User talk:Widefox/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Widefox. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I have a feeling that the £7000 for a Maserati might be correct. Top Gear did a programme where the three presenters each bought a car (Maserati, Ferrari and A.Nother) for about that price and then had to do various tasks. Needless to say the cars were in a bad way and kept breaking down! --jmb 10:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

£7000 was correct. I reverted. I then clarified by adding link, and changing "the" to "a" because it was the purchase price of a used car, not the list price of a new car. --widefox 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard to track of Clarkson's page, it is being altered so often! --jmb 12:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that category problem I created by changing this article. Not sure what the best solution is so I undid my change. I was considering a category for all of the MS OSs but I'm not sure that is needed. One plus for that approach is that it would provide a better home for OSs where there is only one article like Windows ME and Windows 2000. If you think this is the right way to go, feel free to make those changes. Vegaswikian 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely defer to you for categorising! I'm back to making the page consistent....mind you, while I'm here I thinks I'll cleanup this "microkernel" usage after all....

--Widefox 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the title. I'm currently embroiled with a dispute over an article title while said article is on WP:FAC - nevermind the article's merits, it's being picked apart over the title. I pointed out the Windows NT Architecture title, and a unilateral move was made without regards to prior consensus. The "earlier discussion of the shorter title" was cited, though I think it's quite clear that there was no consensus for that. Move it back to where it seems most logical, and I'm sorry you guys got mixed up in this. --JohnDBuell 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've made some comments here: Talk:Preimplantation Genetic Haplotyping, hope they are useful. --apers0n 11:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Just noticed that you have signed on as a participant in WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. Please stop by the project talk page to see what the other participants have on their minds right now, and to add your own thoughts. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I understand that you are currently underway fixing links to Tyre, as you said on your user page, so I will not disturb your progress. However, I have been brought to my attention that you have redirected the term Tyrian to Tyre (Lebanon), and that even though you have added Tyre (disambiguation), there is no mention of the computer game Tyrian anywhere. Searching the term "Tyrian" on Google shows the first few results on the page relating to the game, so that grants that the game is notable enough. If you eventually are going to add the link back in somewhere, thank you; if not, I would just like to remind you to. However, I still believe that the article "Tyrian" should stay as a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. --FlyingPenguins 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is true, fixed, now Tyre has link to Tyrian (disambiguation) (excuse not using links, but we have enough already!). Thanks for pointing that out. Tyrian (disambiguation) was already to go. Your issue is similar to what I've fixed (am fixing) with Tyre. The central problem (nightmare) with both is the Tyre and Tyrian have numerous (understatement) links (due to historical and biblical references). Tyrian links cant go to a disambiguation page. Of course, while here, I have also changed Tyrian to Tyre (Lebanon)|Tyrian, and tyre to tire|tyre to be flexible about the priorities, but I cannot be there when users write all those nice new links! Widefox 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great to hear. It'll take an extra click to get to the game... I guess that's okay. IMO it still seems a bit confusing to browse through all those disambig links though. --FlyingPenguins 02:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad it seems OK, sorry about the extra click. BTW, searching wikipedia, you avoid the extra click (still get no. 1 and 2 hits Tyrian (computer game)). Widefox 15:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to your reinsertion of the statement about strangling and asphyxia. The change to ischemia is simply describing the change in terms of blood flow instead of oxygenation/ventilation. Stedman's medical dictionary includes the term "local asphyxia" for cases of stagnation of blood flow, as in cerebral ischemia from strangulation or vasospasm due to Raynaud's phenomenon. It's certainly not as big a deal as the rest of the introduction, which incorrectly states that asphyxia can occur with pure hypoxia and no hypercarbia. I plan to work on the article, but wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from before I started. InvictaHOG 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[cerebral ischemia] is the correct term according to the context of the sentence. asphyxia and ischemia do not appear compatible at all to me. (A heart attack is not asphyxiation). I've changed the text to include the local asphyxia term, and look forward to your more learned text. Widefox 02:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

While your reverts to Corey's edits were justified, calling these (duplicating info is most definitly not vandalismnon-formal tone and unsourced statements aren't vandalismrephrasing in this case while not helpful is definilty not vandalsimwhile he has added this to several articles, it is just an unsourced statement, not vandalism) vandalism is certainly not. He has edited incorrectly and clearly doesn't understand wiki policy, but his edits are not WP:Vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I do not believe those edits would fall under that category. I am leaving a message on the user's talk page to furthur explain why what he is doing is wrong, but it would be easier if his justifiably reveratable edits were called what they were. Chris M. 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Corey, if you're reading this, this explains my side...I assumed good faith to start with but the scale, style, and lack of a single reference eventually lead me to believe the account was only used for vandalism, and some edits can be called that, although I'm unusually not looking through the evidence right this minute. That is certainly how I first approached Corey Bryant's edits to begin with, on pages I had been improving. I actually fixed-up the first one or two, thinking they were just style issues, but actually had some good new information (even though, as unreferenced, it would take work to just allow them to stay, just in case they weren't factual). Then as I had to check the users history to see what further edits needed fixing, I saw a new article Asphyxiant gas and made a comment of agreement with another editor - who promptly requested deletion. At that point I started to realise the scale of the problem, and the fact that it was more than 1 editor involved in fixing things - because you must admit there was a lot of reverting to do! I spent 1/2 hour researching one particular sports article where some statistics were changed - core game stats from an 1930s match that I just couldn't work out why they would have been wrong, and as all the edits, not a single reference, so the research was laborious. My judgement on intent was based around here, and another article as well, in which Corey was the only author. It seemed more like someone parodying the site, by creating a masterpiece of fiction! Some parts were actually humorous, with comical names.

Anyhow, if all was well intentioned on his side like you're saying, and I believe you, then I apologise, but it then raises the question - Corey's been editing for months, how come nobody up until now has remarked to point him in the right direction? Is this a failing of buddying or tutoring of new editors? Widefox 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. If you look back at that article he made, it has become quite presentable and verified through the efforts of User:InvictaHOG. I realize it was a lot of effort, and he may have had this problem for a while, but the fact is that those edits really aren't vandalism, they had problems, and it would have been better if the buddying or tutoring of new editors would have shown that but it didn't, so the best thing to do, I think, is to revert what MUST be reverted because of WP:OR and let him know about it. His talk page didn't actually link to OR and the page may have helped him understand what you were first saying. Chris M. 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent before, but I'm afraid you've picked a bad example. Somebody else has put it up for deletion and there's a slim majority for it! If you look back at that history, you'll see that I'm actually the main author - in terms of lines, number of edits, protecting it from inclusion of general asphyxia (and hasty references), and possibly most importantly - the definition! User:InvictaHOG is doing a good job trying to justify the article before deletion, but given the time constraint, he might be cutting corners a bit? It looks like he is a busy guy, as I'm waiting for him to fix something on the main article asphyxia (that both of us are not happy about). Despite both of our efforts, please check the deletion page for why it's misguided, where I lay down my argument why it still needs deleting (remember, that's despite being the main author now, and despite my efforts to try to see if it was worth saving). The article is a stub, and will remain a stub, with much duplication of asphyxia examples that all belongs in asphyxia. To put it another way, if you properly separate asphyxia and asphyxiant gas, then the main article asphyxia starts to look like a stub! The main reason for deletion is WP:WINAD Widefox 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, and it was also against WP:NC (plural) Widefox 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but it does show good faith (in general) I'd say. Chris M. 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand - this example is neutral, and I think I've already said that my decision of bad faith was based after *extensive* research after that! Widefox 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

<snip> reply reunited on your page, with existing thread. - see your user talk page dito Widefox 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Widefox 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are making a distinction without a difference here. Despite the bad press and hype, AHB is biologically a relatively minor variation of the European honey bee. Unless you can show some evidence that their individual stings are noticably different, it makes no sense to have separate lines. In fact, your own recent edits to the article's Talk page reinforce it. Apis Mellifera is the parent category and encompasses a number of races. Any educated reader will naturally ask why Apis Mellifera Scutellata is singled out in your list? The separate line implies a distinction where none exists. I'm not going to fight you over it but I think having the separate lines without such a citation undermines the overall credibility of the article to anyone who actually knows bees. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For the simple reason that we write an encyclopaedia to disambiguate. Laying down the fact that the two stings have the same effect does that. You have to see it from the readers point of view, not the authors. Widefox 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you not disambiguating all the other races of Apis Mellifera? You are singling out one race and so far I can not understand why. The closest I can come is a comment you made on another page where you described the perception of a difference in sting as a "common misperception". Please cite who actually has this misperception. No one that I know or have ever read about holds this misperception. To the layperson, a bee is a bee is a bee. They can't even tell the difference between a yellowjacket and a honeybee. They don't even consider that there might be a (nonexistant) difference between the sting of a pure European honey bee and an Africanized honey bee. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I will comment more extensively on why I think the "hive defense" comment is bad for the "Characteristics" article on that Talk page. But you also reverted an unrelated edit without commenting on it. Was that intentional or an oversight? If an oversight, please permit me to correct it. If intentional, please explain. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Errm, I've already said let's move to the talk page, now we're split over three pages. I've replying there... Widefox 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the comment. I don't quite get it what article you suggest I not edit; the Pango article I assume. Are you suggesting that I should have left it to someone else to list change the maintainership, not myself? Honestly I've read enough s. about vanity and NPOV that I'm not going to edit any articles related to anything I work on. Michael Everson's vote for deletions for example; twice... —behdad (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

no, just a heads up - I initially thought it was anyone just putting themselves in as vandalism, it's OK. Widefox 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I guess I was in a rush. If I recall correctly, there was alrerady a "Oxford Dictionary of English" -> "New Oxford Dictionary of English" redirect in place and I couldn't do a standard move without deleting the redirect, which I couldn't or didn't do. I'll see about getting a mop-and-bucket type person to help! --Charles Gaudette 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am giving you notice that you are not allowed to revert the article Swiftfox for the next 24hours due to reaching the 3Revert rule limit. Please see WP:AN/3RR. If you do revert one more time, you will be in violation, and I shall ask you account to be closed for 24hours, according to the rules.

