User talk:Widefox/Archive 4

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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Inspired by you, I nominated a few others just now. I hope you continue also. I think it may be much easier as a first step, and advisable in any case, to deal with the articles individually, than to start off by trying to ban the editor--the deletion record provides useful evidence (and, it has just occurred to be, focussing on the articles also deals automatically with sockpuppettry) DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha, our messages crossed in the ether. My AfD was pure frustration empathy for the poor soles extracting the disclosure teeth, slowly over a year. I'm bowing out as like before, unearthing all the sock tentacles is only possible as an admin due to the hidden history of deleted articles. Widefox; talk 03:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The answer to "who is Riathamus" can be found here: http://joelcomm.com/riathamus-lives-kudos-to-blizz.html . Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping for the best with the new SPI you opened, but my experience there to date has not been hugely successful. Seems to me you really have to lead the clerk by the nose until they authorize checkuser. If you can think of any ways to lay it out piece...by...piece until it's nearly ironclad, that would help. — Brianhe (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding of SPI is that for good reason there's an high evidence bar that they are strict about. I've listed it per DGG suggestion. The sockfarm around it has been checked out, but it appears to be only scratching the surface. Widefox; talk 08:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Widefox, thanks for the discussion on Transbay. So I saw this DAB: Must (disambiguation). So it looks like that entries 3 and 4 are PTMs, right?Mistakefinder (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(discussion moved to Talk:Must (disambiguation) ) Widefox; talk 09:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DUP programming language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Widefox; talk 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

An only warning for adding links which are not strictly spam is unnecessarily harsh. Please consider using lower-level warnings initially, which are more more friendly in tone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN Normally yes, it's a username vio, and EXT spammer. You've blocked for the former. The account is promo only - solely adding EXT links to their own website on several articles which seems the definition of WP:LINKSPAM. WP:NOTHERE / WP:COI seems to apply strongly, wouldn't you agree? WP:COIN may be the right venue (rather than urgent promo), agree slightly stale but no time for submitting all evidence required for COIN / COIN can be toothless. Widefox; talk 17:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I've undone a couple of the LINKSPAM, some are in the see also section too. Can you use your mop to undo them all, and that'll also help ensure we're on the same page, just in case you're in disagreement still? Widefox; talk 08:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any special tools to undo the edits as most of the articles have subsequent changes. Are you removing the links because the pages don't meet WP:ELYES or because you consider them spam? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, in which there's no easier option. LINKSPAM "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." (as above). Widefox; talk 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind if I merge some of the text of my essay with WP:BOGOF? Are you still working on it right now? — Brianhe (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I fixed the redirect at WP:BOGOF ... I think it's what you intended. — Brianhe (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't have time to redir. It is only notes (possibly a rough draft) at present, missing bits and with no focus or attribution. I've only just seen you've got an essay too, which may be better? My hand was forced above, so it's live now. Being new to writing an essay, Wikipedia:Essays says we shouldn't write redundant ones WP:REDUNDANTESSAY, but I'm well aware that a copyedit is badly needed to keep it concise and focussed. Once done, yes feel free to merge else I may copyedit your parts which may not need it. Widefox; talk 00:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I will keep my essay separate, as it gives me the latitude to express op-ed/personal perspective I prefer. I may or may not chime in at WP:BOGOF. Brianhe (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a mess currently, it may need to be cut down and split into personal/deeper analysis. Anyhow, in WP space all are invited. Widefox; talk 22:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already commented on your proposed deletion of A State of Trance, but I see you've tagged a large number of trance-related articles for many issues, especially Conflict of Interest. In at least one case you say "promo article, undisclosed COI sockfarm. Pls take to SPI". So far I haven't found any named editors in common (save bots) among these articles. Which, if it's a sockfarm, one perhaps wouldn't. But do you have a list of the account(s) you believe to have the CoI? Do you have the results from a sockpuppet investigation? I guess what I'm saying is: I believe heavy tactics require strong evidence—and even if there's a trance-related promotional sockfarm on the loose that doesn't mean every article they touch needs to be deleted. After all, it's not like Lange isn't notable within the genre.

