article Humble Pie because it is more appropriate there. The expression does not have enough significance to have its own article per notability. Rintrah 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Joiner

Interesting. I must admit I did not think to try SeaMonkey or Safari, being wholly unfamiliar with both. However, I regret to inform you that ‍ seems to render incorrectly in Internet Explorer. -Stellmach 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Date format

Sorry about that - never saw the survey or I would likely have rv the change myself (I finished up a change stared by an earlier editor) ... I do note however that the exact form of the change was not an option on the survey and makes a lot more sense in terms of readability (which is why I went with it rather than reverting myself)--Invisifan 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Minor Barnstar
		All those minor edits can't be much fun to do, so to let you know how your toil is appreciated, I want to award you this minor barnstar. Thanks for cleaning up after other people's mess! I think your hair looks better short by the way... Feel free to correct the message in this barnstar as you see fit! On behalf of myself and all those readers that/who/whom? benefit without even knowing it, thank you! --Seans Potato Business 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

• Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
• Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

I'm not sure when it changed, but it definitely forbids it due to Special:Random taking a user to it. As far as the talk page goes, I would just use the main talk page or create another subpage and link it at the top of the rewrite. John Reaves (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate year links

Thanks for pointing that out. I've made a proposal that we change the convention. Deb 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Swatch Internet Time

With all due respect, original research doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The "swath" I removed was an entire treatise of uncited material that appears to be nothing more than someone's personal opinion. If you put this back in the article, I trust you will also do the legwork to find appropriate citations.

Uncited material is not in any way appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Nandesuka 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cellular automata

Here's your invitation to sign up for WikiProject cellular automata. If you're interested, add your name to the WikiProject Proposals page please. Alpha Omicron 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

English spelling errors

I apologize for the error correction errors, I'm aware of the policies, and they were just mistakes; I left the other versions as often as possible as long as there were spelled correctly to my knowledge. Have a great day. Keylay31^hablame 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Ball gown

Thanks for fixing these. No, I have no idea which definition of gown length is the correct one, but I'd lean towards the one which makes the greater number of distinctions :).

-- TimNelson 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message.

Thanks, but in the nicest way, SHOVE IT. Gherkin30 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Maze

Hi Stewart,

You're clearly a dedicated editor with plenty of experience around the project (future admin material?) but I wonder if you're being entirely objective about the Crystal Maze info. You've certainly re-added some pretty trivial unverified information without sourcing. The current article goes too far in-depth with trivialities about spin-offs and pop culture, and would I love to see how much of what's there can be sourced. Statements like "A general consensus amongst fans and viewers is that Futuristic Zone was often considered the most difficult..." also require verification. As noted on the talk page, I'll take a closer look at the article in a couple of days. Nice one, Deiz talk 14:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

I see that you are testing on the sandbox and I won't delete it anymore but now somebody else is doing it.Swirlex 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your deletion from Ambigram

I think it's permanent, as I'm now getting a 404 error from the site. But you're right that if the only issue was a temporary problem with the site I would have commented it out. I was implying that beyond the other reasons for not keeping it - specifically, the consensus that there are far too many ambigram sites to link to all, and that links shouldn't be added without discussion - the page was broken. I'm not sure if the anon editor whose link I deleted will ever read my summary, but I suppose I should have explained further just in case. Λυδαcιτγ 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Diagram for square root of two

Your image has an error in the diagram: side DF should be labeled m-n, not 2n-m. I'd fix it but I don't usually work with svg's. Hgilbert (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your deletion from Template:Fact/doc

Replied, at User talk:SMcCandlish#Your deletion from Template:Fact/doc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Year formats

Please discuss here. Deb (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I really have no preference as to which way we format these. Warofdreams talk 21:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)