• In addition do not replace "freeware" or I will replace the advert warning.
  

You replaced non-free with freeware on the 18th. This was an illeagal edit as there was a discussion on the subject. The first edit of mine today fixed that illeagal edit of yours on the 18th Kilz 00:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

the article is already locked. You are too late. Please look at the 3rd opinion. Widefox 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did, the link he points to is one that I had removed "Freeware". Anyway. The article may soon be up for deletion as a mod has placed a notability tag on it. We continue fighting and its likley to happen as no one else seems interested in the page.
Its time to stop this argument and move forward. But one thing remains, I fully expect an apology for the sockpupet accusation. It was totaly wrong to do that. Kilz 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the sockpuppet page? Widefox 02:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did, looks like it isnt going to fly. I think you knew it wouldnt. You just edited the discussion page on Swiftfox, I thought it was locked.Kilz 02:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The SR-71 was originally the RS-71 until Lyndon Johnson called it the SR-71 at the first public showing of the Blackbird.
The EITC, was originally the EIC (Earned Income Credit) until Bill Clinton called it the "Earned Income Tax Credit" (hence EITC).
Early on, George W Bush tried to say "War on Terrorism", but given his difficulties with the language, it came out as "War on Terrism", so "War on Terror" was adopted to make it easier to say (plus there was an additional PR value to the term). Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see, from what I remember of the articles, not all these details are in. Would you add them? Widefox 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You filed a medcab case. We can not hear it due to the disciplinary request. Geo. 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me elaborate further. The only thing you listed is a ban.

The Medcab can not ban users. I will reopen it if you post what you want help with. Just leave me a note Geo. 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just reopened it, you should see it in 15 minutes. Geo. 21:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A user moving a discussion/comment on his talk page to the article talk page is fine and certainly not vandalism. Discussions about articles do belong on the article talk page. Is there something else going on that makes this different? —Centrx→talk • 23:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I see that you have opened a Mediation Cabal case about a static IP attached to a user with which you are in dispute, Kilz. If you were not aware of this, you should add your grievances with Kilz to the mediation request. If you are, then you should as well, or it may bee seen as opening the meditation case in bad faith. Also, I would suggest that you do not interact with this user again until the Mediation case has been opened by a Mediator. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi WD. I don't understand - the MedCab was not about IP editing and has the grievances all listed - it was started before the first edit war (where Kilz did an IP edit). If you think I shouldn't interact with Kilz until MedCab action, that's fine with me. Considering the NPA on me and Swiftfox author, I think things might have gone past MedCab and a ban is all that will do anything. I say this because he has ignored the 3rd party I called for and any other editors. As you can see from the difference in edit histories between Kilz and me, I am not a single issue editor, and so do not wish to be restricted long, even if it is the common good. I consider the only workable fix is to either ban Kilz NPA , disruptive, NPOV, personal involvement in Swiftfox story etc, or quickly get some mediation together. I've already waited a couple of weeks, and I don't want to see Swiftfox defaced Widefox 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You must take steps in the resolution process one by one, and in good faith. If you take them expecting them to fail, they will, but in doing so you may be seen as the disruptive editor. You're going to have to find more substantive evidence of wrongdoing before a block is issue. If you feel you have been personally attack, a block isn't the dispute resolution you're looking for. WP:PAIN is. And with all due respect, you don't really have anyone but yourself to blame if you put off formal dispute resolution for two weeks. Give it another couple of weeks of formal resolution before considering elevating, and try to cool down. Wikipedia has over a million articles, that one isn't the only one there is to edit. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Step by step is OK, but don't understand again - I did them in good faith! The edit war started while waiting for step-by-step! I wait patiently, but my expectation is low (maybe I shouldn't say that) but it is what I feel. I'll checkout your link. "two weeks" - do you mean the two weeks I've been waiting for MedCab. You think I should make a formal mediation instead. I've only done what others have suggested (see Swiftfox talk page). Widefox 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's two weeks for any mediation - the admins are backlogged. A warning - you edited one of my edits on Kilz's pages out. Do not do so. Doing so, as I have warned Kilz, is vandalism, and I frankly don't much appreciate it when the person I'm trying to intercede on behalf of deletes my intercession. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Just checked - you are right this edit [1] was just an error. I will continue to leave page alone as agreed yesterday, so please could you fix my error. Widefox 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to participate in WikiProject Munich? I see that you speak German well. Maybe you can help out with the Translation section of the project. Kingjeff 07:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

too busy right now, sorry. Widefox 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've set up the Virtual classroom (VC), which is a forum for the discussion of advanced Wikipedia skills. It differs from the help forums on Wikipedia in that major topics of discussion are scheduled and once started remain continuous.

The reason I'm contacting you is because one of the class assignments is a comparison of our user interfaces. A lot can be learned from individual users, who usually have developed their own ways of doing things. I noticed you are an advanced programmer, so you no doubt have some tricks up your sleeve. I'm hoping that you will stop by and share and compare the interfaces you use when browsing and working on Wikipedia. I've also constructed a tools page which presents everything learned from these discussions, and it is growing -- there are some pretty powerful techniques on there now. Even Interiot, Rich Farmbrough, and CBDunkerson have stopped by the VC to show off their tools and methods. It's been a lot of fun, and you are invited. The interface topics are called:

• External interfaces - let's compare

and

• Internal interfaces - what do you use?.

I look forward to seeing you there and to learning your wikiways. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist    23:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Widefox, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
• Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
• We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.

• Requests: German Archaeological Institute at Rome [de], Deutsche Familienversicherung [de], Hermann Bachmann (Journalist) [de], Dietlof von Arnim-Boitzenburg [de], Rolf von Bargen [de], Hennes Bender [de], Eduard Georg von Bethusy-Huc [de], Rolf Brandt [de] (1886–1953), Jan Philipp Burgard [de], Rudolf Epp [de], Lisa Feller [de], Georg Arbogast von und zu Franckenstein [de], Georg Gafron [de], Ferdinand Heribert von Galen [de], Gundula Gause [de], Wolfgang von Geldern [de], Karl-Heinz Hagen [de], Herbert Helmrich [de], Nils von der Heyde [de], Monty Jacobs [de] (1875–1945), Siegfried Kauder [de], Klimbim [de] Matze Knop [de], Wolfgang Kryszohn [de], Claus Larass [de], Isidor Levy [de] (1852–1929), Richard Lewinsohn [de] (1894-1968), Markus Löning [de], Tobias Mann [de], Mathias Müller von Blumencron  [de],Günther Nonnenmacher [de], Nord bei Nordwest [de], Günter von Nordenskjöld [de], Anke Plättner [de], Hans Heinrich X. Fürst von Pless [de], Günter Prinz [de], Ulrich Reitz [de], Hans Sauer (inventor) [de], Franz August Schenk von Stauffenberg [de], Paul Schlesinger [de] (1878-1928), Hajo Schumacher [de], Der Seewolf (1971) [de], Otto Theodor von Seydewitz [de], Christoph Sieber (comedian) [de], Dorothea Siems [de], Werner Sonne [de], Udo zu Stolberg-Wernigerode [de], Christoph Strässer [de], Joseph von Utzschneider [de], Hedda von Wedel [de], Jürgen Wieshoff [de], Hans Wilhelmi [de], Dietmar Wischmeyer [de], Doris Wittner [de] (1880-1937), Alexandra Würzbach [de]
• Unreferenced: especially Unreferenced BLPs
• Cleanup: 53541 issues in total as of 2024-03-03
• Translate: Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia
• Stubs: the largest stub category is Category:German history stubs; see also 113 articles in Category:German MEP stubs
• Update: Deutsches Wörterbuch
• Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements and the todo list
• Orphans: Orphaned articles in Germany
• Photo: Take/Add requested photographs
• Help assess the quality of 904 unassessed articles