Oh, wait, is the CoI for ASOTMKX? I see they've been blocked as a sock, and their user page is like a Who's Who of trance music. But many of their edits to these pages were three years ago, with a reasonable amount of other users' activity on the pages since. Anyway if you have a list of the users and/or pages you gave the ol' deletionist steamroller to I would appreciate the chance to go around trying to polish them into shape. Metadox (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged a bunch of promo / undisclosed COI articles yes. They are all weak (some are poorly sourced BLPs), some may be notable, but an undisclosed paid editor(s) (for instance) is against our Terms of Use (TOU), so some disclosure and WP:SPI may be needed to cleanup. For now, the weak articles need weeding. Widefox; talk 17:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Crucially, I'd appreciate if further discussion goes in the respective article talk / AfD, rather than here. Widefox; talk 18:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I also came here because of AfD, although the one about the Circle_(company) bitcoin thing, rather than the one about whatever-this-is. You replied to me over there, but somebody had already closed the circle-AfD (as no consensus), so here I am. Any mainspace-tagging for COI, since I'm here, ought to be for 2015 edits only -- unless of course you see an actual indication of COI in the current mainspace prose -- because the new TOU are, uh, new, and ex post facto applies, and all that. It is of course perfectly okay to add connected-contrib to the article-talkpage, *that* bit is definitely an ex post facto retroactive change, and will improve the 'pedia in some cases, by helping future editors in future talkpage conversations... but I assume we're talking about mainsapce-tagging-for-COI-here. Anyways, as for the circle-bitcoin-thing, I'm happy to extend you the same privilege as DGG and Brianhe -- I won't tell you what to do.  ;-)     WP:BURO and WP:CHOICE fully apply. I do think that I will suggest that you re-read the GPL and GFDL again. They are both, to the extent mere documents can be such, particularly receptive to commercial paid contributors, and for good reason: RMS didn't think paid contributors were evil, he just believes that locked-down-proprietarized-software is evil. Concentrate on the content, not the contributor, to translate the sentiment to wiki-eze. Now, whether you believe thataway, is of course another question entirely. Happy to chitchat about it, if you like; you seem an interesting humanoid, from your maxbox page.  :-)     Though it seems you prefer places other than your own usertalk, or perhaps, are against on-wiki chitchat generally speaking? p.s. Since you have an interest in COI, and an interest in Emacs, perhaps I can entice you to take a COI-encumbered EMACS-repo-contributor who happens to be a wikipedian under your wing? They wrote a now-GPL3'd videogame in 1983, which just recently made it through AfD as bangkeep, but needs a rewrite, and is stuck in the COI-queue. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In which case you're using a thread about another article. TLDR + here is not the place to talk about legals, and licensing. A closed AfD. So let's leave it there.