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Kusma (討論) 16:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you revert the download section of Swiftfox 1 more time you may violate the 3 revert rule. Kilz 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted the page once! Please provide diffs of 2 reverts, or take your claim back immediately! I take the above as a sign of your edit warring, not or my actions. Note that your behaviour and unfounded claims that you refuse to provide references for are noted. If you continue to repeat this revert claim I shall contact an admin. Widefox 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1 is your first changes to the page. I added information. You reverted the Download section the first time. I made different changes a second time. You reverted the Download section a second time. So in effect the Download section was reverted by you twice.Kilz 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

not a revert [2]

not a revert [3]

not a revert [4]

not 1 revert. It seems you are mistaken! Widefox 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have proven it, you have reverted the "** packaged for Debian installs" line twice. If you revert it a third time it will break the 3rr.Kilz 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You have only proved you are attacking me. Widefox 10:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

not a revert, your first edit [5]

is a revert of "** packaged for Debian installs" [6]

is a revert of "** packaged for Debian installs" [7]

The rule is a revert in whole , or in part, you have reverted the is a revert of "** packaged for Debian installs" line twice.Kilz 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You have only proved you are attacking me. There is no revert. I am notifying an admin that you are being disruptive and attempting to prevent me from editing. Widefox 10:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The revert of the "** packaged for Debian installs" line is a revert in part of the page. This was only a warning not to revert again and in so doing break that rule. This is not an attack, I have more than proven you have reverted the line twice already.Kilz 11:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(see below) Widefox 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You did not provide a single revert diff. Your personal attack on me is not welcome, and I tell you upfront that simple tricks and lies like this will be taken to an admin if repeated. Widefox 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have proven it, you have reverted the "** packaged for Debian installs" line twice. If you revert it a third time it will break the 3rr. As the rule is a revert in whole or in part. Kilz 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I warned you to drop this unfounded allegation, or I will notify an admin of your disruption. You have not heeded my warning, so as warned, I will notify an admin. Additionally, I ask you to stop using my talk page. Give it a rest mate - before you/your IP get blocked for a second time! Widefox 10:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The revert of the "** packaged for Debian installs" line is a revert in part of the page. This was only a warning not to revert again and in so doing break that rule. This is not an attack, I have more than proven you have reverted the line twice already. Feel free to go to whatever admin you want to.Kilz 11:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you to stop using my talk page. You do not stop after requested, instead you duplicate (!) your unfounded allegation here. Your disruptive, bullying actions will be reported. Separately, I have clearly proved your edits you refer to above are breaking WP:SYN WP:OR and they will be removed accordingly. Widefox 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Per history, the 3rr warning was placed here first, it is about you. You chose to reply on my talk page. This is not about me. So I am answering you here. But so you dont take the partial conversation to an admin I have answered you in both places. That you have chosen to post on my talk page about your actions does not make it the place it should be posted.Kilz 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you twice to stop using my talk page. I now ask you a third time. You do not stop after each request! I consider this harassment. Widefox 19:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - May 2007
From the editor This is the first issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts.	Other areas where you can help Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page. More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics: Transportation in Germany German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians) German Democratic Republic Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it). Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news Criteria for B-Class status: The assessment criteria for B-Class have been changed. {{WikiProject Germany}} template now has 5 switches, B-Class-1 through B-Class-5 that correspond to 5 easily checked criteria that an article should meet to be assessed as B-Class. The advantage of this system is that now there is a clear boundary between Start-Class and B-Class articles. Authors of articles that were assessed as Start-Class now get more direct feedback what they should improve to attain a B-Class rating. All of our B-Class, Start-Class and Stub-Class articles now need to be checked whether they meet any of the B-Class criteria. This is a major effort, and we need your help! If you want to help, but don't know how, please post at the project talkpage. Cities and municipalities task force A task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities has been started and is looking for help.

This newsletter was delivered by Kusma using AWB to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kusma 12:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Widefox,

I am a graduate research assistant at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. In recent years we have produced a number of online archives such as The September 11 Digital Archive (http://911digitalarchive.org/) and the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank (http://www.hurricanearchive.org/). Our team is currently gathering digital documents related to Mozilla products for the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank (http://mozillamemory.org), and we are in the process of interviewing some of the lead members, former and present, of the Mozilla community.

I recently found your Mozilla/Firefox-related contributions located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Firefox. Given your involvement with Mozilla, we think your voice would be an excellent addition to the archive. If you are interested in having your perspectives added to the record, we can conduct the interview via Skype, instant messenger, or email—whichever method might fit your schedule and preferences best.

I have included below the first three questions of the interview in order to give you a sense of the process. For examples of completed interviews, please feel free to examine the interviews section (http://mozillamemory.org/browse.php?cat=interview) of our archive.

If you are interested in contributing your perspectives on the Mozilla community and its products, you can reach me by e-mail at [email protected]. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the interview process or the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best regards,

Giny Cheong
Gcheong (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Graduate Research Assistant
Center for History and New Media (http://chnm.gmu.edu)
Department of History and Art History
George Mason University
4400 University Drive, MSN 1E7
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Interview Questions

When did you begin using computers? How did you get interested in computers?

What is your education background? Have you had formal computer training?

What’s the first programming project you remember working on?

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter Issue II - March 2008
From the editor This is the second issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you think anything should be featured in the next issue, please leave a note at the Newsdesk	Other areas where you can help Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page. More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics: Transportation in Germany German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians) German Democratic Republic Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it). Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news Cities and municipalities task force The task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities is happy to announce that there are now (at least) stub articles for all municipalities of Germany. Now the task force is looking for help in fleshing these out a little bit. The current phase of activity for the task force is to copy in infoboxes from the articles in German Wikipedia. If you want to help, even just for a few articles, look at the instructions and links here Article Assessment: There are now way over 26.000 articles tagged as part of our Wikiproject and many still need either an importance or a quality assessment. Also there are many more out there that do need to be tagged like approx 8000 municipalities. If you would like to help take a browse through Articles needing Importance assessment or Articles needing a basic quality assessment.

- Newsletter Bot Talk 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - Newsletter Bot Talk 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Swiftfox.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. asenine ^{say what?} 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

restated fair use rationale (using modern template). Widefox (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sydenham, Warwickshire, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me at Real-time locating standards. I removed one template, and after the editor added additional references at the end, I changed the other template to {{caution|This article would benefit from additional inline citations.}} Some editors don't like "homemade" templates, but I looked at WP:INLINE and couldn't find exactly what I was looking for; maybe you have a suggestion? Sometimes more personalized messages are an improvement, I think, but sometimes it's safer to use pre-approved text. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, I did put in a tag of what I see as our consensus of a copyedit needed. Further to that, I added that I believe the 4 articles should be merged. Widefox (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Widefox. I tried to answer your questions about WOT: Web of Trust on Talk:WOT:_Web_of_Trust. Hope that helps.

Unfortunately the article has received a notice about reading like an advertisement. I am disappointed with this, because very early on when I first wrote it, and didn't really know how Wikipedia worked, I had the same notice, but then I fixed it and got approval. Since that approval I haven't changed anything besides adding the fact that now WOT has a reputation scorecard and a colorblind accessible version. I have tried to model the WOT article after the McAfee SiteAdvisor article and just present the facts. Please advise me on what needs to be changed to make it acceptable once again. For example, I see that there are several citation needed tags. If I left off the word "sophisticated" to describe algorithms, would that work since I have no other source besides the developers at the company? And maybe, I should remove the numbers of sites rated too. They change all the time anyway. Hmmn...