The only reply is to question what seems to be your assumption that I believe something about paid editors having no part here. Source code is functional (and I've been using GPL for 20 odd years), websites informative, and there's legal requirements for (paid information/advertising/placements) disclosure in certain jurisdictions. Similar but crucially different. Conflate at your own peril, not WPs. post script...gazing over part of above... some of my emacs modes are available if you wish to checkout some useful dodgy code :) Oh, and watch this space for WP:BOGOF which is my main interest. Widefox; talk 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, as WP:BOGOF is currently a redlink, I have only assumptions-of-good-faith to go on.  :-)     User:Kudpung and User:Brianhe think your BOGO/F concept is correct, but also believe that paid editing is "inadmissable" (whether disclosed or not) and/or "rejecting 'free [as in beer]' contributions from paid editors". I can wait patiently for WP:BOGOF to appear, if you like, or if you feel the urge, I'd be curious to hear you expound on what part disclosed paid editors ought play, ditto for undisclosed, and how we can best convert the latter into the former. Agree about not conflating GPL'd source code with GFDL'd textbooks, but I do actually consider wikipedia quasi-functional, it is an educational set of informative material. p.s. My google-fu is failing me... what are the package-names of your allegedly-dodgy modes? I would be interested in seeing them. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Stub'd WP:BOGOF. Happy editing. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ooh... now I see User:Widefox/BOGOF is already in progress. No worries, redir WP:BOGOF or whatever is best. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it's a dup, so may as well move over the top else we'll get a fork. Widefox; talk 13:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so sorted out now, WP:BOGOF is in the essay-space. At the top "[t]his essay is in development" ... since it is in essay-space, and not userspace, are you ready for WP:MERCILESS collaborative editing? Or do you need a bit more time to develop in peace, without other folks fiddling with the sentences just yet? I do like your approach so far, although obviously I don't agree with all of what is there... which seems to be the intent, since you are presenting multipel major strategies in a compare-and-contrast fashion. Anyways, since you may have promoted out of userspace before you were quite finished, I figured I would ask before I make any tweaks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It is only is WP space right now to prevent a fork (see above). I'm not saying I agree with all that's there yet either - it's only a rough draft, and major changes will happen soon, possibly 1. splitting it, and 2. removing all secondary things and waffle. It is a mess currently, and is flawed. Widefox; talk 22:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I voted on 3 of the trance AfD articles, basing my opinions on the content. However, I hate CoIs, I hate promotional articles and I hate paid editing. If there's something going on here that would fall into any of those categories, and/or if there are related articles in AfD discussion, please let me know. Roches (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that here you bolded an alt title, which is a good thing to do. If you do this routinely, please also add a wp:redirect from that alt title to the actual title. That way someone typing the alt title finds the article. Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl! 15:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog Did you actually check the redirect first before saying this? I had a look, and I created the redirect Spin transport electronics a month ago, so appears you're mistaken. Why say this anyway, just fix stuff yourself?! Widefox; talk 12:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been confusing it with this. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The acro wasn't in the dab either – which I care slightly more about. Worth telling the person who added the content next time? (As you can see, I both know what a redirect is (no link required), and do this a fair bit (bar this omission)). Widefox; talk 21:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Widefox, I can't understand why you reverted my above correction because there are G.I.T. on Broadway and G.I.T.: Get It Together written so. Please corret it again in my version. Thanks and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted to the last good version, due to a problem before your edit - I've replied here Talk:Git. Widefox; talk 08:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. I am just letting you know that I deleted Particulate pollution (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  12:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks. You deleted G6, now deleted don't know how to see which one I picked... maybe G8? It is a type of invalid target, and the dab G6 doesn't fit. Widefox; talk 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there; you appear to have reported this user at AIV. This user last edited in June 2011(!) Di you in reality intend to nominate someone else? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony, WP:COIN would be the correct place to list the promo only socks/meats User:Elenimanetas and User:PR123123. COIN is toothless even for active accounts. WP:SPI evidence level/burden too high. Where can one easily take older promo only accounts? They weren't discovered in years, but we should have a way of dealing with these accounts, and their effect of acting like a systemic bias (per WP:BOGOF). Ideas? Widefox; talk 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Widefox, please look at my user page and my answer. I'm disappointed about this massive reactions...Best regards -- Sweepy (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

When my work is undesirable, I've no problems in order to and you can delete my two awards because I have not bent on this for my help in your and others WP! Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And also look at User talk:Ben7cullimore about a mistake at Wołomin County. -- Sweepy (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(reply is on your talk, and at the project. Content discussions are best kept on their talk pages). Widefox; talk 11:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Did you know that there will be a meetup in Birmingham on the 15th of November? There hasn't been many meetups in Birmingham. I will be passing through on the 15th of November, so I thought I would see who fancied meeting up, while I'm in the area. I'm leaving this message on your talk page because you have previously expressed an interest in a meetup in Birmingham or Coventry. Yaris678 (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(moved to your page...) Widefox; talk 21:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Kusma kindly did some investigating, and this user is almost certainly the globally locked User:Werddemer, who has the exact same editing pattern. So expect to see other sockpuppets eventually. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Xezbeth (replied on your talk). Widefox; talk 09:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you flagged a number of the articles that I recently created, and questioned if I have a COI. I can assure you that I do not, and respectfully request your assistance in improving these articles to meet Wikipedia's standards. Huskers110110 (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(reply is on your page - i.e. draft first to avoid deletion). Widefox; talk 01:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the Wikipedia:Bullying. I have already put in a complaint to the Administrator and stop contacting me.Huskers110110 (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You asked at Help [1] and several places [2] [3] [4] [5]. I was happy to let others discuss with you, but help suggested dialog with me, so it appears not the answer you wanted from them. As there's nothing personal, but these are promo articles it's a bit WP:BOOMERANG for you I'm afraid. Widefox; talk 12:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to do similar work with other universities, there's a wide opportunity. More than 10% of the more extensively covered universities are done as poorly, and at least 50% not much better DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I should feel flattered you ask DGG, or run in horror. The irony is I was just trying something new inspired by the 5M articles - checking a couple of new ones. Eye-opener! I'm actually shocked by the state of these new articles, and more so to hear so many uni articles are similarly promo per other's comments. Widefox; talk 02:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Charis Katakis, 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! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, I see you deprodded several articles but didn't improve or comment why. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charis Katakis. Widefox; talk 22:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