Thanks for your help in this. Best regards, Debsalmi (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Debsalmi. Hope this is helping? ok, if it helps - the SiteAdvisor article has 10 references, WOT has 0. SiteAdvisor has at least some concerns about downsides, WOT has 0. See my point about advertising? The risk of false positives in WOT? The fact that you work for WOT puts you very close to the subject - maybe you would like to get more experience with other articles? Anyhow, I would appreciate if we continue this discussion on the article talk, thanks Widefox (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, and I understand what you're looking for. Moving discussion to article talk. Thanks.Debsalmi (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Zeitgeist Movement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zeitgeist Movement. Thank you. Phirazo (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on ECCT, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ECCT is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ECCT, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

'''ECCT''' can stand for:
* [[Enhanced Computer Controlled Teletext]]

{{disambig}}

Thanks, ffm 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Think it is time we decided whether or not Warwick Gates should be merged with Warwick. What do you think? Cls14 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Widefox. I'm just letting you know that I redirected your disambiguation page, SCOG, to chemical oxygen generator, seeing as there were no other terms to disambiguate to. If you find other terms that fall under 'SCOG', just remake the page as a disambiguation. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear that the onus is on whoever is adding information to source it. This is especially important in BLPs and when information has previously been challenged or removed. Both of these criteria for special importance were fulfilled in this case when you reinstated a previously removed claim about a living person, and in your edit summary even had the nerve to ask someone else to find a source! Your justification was that it was mentioned in another article. This is madness. If it was sourced in Brown's article you could have cited the same source in McDonald's, and if it wasn't sourced in Brown's article you should have removed it from there too. I cannot imagine what was going through your mind when you did this. What people like you do in these cases is profoundly damaging to the project, and I hope you will do the honourable thing and apologise to the community in some public manner. 79.64.224.173 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Both are now referenced, thank you for pointing this out. You are right to some extent. In fact, if we had checked the existing ref we would have seen one of the two is already referenced. Of course, it is more appropriate if you sign in to discuss these things and edit, especially when you consider such damage is being done, and when vocalising such strong sentiments about other editors. Widefox (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

correction, both references were already there. Widefox (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See User:Widefox/sandbox — Rlevse • Talk • 20:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Widefox (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still fairly new to Wikipedia so this is strictly just an observation, but I noticed on Andrew Mackays page you tagged it with 'this may be biased in favour of recent events' etc, but it occurs to me that we living at this moment are best placed to gather some quotes, sense of the feeling, political backlash etc..and that if say , when there is no danger of recentism, in 2019 say, well, there may be calm, but there will be no contemporary witness to how wikipedia reacted, what editors thought relevant or illustrative of the moment etc. the quotes will have gone etc.. And who is entitled to de-tag it? Sayerslle (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

this might be a informative Wikipedia:Recentism - see "A political candidate's biography article may become bloated with specific details related to a particular election season despite that politician having a career outside that election." Widefox (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Widefox/Archive 1! An article you have been concerned with has now been significantly overhauled to bring it in line with Wiki policy, guidelines, and prose style. However, without first-hand subject knowledge, the copyeditor may have left some items or citations for further clarification. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Leamington Spa, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. Thanks.

Good! thanks for that (Kudpung). I've already commented there and made a change. Let's get this article improved, fully agree. Widefox (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

When I delete a talk page with the comment "test", that means its content was basically keyboard-pounding gibberish or "my name is joey and i like sandwiches" or <math><math><math>EXAMPLE.OGG<math><math><math>... that kind of stuff. I'm quite aware that there are basic 'create a talk page' templates, but there are far too many for me to know offhand which one is appropriate for any given article, so I don't bother with them. If you know of the appropriate template, feel free to use it.

Trust me - if I delete a talk page as "test", there was no valid content in its history whatsoever. DS (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit [8] indicates that the article has a ref or a tag. It has no ref, and the tag is a merge tag. Can you explain your logic for not including unref tag when there is a merge tag? thanks Widefox (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Look more closely. I remove the category not the unref tag. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

ooops, you are right. I'm still confused though - why removed the unref cat? and for my ignorance, explain the DEFAULTSORT, which both of us have not restored from your original edit. Widefox (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

When an article is in a category it is sorted by the article name. Thus Cat comes before Dog - moreover the category has sections for different starting letters so Cat will be under "C". Sometimes this isn't what we want for example "John Smith" is usually wanted to fall under the "S" section. The mechanism for this is called a sort key: For example we write [[Category:Living people|Smith, John]] - the comma is what we would have used in the days of paper - to indicate that the name was reversed, in fact since the article John Smith still shows up as "John Smith" albeit under the S section the comma is a little ill advised, but we have it on many thousands of articles.

Now this is all well and good but often we have eight or ten categories, if they are all keyed on "Smith, John" it is crazy to type that, or cut and paste it every time, so "DEFAULTSORT" was invented. Any category that isn't given a sort key will use the DEFAULTSORT or failing that the pagename. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

There are three things wrong with this category.

1. Erik9Bot is banned so it is now not being updated (except by me).
2. It is completely invisible to most editors so redundant tags get added, it get left when references are added, and it doesn't ask people to add refs.
3. It is undated so we have no idea ho long the article has been languishing for.

Therefore I performed a small exercise to remove it where it was redundant - this was the first step in clearing up. Now I'm looking to replace it with dated unref tags - and I have the dates the articles were created. This will be a bot task if I can get approval for it, which I should.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

mmm, very interesting. Thanks, Widefox (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Jec —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

Hello Widefox/Archive 1! A non-British user seems to be attempting to suggest that the Brits are not pronouncing their own British place names correctly, and appears to believe that it is a policy of Wikipedia to instruct the Brits, through the use of the IPA, how British English should be pronounced. He/she also seems to be of the opinion that it is Wikipedia policy to regard British English by default as a rhotic language, which it is not. Some British Wikipedians are trying to avoid an edit conflict and have requested my support. I have added my comments to the debate the non-British user has has started in defence of his/her multiple, WP:BOLD? changes to IPA pronunciations of British place names. As a professional linguist I accord every version of English its own particular merits and my position here strictly concerns the way in which the IPA is interpreted and applied in the Wikipedia, and how the current policy may need to be changed through a truly representative consensus. If you would like to help resolve this issue, please see User talk:Kudpung#IPA, RP, etc. and User talk:Lfh#Warwickshire to get the background. Maybe you could then chime in with your views on the subject at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Rhoticity in place names. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't support your edit. That psyud name is only cited to one opinion piece and is a bit like outing and the other edit is also poor, don't you like him? Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you are not discussing? Please move to discussion on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I value your judgement Off2riorob. Grant has disclosed his business interest in How To Corp, so there is no outing, the pseudonym part is not strong, agreed. Which edit is poor? I've never met him/no connection/no opinion, I just happened to see the article state and history. You've done a great job improving the article, much better than me. I am only interested in the NPOV problem. I'm uncomfortable about the allegations of political/or personal motivation, just because I'm fixing up removed content. Now the BBC ref has been changed in the last 5 days, removing mention of Grant, this is beyond the scope of my edits. Discussion moved to talkpage. Widefox (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Widefox, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on August 17 2006, Java Embedding Plugin, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Caseyj354v5 (page has mainspace links, and 25 edits). This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Caseyj354v5. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Caseyj354v5 (talk · contribs) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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) 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Madfox-title.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Characteristics of common wasps and bees, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characteristics of common wasps and bees. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Brouwerij De Molen, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Shorn again (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a redirect to Flatlands, Brooklyn per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Widefox (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Widefox. Can I join in a little with this issue? perhaps another editors input will be helpful .. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

content

Other second places were achieved in Preston and wards in Sheffield, Bristol, and several London councils. The party achieved some strong results in areas with a limited Muslim population; for example, Jerry Hicks, standing in Bristol Lockleaze, came a distant second in a ward that is 4% Muslim

• - http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9766

comment

I am wondering, what in this content is contentious? It appears to be mostly simple fact..which content in this do you think needs stronger support? The citation is a bit of an op ed and close to a SPS but that is only a big issue if anything is disputable. The party was in second place at Preston and the others ... perhaps we could rewrite the second bit as that seems a bit of a broad claim .. this bit ... The party achieved some strong results in areas with a limited Muslim population Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, I believe the reference tag to the article on the Conflict Continuum is unwarranted.

I'm new to Wikipedia, but have been working with more experienced Wikipedia users to get the existing article up to standards and old tags removed. This was my first partial attempt of improvement, and I was waiting for the professor who was helping me with this to approve before I continued. This is a holiday weekend in the U.S. and approaching the end of college terms, so things may be delayed.

The citations so far are a book, Conflict Unraveled, and an interview from a radio program, WorldView on WBEZ.

Conflict Unraveled is a textbook used in conflict related courses on the college and graduate level. This book is often found in American libraries, both public and university. This is due to an excellent review and recommendation in Library Journal, one of the primary sources for American librarians.

WBEZ is part of the National Public Radio system (NPR), one of the well-respected forums for current thought in the U.S. WorldView is similarly well-respected.

I wish to respect the Wikipedia process, and make improvements properly. In fact, I would appreciate any coaching you might offer. But this is a subject that is discussed on the college level, and from what I hear from Wikipedia advisors, seems to be appropriate for this forum.

Thank you. Amedea (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure - "Conflict Unraveled" is a primary source. You may want to check the third-party publications link I added to the top of the article and read why articles must be based on secondary sources, not primary ones. I see on your talk page this has been detailed before. As you are the author of the theory, please read WP:COI, and refrain from editing the article at all. I will now tag the article COI. In future, please can you keep all discussions about the article on its talk page, thank you. Widefox (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiBullying "WikiBullying is the act of using the Wikipedia system and the power of editing to threaten or intimidate other editors. Doing so violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated."^[1]ProfGiles (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Thank you for that link ProfGiles. Widefox (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a policy all Wikipedia users are required to follow, regardless of their perceived status.ProfGiles (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

absolutely correct, couldn't agree more, thank you ProfGiles Widefox (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I was going to respond to Amedea's earlier post by saying that what you were doing isn't really cyber-bullying, just mildly uncivil, and that words (like "cyber-bullying") lose their meaning if they are over-used. This is getting a bit much, however. As someone who has mercilessly persecuted spammers on Wikipedia, I am telling you that you are crossing a line. My talk page is full of some spammer asking me to "recuse" myself from his article so he can return it to its WP:ARTSPAM state, as is the talk page of that article; someone who had their spamilicious article deleted suggested facetiously other articles I should go after, given I had prompted his article to be re-deleted. I am not lenient on this issue. But I raised the hew and cry and got the community involved: you are engaging in one-on-one vigilante justice without regard for what other people say. Your actions suggest a knowledge of Wikipedia policy. You should know better. Let the AfD run its course and let them try to address your concerns. When I create an article, some things go unsourced for months. It is not reasonable to insist upon immediate sourcing. The article as it stands is different from the one nominated for deletion. The unnotability of the original article (about which you are correct) is now a moot point. You certainly don't need to respond to everything Amedea says on the AfD page, especially when she is making a face-saving gesture. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 07:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and as someone who randomly landed on the article no doubt like you have done, I agree with mostly everything you've said. I did check your page and noticed you've got experience in this area, so appreciate your wisdom. Please show me where/how to increase participation. I've asked the community both at COIN and Wikiquette alerts. When you first mentioned civility...did you have a chance to check my edits about COI/OWN as I asked you on the AfD? My ambiguous language was something I explained and was hoping you would reread with the clarification. At Wikiquette alerts another editor commented there is no bullying as well as you have done. As for mildly uncivil e.g. [9] accusations of cyber bullying being monitored outside wikipedia by colleagues appears threatening to me, bordering on bullying itself, but COIN is I believe the best place to record it, rather than escalating. I agree about face saving and my edit is not mildly-uncivil [10] but showing that I believe the debate is not advancing, and it can't be easy when you care about your own article. Don't know if you checked my initial help and advice to Amedea, but it was supportive and encouraging. I agree that if there are secondary sources an article can be written. Widefox (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a Mendeley external link. I have also linked two articles into the page...that of NMR and Antony John Williams. More references will be added. The external link to his photogrpahy website has been removed. Comments welcome. --ChemConnector (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemConnector (talk • contribs)

Hi ChemConnector. Good work, the main thing is to add references to establish notability. With Bios of living people, that's even more important thing, and recently has got stricter on this. Widefox (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked for it: "As far a can be determined, the Courgette algorithm is tentatively related to the Zucchini Conjecture...oh for gods sake." NawlinWiki (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I did didn't I! Thanks anyway, Widefox (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Widefox. Please excuse my ignorance, but I'm curious about why you added the {{null}} template to this article. What does this achieve? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Looks like a bug in the new version of wp:twinkle, I will submit a bug report. Widefox (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a bug others are seeing too [11] Widefox (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

twinkle has been fixed - all ok now. Widefox (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you take another look at Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine when you get a chance? I removed the unencyclopedic tag, since I think that referred to the contributor list. If that's not what you meant, let me know so we can make further improvements.

This topic is definitely notable, but establishing that is a little challenging -- it requires print sources about SF&F literature, which I don't have to hand. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

yes you are right - article looks better now the unencyclopedic lists are removed. BUT the main issue remains - notability (and it is about whether we can verify it). Two of the references are deadlinks, ISFDB (user generated content) should not be used as a reference at all (is not a reliable source) so there are no reliable sources i.e. notability has not been established. Widefox (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability: Today I added the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, 3rd edition, as a source, per their headwords list. Literary reference sources are published in print, and may not be searchable online with Amazon and Google Books (publishers want you to buy their encyclopedias and the like). So online sourcing is difficult, though I've left a few notes on the talk page that could be followed up.

Regarding the links: I fixed one of them (I'd left a pipe in it, sorry). That's the Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Weird Fiction Magazine Index: 1890-2006+ A Checklist of Magazine Titles and Issues Indexed by Stephen T. Miller & William G. Contento -- which establishes WP:V, at least on what's referenced to that.

The other link -- to ISFD -- is not dead for me, though I see what you mean about it being user-generated content. Feel free to remove ISFD altogether, if you prefer. Right now it's used only to source the editor of the last year of publication as Rachel E. Holman. There are a few print magazines which covered the close of the magazine; there's a good chance that this info could be sourced there, but I don't have the magazines to check.

It would be particularly helpful to get your comments on the other sources, besides ISFD, to see whether you regard them as WP:RS.

I toned down the interview description, which is what struck me as WP:OR-y. Let's talk about any remaining problems on the talk page--or please just delete what's bothersome. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work, I removed the notability tag. (and ISFDB is back online now, yes.) You might want to check whether using ISFDB as a ref at all is appropriate (I normally remove WP refs which is clearcut)....so IMDB and ISFDB should be the same but I'm not sure of how vigilant editors are of tolerating them, so you could check that as it'd be useful for you to know. Widefox (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

IMDB has some user-generated content but I think that's pretty different from ISFDB. ISFDB and Payne's database have been previously discussed for use in this featured article. Currently, they use ISFDB as a source of convenience but not authority: "See the individual issues. For convenience, an online index is available at "Magazine:If — ISFDB". Texas A&M University. Retrieved 23 February 2008." Payne, while self-published, is just used. Thanks for the feedback, and for flagging this article for attention! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing from these articles, and have asked for uninvolved editors to provide an independent opinion about the imbalance of the school article, and the Leamington/Warwick issue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good. I shall disengage too. Always a pleasure to see more experienced editors at work. Widefox (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you add this to my talkpage? We were involved in a discussion about content that I had added to the Royal Leamington Spa article, content which you trashed whilst we were still talking about how best to accommodate it. It was inappropriate and poor form I think. Were you trying to intimidate me into backing down and accepting your intolerant position? Twopenneth (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OhHai;
Just to let you know, I'm about to be mildy critical of you in the close of this in like ten seconds when I close it. I thought better you hear it from me first. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Widefox, I have made some edits recently to the article about Gary Martin and wonder whether you can tell me what else I might need to add in order to remove the warnings re. deletion on the article. I have a number of other articles about living scientists to add but want to make sure that I fully understand expectations on this article first. Thanks --ChemConnector (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi ChemConnector, there's only one thing important right now - establishing notability for that article WP:Notability (academics) else it will get deleted. Nothing I can add to that. I just had a quick look and the first two photography refs are to his own website, so that needs a third party ref. I don't understand something though - as an academic, you should find reading the notability guide and evaluating refs a breeze?! I also have some bad news, I see you edit your own article, please see WP:COI. I'm afraid I'm going to have to tag it. Widefox (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have tagged all articles I have ever contributed to on Wikipedia. I did not realize that it was outlawed to edit my own article. I will cease making any further contributions to Wikipedia to any articles at this point as despite reading multiple guidelines and doing my utmost to adhere to them I clearly am failing in my task to add quality content to Wikipedia. I am an enormous Wikipedia fan and have dedicated a LOT of time to curating chemistry on Wikipedia (link ) but am probably better serving the community working in the background. Thanks --ChemConnector (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey that's not fair! You asked for my advice! I answered, the same a few months ago. I'm sorry you are not happy with the answers, but please don't blame the messenger. I think you know that other editors have put tags on too! Note that the tags really help if you wish to save these articles (note I removed the spam link to your website above) Widefox (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No personal attack meant. I am happy with the answers but have not figured out how to deliver on them without clear examples. If there is stuff in the article that doesn't fit I'd prefer that editors edit it out. Also the link was NOT a spam link! it was a link about the work I dedicated to Wikipedia to improve chemistry that you might not know about. No issue that you removed it as long as you are aware of the fact that I have been working hard on Wikipedia too. I don't want to get into a flame war over this. If the articles survive that's fine and if they are removed by editors so be it. Thanks for the honest feedback. --ChemConnector (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My best advice at this point is read the WP:COI, and the notability guidelines. I'm confused, as User talk:ChemSpiderMan you were already advised about the COI policy. Widefox (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have confused you. Reading back through that I acknowledge I was advised of the policy, but don't remember that...I read way too much electronic text to take everything in. So, staying off of WP editing resolves any further issues and I will stick to validating chemical compounds on WP instead. Keeps me out of conflict :-) --ChemConnector (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree that conflict isn't good in volunteering. My opinion is that there should be a simplified set of guidelines at least for beginners. Widefox (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion! It is possible/likely that such resources are out there but I don't know where to find them. I'm not sure whether there are YouTube videos for example walking through examples. If there are would be great to get pointed to them. It would also be good if you (or another editor) could edit an article as an example...if there is material in something I have written that needs adjusting/removing then if it could be done that would be a great teaching piece for me. Thanks --ChemConnector (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I sign in with an ID very close to my affiliation and email address. I'm an RSC employee and edit independently from ChemConnector, though clearly on overlapping topics. Equally clearly I'm considerably less likely to ever bother contributing to Wikipedia again Rsc.kidd (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Widefox. Clearly I hadn't read the COI guidelines fully, but I believe all my edits are scrupulously NPOV; as I sign in with a username which is explicitly professional, any edit I make can be judged against my professional reputation. In your future considerations as a wikipedian, please consider how realistic it is for users to read a 5000 word guideline (one of many) that is also presumably fluid in content. I emphasise - I believe my past contributions are those of verifiable fact, and I believe I have followed the 'in a nutshell' summary in spirit throughout. Rsc.kidd (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, where all further comments should be made, so they are not split up here too, thanks. Widefox (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested that your PROD tag on Sean Ekins has received considerable outside attention. ^[2], and in the current Wikipedia Signpost Please do not confuse presence of COI with lack of quality--most of our articles are written by those with some degree of interest or connection with the subject. After all, who else is likely to care?