You tagged the new article Jambo! with the same maintenance tag at the header and within a section after you took out the contents. Yes, I understand the contents were mostly on the disambig page for Jambo. And I have since updated a few you removed from Jambo! but failed to add to the disambig page. I put back one example, adding more than I wanted clarification, with two cites. I now assume that the section has cites, the issues of citation is no longer valid. I have removed the tags. Please review and if there is any addition or correction you see, please be specific where the corrections need to be done.

Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm editing the dab right now. I will comment on the article on its talk page. Widefox; talk 22:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from James Dybas, 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! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TCP Fast Open, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latency. 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) 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Widefox; talk 13:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of WP:BOLDly making that option A change, or would you like to do it? It might need an RFC but why not try and see if it sticks... Vrac (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Bold would normally be good, but many have objected to changing PROD on principle so I'll ping some first, then see. Widefox; talk 15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Widefox. Earlier this year, you added two flags to the Jarret Myer article noting poor sourcing and neutrality. I'm reaching out because I'd like to correct those issues. I'm working on behalf of Jarret Myer and Uproxx, the company Myer founded, to help improve the article. Unlike connected contributors of the past, I will not be editing the article directly. I left notes on the Talk page explaining my COI and also what I think can be done to fix some of the problems in the entry. If you have time, would you be willing to review those and let me know what you think? Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. (unsigned by User:Ɱ).

Harass level 3 is a bold template. No 1, or 2 have been given. Care to tell me what about? Just to clarify timings, I am just about to post a question about your COI disclosure at WP:COIN. This is independent. Widefox; talk 19:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So, a day later and no evidence of this has been presented, and at WP:COIN the consensus of other editors are in agreement with me. Either withdraw, or provide evidence! This currently empty accusation is supported by nobody else, see WP:BOOMERANG. Widefox; talk 12:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ɱ no evidence, no consensus, did you see WP:DWH (Wikipedia:Harassment) first as it rules it out? You tried to contact me offwiki - why? (your disclosure issues I'll reply to at COIN), note that disclosure is required everywhere including talk messages, which could even include this as the actual topic is your paid COI. Widefox; talk 15:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Jumping on this again Widefox. As an independent (but now verging on involved) editor, I would recommend removing and ignoring this warning as it is unfounded samtar ^{t} 17:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: How is this unfounded? Have you read WP:HOUNDING and read what Widefox put on my talk page? If not, then maybe you could think it unfounded. If you have read those and didn't get that conclusion, then Widefox should ignore your advice, as the majority should clearly see how accusing Widefox was with multiple conflicts related to me. Widefox, how is 'attempted off-wiki communication' not allowed? Wikipedia allows editors to email other editors freely for a reason. Better communication helps solve issues. I could Skype you if that'd help. There's no rule that says COI editors can't off-wiki talk to 100% volunteer editors. Besides, that's ridiculous.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ɱ Thanks for finally replying here, but now you've posted to ANI - that will eclipse this. Still this is all heat not light. You've been challenged to provide evidence three/four times but instead go to ANI first, and only after that reply here after I point that out that this is unanswered. Hardly a reasonable escalation/timing is it? Widefox; talk 09:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My email is off now, you haven't said what you wanted to say? It's not your right to edit war, to paid edit without full disclosure or attempt to suppress and hound volunteers when they point that out. You may want to talk to me offwiki, why? The fact is none of this is hounding per WP:DWH. User:Ɱ your reply to User:samtar highlights the problem - you're against consensus on both disclosure and hounding - it's now WP:IDHT. The fact is you haven't put a disclosure on your userpage at all (it isn't there). Fact. Widefox; talk 13:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is just a repeat of the same claim #Your recent edits, so instead of replying there with any evidence above (requested 3 times) just escalating. This is despite another editor saying to remove the warning [6]. As the topic is your paid editing at WP:COIN#Ɱ, thought I'd better note that here as it has been omitted. Widefox; talk 22:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I`ve checked the past working from you and it seems that you were the one who got the statement that Mr. Styron is a corrupt person and a false/fake artist. Your intention was it to destroy and delete the older article that existed more than 18 months. There are massive broken links in the web because of your aggressive deletion and false accusations. It seems that someone don`t like german people here. It has to stop now and don`t delete the article again. The broken links can`t be deleted in the web and it has massiv negative impact to Mr. Styrons reputation and a lawyer has been already contacted. Its in wikipedia hands to resolve the problem. I`m sure, you are one of the strong expert here on wikipedia. Don`t start working again aggressive against the article, be a part of it. There are many other articles on wikipedia to delete because of no importance. Ulla1956 09:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulla1956 (talk • contribs)

Did you intend delivering a final warning at User talk:Coren#November 2015? Please either delete the message or add a clue as to what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, appears strange but it's just the result of Twinkle CSDing a user talk, but as the userpage isn't visible in my history (probably deleted)...looking into it... Widefox; talk 09:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your final warning (diff) was at 07:29, 14 November 2015—90 minutes before my message above. Did you see an attack page 90 minutes ago? Your undeleted contributions show very little recent activity so I would expect an attack page would register at least a faint afterglow. If you made a mistake, I suggest a brief apology. If Twinkle made a mistake, please inform its developers. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq it's just a normal Twinkle John. No mystery. You and I can't see it as it's been deleted as a result of my CSD (that's good as it's a username violation - a username that's a living person attack, together with BLP attack pages). IMHO it's a feature not a bug as the user talk should have been redacted or at least blanked. Agree the message is totally inappropriate. If you're concerned suggest you take it up with Twinkle. The lack of afterglow is also a feature, not a bug - this is redaction territory, so we're not meant to leave traces or links (which I haven't). Details at User talk:Coren#November_2015. Appreciate your alert so I could fix the message (which I was unaware of). Widefox; talk 09:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

John, as it's neither of your choices, a reply would be good. Also, are you watching my edits? You know at ANI I'm in the clear, and proud of passing intense scrutiny in complex issues, so curious now - going back to your initial message, as I'm again not really picking either of your choices. Coren is an admin so could work it out or ask, but I won't provide links to redacted BLP issues just because someone else asks me. Widefox; talk 10:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Widefox; talk 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Coren's talk has 500 page watchers. I've commented in one section at ANI where you were mentioned, and I've commented about your post at Coren's talk—you probably edit in a lot of other places so it's premature to ask whether I'm stalking you. You may still be unaware of Coren's background, but regardless, all that was needed was the removal of the incorrect warning with a quick apology and an outline of the situation. That's all I anticipated, and no one asked for links—my first comment suggested "or add a clue as to what the problem is". Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeating the fallacy that there's something to apologise for doesn't make it true. It's quite the opposite per the bigger picture with the BLP. Coren and I are fine thanks (as you can see on their talk). If all this isn't clear yet, get another opinion or drop the stick. You must recognise that coming here after ANI would naturally beg the question? I'd rather give you that feedback than not actually. The section is POV Inexplicable message Explicable message for Coren and Widefox, Inexplicable message for Johnuniq. Widefox; talk 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

LondonArt2010 is asking me about revisiting the possibility of Lorenzo Belenguer. He presented a lot of links. I think some of them may be unhelpful, but I notice some Spanish newspapers did write articles with Belenguer as the main subject (Example: "Lorenzo Belenguer conquista Londres" by Las Provincias). Do you know a Spanish editor and/or an editor interested art and/or biography articles who is willing to take a closer look? (I can post the specific article if need be). I would like for another party unfamiliar with the case to check if this subject meets WP:GNG and/or biography criteria.