Iam no defended of spam: I have deleted personally over 5000 spam articles as an administrator here. But there's a difference between COI and Spam. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can echo that. Please try to dial back the righteous response to such articles and contributors. Deletion is a blunt tool and a weapon of last resort, and we need more science editors. Fences&Windows 02:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have one word to say about "chemists vs pornstars"...Viagragate. Seriously, while Viagragate might make good blog/news publicity, putting this sensationalism aside - 1. it would be much more constructive to discuss any issues here on WP (the blog entry is actually WP:MEAT), 2. (someone else pointed out) there's more articles on chemists than pornstars . I agree to some extent and missed that one (I changed another PROD to a notability tag [12]). BUT, let's not lose sight of the COI issue: Antony John Williams is an Wikipedia:Autobiography, and these related biographies are his colleagues involved in collective funding WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_54#ChemSpider. We do not need autobiographies of anyone, socially constructive or otherwise. Widefox (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Man-in-the-browser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (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) 10:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on my proposal about changes to {{web browsers}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Magnetic water treatment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Electromagnetic and Mechanical (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) 10:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Widefox (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Google Chrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social engineering (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) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Widefox (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I have been trying to get the infobox of Synaptic_software to both show the current/latest release of Synaptic (which was for Debian sid as the preview release ) and the one which was released as part of Ubuntu Precise which was released as stable. I made both the pages see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Latest_preview_software_release/Synaptic_%28software%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Synaptic_%28software%29 . For some reasons they are not getting reflected in the Synaptic article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_%28software%29

If you do something either put what I did wrong or incorrect on my talk page or better yet, please mail me at gmail address which is also given on my user page Shirishag75 (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shirishag75, for this sort of thing, maybe you'd like to experiment using your sandbox? My only other tip is study/copy what other pages have done. This sort of thing may be tricky. If this doesn't help, feel free to contact me, or possibly other editors who may have more experience than me in this. Widefox (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Check out User:BuzzinMediaConcepts...Do they need Owner tags?? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that tag myself, but go ahead! I tagged them with a few things, and Kuru has deleted the userpage. Widefox (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that Milram 2010 is, or is close to, Robert Young himself. It might well be that Young should meet notability standards; regional newspapers can't really get away with just pretending that their locals are world champions. But with the only contributing editor (similarity of editing style makes it hard for me to believe that the various IPs are not Milram 2010) unwilling or unable to provide anything that makes it clear what that claim to notability is. It certainly does not lie in mainstream road cycle racing: my knowledge of that field, and Young's absence from the important databases of the sport, make me confident of that. What his genuine accomplishments in triathlon are I have no idea: he must have done something, or he wouldn't have been chosen by ITN for their snippet about the London prologue route for the 2007 Tour. But if Milram2010 would rather throw his toys out of the pram and effectively request deletion of the article he was so interested in, rather than be help to a reasonable standard, so be it. Shame, because he obviously has some technical abilities, (he uploaded photos and somehow constructed an infobox out of vcard data), but if he has that little sense of co-operation and collaboration, then Wiki is probably not the place for him. Bit pissed off about the time I put into trimming it while AGFing that he wanted a decent article, but c'est la vie. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Throwing toys - nice analogy for a primary teacher! yes, can understand - a bit like watering someone else's seedlings until they tell you they're weeds (I am no gardener). Widefox (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You recently removed the addition I made to the homicide article. You claimed that it was not a "constructive" contribution. I would like for you to explain further why you thought my addition did not belong in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraph2005 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and welcome to wikipedia. Your edit [13] was reverted by the editor Touchatou, and I reverted it when you did the exact same edit [14]. We edit here according to consensus, plus the burden of proof is on you to provide references for the material you add, especially so for such a contentious statement. In addition, you should also read WP:NPOV. Hope that answers. NB you should sign your comments, and further discussion is best placed on the talk page Talk:Homicide Widefox (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the sanest edits I've ever seen. Kudos. Tiderolls 01:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much, bit of Wikilove goes a long way! Keep up the good work yourself! Widefox (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You issued a very inappropriate warning to me. Categories require sourced information in the article to support the category. 174.99.123.164 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 174.99.123.164 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Fixed. You will keep getting that due to a corner case of WP:Huggle (no context is shown, so it looks like a BLP blank by IP editor). I hope the other users see my message - Warning: WP:Huggle users - this is not cat blanking, this is just a redirect - check manually. Widefox (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi I am adding sourced content please take a look. THank you. This user is deleting it again and again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.106.45 (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor content, adding to a poor article. Meh, I decided to leave out. Please find secondary sources. Widefox (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Has now been blocked as a proxy. Please do not restore the sockpuppet content, it was coatrack and has no place in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I think I can make my own mind up. You know you are not immune to 3RR, right? Widefox (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the IP above is a sockpuppet using a proxy, so I have blocked the IP 3 months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, UK2.NET IP. Widefox (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish I were immune to 3RR I knew who this was immediately, he has been stalking and harassing me for months now. He is a total pain in the region known as my rectum. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nikthestoned 14:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed re: these changes though - reflinks marked that page as being accessed today, it's my fault for not noticing that it is in fact a place-holder site and not the original, well spotted! Nikthestoned 14:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your SPAM content on my page removed. For talk on the article use Talk:Oklahoma_Health_Care_Authority, for talk about why you are getting labelled a COI, username violation, SPAMmer see your talk page. Widefox (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Tgearin in or whatever his name is told me I had to have sources that cited what I was saying is true, ad I did that. So why did you take it down, again? She DID date JC, and I wrote all the stuff that happened accurately due to all these maazine exceprts. Isn't that page supposed to be her BIOGRAPHY... What did I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasezgurl28 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello there,

I'm one of Palmy's fans from Thailand. To go straight to the point, I've been told that Palmy she quite isn't happy with the profile picture you have uploaded on the page Palmy. (too skinny, sort of, she said haha) She wants it to be her latest album's cover instead. Some of her close fans have attempted to change it but somehow it was changed back to the previous one, the skinny one. I'm not certain if you concern about copyrights or the like. I'm not here often and have only little clue about this stuff. I must trouble you to explain me what to do so I could change it to the one she likes without violating the terms then. I can be reached at [email protected]. Thanks very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigblackbears (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sure. Just to be clear - it was not me that uploaded the current picture, but another editor. You may want to ask them directly how they did it including the copyright aspect. Please see WP:COPY and you can ask questions here -> Wikipedia:Media copyright questions . Please put all further discussion about the article here -> Talk:Palmy Widefox (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

this editor claims in the edit test [15] that it is resolved , i saw you involved on the talk page so messaging you, regards thanks-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That editor did follow the minimum advice I gave, but didn't do the recommended advice or discuss on the talk page, instead reverting and independently risks violating 3RR. Widefox (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, "Letter Never Sent" is the official English title of the film [16] instead of the translation used on the Unsent Letter Page. Furthermore, it has more notability than a random REM song which doesn't have its own article. Since that's the actual name of the film, it should redirect to the film.207.237.208.153 (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There are several issues with your edits, which is why they have been reverted: 1. Whatever the name is, it should be the same title as the lead section. 2. IMDB is not counted as a reliable source in Wikipedia (although it does show you are right about the title, so this should be fixed/added). 3. You provided no reference for your change 4. The current redirect "Letter Never Sent" is valid and should not be removed without discussion 5. *if* you are right about the film title *and* have a WP:RS then use some sort of disambiguation to keep both uses 6. I have heard of the song, but not the film 7. All further talk about the respective articles should go on the respective talk pages 8. Pls create an account Widefox (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Tiiya Wilhson==

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:Tiiya Wilhson, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Tiiya Wilhson

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:Tiiya Wilhson, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear - these two warnings are an interesting bug in Twinkle. Widefox (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you can help me, and maybe I can better myself in the process.

My name is daniel reyes and I wrote and seemingly star in the go technologies wiki article. I felt that having upwards of 30 legitimate references would imply notability. If the washington post, Inc, WSJ etc though it was worth taking the time, then I thought others who have been impacted by it would also be interested. I don't know. I've certainly seen a lot more commercial articles without the references. So if I can do anything here please let me know.

I looked for articles on mobility equipment, hand controls, etc, which area huge market and a big part of the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people who must use wheelchairs to get around, but I found not one. This deserves a bigger article that Go can be added to, but I don't have the background to write a good article about it. I can think of four or five people with really deep knowledge in the field, but I don't see them writing it. Is there a good way to invite people to write, or contribute, who would not otherwise?

As you've seen the go technologies article is being trashed by an ex employee. I believe that it's Jim Gray, who has had a lot of animosity since being let go in 2007. He'll probably keep creating new user names (he's using AcorsChallis now that you've blocked AcorsGroup). I don't mind other people editing, it's the wiki way, but I'd like it if they were less biased than I am, not more. Some of it was probably necessary editing, but he's deleted references and makes quotes that have no reference along with his own editorializing. You can say that I'm biased but I always have a reference to back me up.

How do you deal with this? I'd like to go in and fix the references and remove the outright falsehoods (I've never had a trust fund or 11 million dollars) as well as things that can't be sourced, but I think that he'll just go back and whack it again.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and for any help or suggestions that you might make.

DanielDaniel Reyes (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. Firstly, don't worry. You are allowed to fix problems about yourself *immediately* - please have a quick look at WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest so you can see exactly what is acceptable. The standards are high for information in biographies of living people - see WP:BLP. There should be help there on how to escalate if needed. Sorry I cannot help further at this time with problems on that article, or the new editor there (see bottom of this page for details). You may want to ask someone else for now. Widefox (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

One or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Letter Never Sent, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Please view this diff and do tell why this was labeled vandalism. I have removed your rollback rights pending clarification. Wifione ^Message 13:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure:

• I am aware of my error, and volunteered it already here (and here line 14)
• Reiterating: My 2 previous reverts to that were AGF (the context being I was communicating and trying to guide the other editor at the time, and discuss on talk pages)
• This one was just clicking the wrong link on twinkle (I was attempting a customised edit summary version like the previous one [17] but as soon as no dialogue box came up I realised my mistake)
  • Consequently...I am guilty of not giving a userpage vandalism warning (which I always do). I had aborted before the 2nd step of a userpage warning
• In that context, I volunteer that I may have technically broken 3RR but my actions clearly indicate an error I recognised at the time
• More context - 2 of us editors arriving on the page due to "vandalism" and reverting the "vandalism"
  • my first edit there was for "vandalism" [18]
  • from then on mine was AGF [19]
  • then *after* my AGF revert User:DBigXray did a "vandalism revert" [20]
  • out of two of us editors reverting the page "due to vandalism", I was the one that recognised this editor is *not* vandalising, and realised it is an NPOV problem

Summary:

• simple error
• two of us editors are guilty of "reverting due to vandalism" (which ultimately wasn't)
  • neither of us deserve punishment for getting it wrong then (or my wrong button later)
    • I stopped reverting due to "vandalism" *before* the other editor
    • the right thing in the wrong way WP:SNOW
• Please see how I'm normally cautious and thorough getting this response [21]
• In this context, this may be considered unjust and WP:PUNITIVE. Widefox (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The removal of your userright was/is not punitive. It was done to ensure you immediately stop reverting edit disputes as vandalism. However, I am quite convinced with your clarification that your vandalism revert was a pure mistake. By the way, I've not pulled you up for 3RR as I realized how you created the dab stuff after your first revert. So no sweat there. Advice: next time, the moment you mistakenly undertake a revert as vandalism when it isn't, you should immediately leave a blank edit on the same page with the edit summary that clarifies why your previous usage of rollback and vandal classification was a mistake. That would have solved the problem immediately. Please do continue your discussions with the ip and call me for any support. I'm adding back your rollback right. Best. Wifione ^Message 06:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Working again. I understand and appreciate your input. Think I'll undo it next time, and redo revert - seems more clear although more long-winded. Curiously, my understanding of Twinkle's mechanism is that it does not depend on rollback anyhow. Widefox (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

True. In common parlance, Twinkle works at the user level, so is slower; rollback works directly at the database level, so is faster. Wifione ^Message 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, there's no way to stop these client side js, but there is for server side sql. Pleasure to talk with you. Widefox (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. Best. Wifione ^Message 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Widefox,
Can you clarify how you think that username is a problem? It looks like they're claiming experience in TGN (the article they edited); there's no TGNPro group or website I can find. There are many, many editors who call themselves User:FootballPro or User:Rolling Stones Expert (had to do a bit of trial and error to find examples not actually used). If I've missed something, let me know. If not, please consider removing your warning and giving them a warmer welcome. The info they added, while unsourced, doesn't appear to be made in bad faith or anything. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and I agree not clear cut... but crucially more than experience - to me this implies a medical professional specialising in this area of expertise. An WP:SPA editor of the medical article Trigeminal neuralgia (TGN). If they are a professional, implies possible WP:COI, and if not then easy case of misleading Misleading usernames. Widefox (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really interpret it as a claim to be a doctor of some kind, I interpret it more as a claim to be someone experienced/knowledgeable about the subject matter. I'm not sure either case would actually violate WP:COI. Still, if you're comfortable with your warning then I'll comment below it on their talk page, instead of asking you to change it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I do agree that to err on the cautious I'll change it. (I guess a professional in medicine could be other than a doctor, and they could be an academic ... Widefox (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I misunderstood. I've already left a comment below yours there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, for redirecting the name of the author Jennifer Eaton Gökmen in an unprofessional manner. I didn't know the correct method and indeed of its existence until you showed it. Thank you.

The change of the author's surname to the correct spelling is uncontroversial, as she herself uses the original Turkish spelling of her surname publicly and in her books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.149.40 (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You will have to wait until an admin here does it, as I cannot. Regards Widefox (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The partial biased and nonconstructive topic will be changed and editted as soon as possible. Kj plma (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it might help if you copy this article to your sandbox until you have some WP:RS ? Currently it is not notable and may be deleted. Widefox (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for info. Sorry for our errors. Now page without any promo materials, only facts about game, links,.... It's ok? Or not? User talk:Elena Kulakova —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

I agree with the maintenance tags at the top - the most important is the PROD - unless references are added showing the notability it should be deleted. Feel free to add these refs. Widefox (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Warwickshire College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Curriculum (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) 15:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, and the DAB page Widefox (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I changed the name of "Pikens" and "Pikens School" in List of high schools in West Virginia to the correct "Pickens" and "Pickens High School", and you sent me an abusive message about it. I actually made a correction. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 72.50.140.189 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you've just changed it to "Dickens" and "Pickens High School". I googled it and fixed it - Pickens , Pickens. I don't understand your edits [22] and [23] where you use different names? When I reverted your change, the reasoning was due to lacking sources. I will tag this article. You may find doing these things easier to collaborate with other editors - read revert reasoning, use edit summaries, and be more careful writing on people's talk pages. Glad we fixed it. Widefox (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Seed bombing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lot and Barren

Area (architecture) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Subterranean

Igloo (New Zealand) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TV33

WHIPS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pivot

Wendy Piatt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to BA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Damoritz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an autobiography, which isn't a WP:CSD criterion in any event. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It links to an article which that editor has repeatedly vandalised to make into an autobiography. Leaving there by not deleting it is no problem in itself (link to the wrong biography from user space), but may encourage repeat vandalism from that promo only account. Widefox (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The speedy deletion criteria are fairly narrow. If you believe the page should be deleted, consider using WP:PROD or WP:MfD, where you can make a fuller case for deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll consider the arguments for an MfD then as WP:PROD cannot be used for userspace. Widefox (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning, Widefox. The next time you remove a User:Damoritz is my deletion of my life! Is a now is a chat, Who end.(commented out blocked vandal Widefox (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

Hi there FOX, VASCO here,

already have an account, sometimes i edit logged off lest i forget. You are correct however, really should have used a summary, but i reverted what? A guy, User:Creed7, who also does not use them (never), does not respond to messages (never!) and continues to upload copyrighted stuff so it seems.

But not an excuse for my lack of summary though, will be more careful next time. Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry I must apologise for any incompetence. I am a new editor to Wiki and have been learning along the way. I did not realise you wanted me to stop editing. I was just trying to fix up some of the issues. Please assist me in getting this right. I have no connection with Craig Graham, just merely interested in talking about some of his work. I will get to grips with this, I am sure. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of tutorials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbubblemedia (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Bigbubblemedia (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Bigbubblemedia

Hi Widefox Thank you for the advice and for also helping me. I will change my username straight away. I appreciate your help. Thank you :-) Bigbubblemedia (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Bigbubblemedia

One more thing. Is it best that I delete my username and start fresh with a new one? Otherwise I don't know how to change my username. Sorry Bigbubblemedia (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Bigbubblemedia

Thanks for all your help. That's great rachel1979 02:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Bigbubblemedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbubblemedia (talk • contribs)

Hi Widefox Thank you for adding the page back up. The blanking of the page was an error. I was trying to make some late night edits last night and my computer froze. It blanked the page. Anyway, I am glad it's back, because I spent a long time on it yesterday. I will delete the speedy deletion notice, as you've advised. Thank you Sydneysider1979 (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Sydneysider1979

Hi Widefox. Thank you for your messages to me. I will be completely honest with you, Wiki is a new project for me, I want to be able to add valuable content and continue to do so. In relation to Craig Graham, I do have a close connection with the subject, but did not understand that this would be a problem or that I needed to disclose this information, because of my ignorance and misunderstanding of Wiki. When I first joined Wiki and created the page, I was bombarded with things that I shouldn't be doing, and a lot of it, I didn't understand. However, I have learnt a big lesson here and do now understand what Wiki is for and what I should be doing to add to it's valuable content. I am not trying to excuse my actions, but more to explain my situation (I am only human and can assure you I have the best interests at heart). I would love to continue as an editor and maybe one day become a Wiki monitor, when I understand it better. This weekend I am going to spend some time reading through all the information available on Wiki. I do have a couple of questions, if you would be so kind as to help me. I would like to enhance Craig Graham's profile, so that it includes early stages of career, personal life etc. Is that acceptable? Am I allowed to do that? I appreciate you might consider my views to be biased, but I do believe he deserves to have recognition on Wiki, and it appears others do too. I will continue to improve citations etc, as you have suggested and continue to learn more about Wiki, before I set up any other pages. Just on another note, I have made no edits without logging in, so I am not sure who did those. Sorry. Thank you for your understanding. I look forward to hearing from you. Sydneysider1979 (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Sydneysider1979

Stopped by. Suggest you visit WP:PRIMER. It may be if help in editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this article is premature, but as the topic of a planned Transformers 4 film IS being spoken about in reliable souces,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] might you not agree that a merge and redirect per policy instruction for such premature articles to either Transformers (film series)#Future OR Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Sequel per policy instruction for such premature film articles might be worth conideration? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, changed to merge/redir. Widefox (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Manifest determination, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This doesn't come under WP:CSD#A7, nor do I think it is a test page. Consider AfD, but a Google search suggests that there probably is an article subject here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I PROD deleted it and incidentally found out there's already 1. duplication of current article Manifestation Determination Hearing Widefox (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since your tagging of Waterland (water park), I've been scouring Google / Highbeam for any support for these statements and I've found not-a-one from a reliable source! Let me know if PROD is contested and I'll wade in... Nikthestoned 15:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed. thanks for dropping by, and so quick too! Widefox (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Widefox. I've recently created this article in my sandbox. Would you mind having a look at it and providing me feedback? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sydneysider1979/sandbox Thank you. Sydneysider1979 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Sydneysider1979

Hi. It looks ok. Things to add - internal links, categories. See Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft Widefox (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Will do. Sydneysider1979 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Sydneysider1979

(discussion moved to Talk:Silk (disambiguation)) Widefox (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I got confused -- I thought I was reversing the vandalism. Sorry! Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to ward against vandalism in Jessica Sanchez article as you did with this edit. I look forward to working with you. - SyncSeth (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your post at User talk:Skyelabny is unhelpful. Users should be warned that their activity is wrong, then if they resume their improper activity (in this case, recreating a non-notable page), then they may be blocked. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Next time leave out "I have asked for your account to be blocked". If you have any questions, let me know. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is right for just vandalism. Not sure if you noticed that I marked/reported user:Skyelabny a username violation "SkyeLab Sound Studios NYC" and so I have asked for it to be blocked and correctly informed them beforehand. I see that hasn't happened from AIV, so I will report again this time at UAA. My questions for you: 1. I believe reporting AIV instead of UAA correct? (report for the greater problem) 2. was this missed at AIV? (I know AIV was backlogged) 3. why has this account not been blocked yet? - I will have to repeat report 4. what do you say to WP:SNOWBALL ? Widefox (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Widefox (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I never responded, I forgot to hit save before I left for the weekend. I did not believe that the account was purely promotional, as Skye is likely the user's name, and the full username is a play on words invoking Skylab. However, it appears the point is moot as the account has been blocked by another admin. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's ok - I was impressed you post your holiday up! I can even understand being passed from AIV to UAA in this case. The UAA case was uncontroversial, so it would have been helpful to mention your concern over it. Widefox (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to discuss my recent edits to the wiki, many of which you reverted. First of all, I would like to say sorry for removing some of the add-on categories. I didn't really take the time to read the articles. However, I would like to say that some of the articles really don't deserve the category, such as Wengo, which doesn't mention any kind of add-on at all.

I would like to defend my move of the page M86 Secure Browsing to M86Security Secure Browsing. Perhaps you don't agree, but I think that I at least deserved a chance to defend what I did. The article itself says that "It is a security plug-in for web browsers such as Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Chrome." Well, if you actually attempt to download and install this plug-in, you will find that its name is M86Security Secure Browsing for all browsers. Also, if you search "M86Security Secure Browsing" and "M86 Secure Browsing," you will find that "M86Security Secure Browsing" turns out far more results. I know that the website uses the name that you reverted the page back to, but I think that since the topic of the article is the add-on, the actual add-on name should be used.

Finally, I would also like to apologize for moving Petname to Petname Tool. Would it be all right if I manually moved the Petname Tool information from Petname to its own page, as you suggested on the Petname talk page a while ago? Oneforfortytwo (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. In terms of categories, I checked each one before putting the categories back (merging the other parts of your edits that were not controversial), and as I was just restoring previous editors work I think you should first try to gain consensus on the talk page (of each of those articles) for such controversial edits. Do not mass edit again without being careful. I agree Wengo didn't mention the plugin, but it is trivial to find references about it, and add it in as I have now done.

M86 - please read WP:TITLE - for how we actually name articles. You see there that we do not name them according to original research, but references. The developer's site is the reference, and further, as a trademarked name there is simply no discussion! (further, I believe the add-on has a slightly different name depending on browser/OS - irrelevant as that's my WP:OR)

Petname - my thoughts are on the article talk page. Please keep all further discussion on all these contents issues on those talk pages. Widefox (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

—DoRD (talk)​ 18:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Nexus Project to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Malik Shabazz, thanks for the conversion, Widefox (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Widefox, I answered your question re conflict of interest on my Talk page. DisplayGeek (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about moving Gree to Gree (disambiguation), and I don't see any point in it. Is there a discussion I have missed? LadyofShalott 23:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi LadyofShalott, there is no discussion (and none needed per below) apart from my stated reason given (both in the template and the edit summary):

• the DAB at Gree has a primary meaning GREE.
• Gree should redirect to GREE (rather than moving the DAB to GREE (disambiguation))
• and so the DAB at Gree moves to Gree (disambiguation)
• To make this happen, the redir from Gree (disambiguation) to Gree is a maintenance speedy delete (uncontroversial) as per WP:RM/TR "(e.g., a redirect to the current title...".
• in a related issue, I will fix the incorrect redir at the talk page Talk:Gree

It looks like this minor situation is caused by a previous a bad move, and a bot fix at (Gree (disambiguation) this is uncontroversial wouldn't you agree? Widefox (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Widefox - I had a quick search of Google results, and from what I saw Gree Electrics gets a significant percentage of the hits. You might be right, but I wouldn't say that this is uncontroversial, so I recommend you file a requested move to get more input. (By the way, I was just about to decline your speedy deletion request, but Nyttend got there first.) Let me know if you have any questions about this at all. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Since that makes at least three of us with concerns about this move, it clearly is controversial. I agree a discussion is needed. LadyofShalott 14:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

haha, this is amusing me now. Let me be clear, I wasn't proposing GREE be the primary, I was assuming that's what was meant by the mess at Gree, plus double checking that assumption with reading the opening line on GREE (think Japanese Facebook) against Gree Electric - clearly primary on both. BUT, Yes in reality, clearly GREE being the primary is controversial. I made the mistake of believing that opening statement on GREE, which I've just removed now. Thanks you all for saving me from making that error. I've reverted the DAB to no primary meaning. Not being an expert on all caps policy, I leave for others! Widefox (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

All is well! :) LadyofShalott 15:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(moved to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Anythingyouwant ) Widefox (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the immediate need is to delete every non-book Shannara article, as I'm not sure they are doing much harm. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not sure how useful most of them are either though - something for a fan website rather than here? Some just need work, and some have been CSD-ed. Widefox (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)