If this subject does meet notability criteria I think another user (someone other than LondonArt2010) should write the article, maybe through an articles for creation process. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, suggest AfC. I'm becoming convinced that we should restrict "highly incentivise" all COIs to AfC due to the volunteer burden jeopardy in WP:BOGOF (plug). Can't remeber if the WP:SPA LondonArt2010 has actually disclosed a COI (yet), but they seem promo WP:NOTHERE (from only looking briefly). Widefox; talk 11:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've now found the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Archive_41#People_section, a lengthy discussion between 6 people. I haven't checked to see whether it was mentioned on the dab project or Disambiguation talk pages, but I don't remember seeing it (or didn't twig it's significance at the time if I did). I think the outcome is dreadful, as name-holders clutter up the SA section. I'd have gone for any of 2a/b/c/d in preference to 3. I've got too many pages on my watchlist as it is, but clearly should have included WP:MOSDAB, as I spend a lot of my time editing such pages. I think I might re-open that discussion, once I'm over the dreadful cold I've got at the moment and can think clearer. PamD 11:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you to reopen it as it doesn't cover my aversion the issue of a larger list that isn't yet split out. - although JHunterJ may still be on a break. I'd be for say creating a redlink in the body (not in See also) with the names sub bulleted. It is WP:CREEP though, so I won't propose it. Widefox; talk 11:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I so wish that there was a way to link to a sorted-by-sortkey listing of all biographical articles, so that one simple link would provide access to all surname-holders. We can do it for living people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people?from=Leeds. If such a category listing existed for all biogs, which shouldn't be beyond the abilities of our techie friends, then a link to that listing would be very useful - especially for cases like this where the surname use is only a minority sense of the term, so that a straight search on "Leeds" makes it very difficult to find people. Maybe I'll suggest it over at the Village Pump some time - or at least check whether it's a perennial proposal. Then a link to that listing could be a standard element within "See also" whenever a dab page term matches one or more people's surname, and we'd all be happy. Meanwhile I've added WP:MOSDAB to my watchlist, so as not to be taken by surprise again. PamD 11:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Yes" (a bit above my pay grade) ... So like a proper database, hmm. Seriously, yes could be added to "lookfrom" etc when created. The fundamental issue of course is that difficult to be definitive as to where on the spectrum of PTM a human name is. Put another way, some people are famously referred to solely as (surname), others never. Knowing where on that spectrum is somewhat above the pay grade of an editor on a dab (it cannot be gleaned easily from looking at the articles). I like to think of dabs as being "content free" as we don't require sources, and I'm guessing bios don't have e.g. solely-and-commonly-referred-to-by-surname surnames as bolded alt names. Maybe they do and that's all that's needed?Widefox; talk 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Surnames are a special kind of Partial Title Match, where a reader is genuinely likely to come across a person mentioned by surname (even if they're not in the "commonly known by surname" Lincoln / Churchill class): a reference to a "Dr Xyz" or "Until Xyz's breakthrough work" or "followers of Xyz", etc. And finding a person with a particular surname is non-trivial where that surname has other, more widely used, senses - like "Leeds". I'll see what I can do and keep you posted. PamD 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree, as typified in our own article text where, if I'm not mistaken, we commonly use the surname in the article to refer to the subject due to the context, so in principle all surnames are slightly off the zero side of the spectrum, and could be arguably all included per that WP ambiguity (not a strong case, but hey I'm making this up as I go along). Broad-strokes, I'd put surnames into "commonly" and "may be" boxes and nothing else. Widefox; talk 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Easier_access_to_biography_articles_via_subject_surname.3F where I've gathered my thoughts! If someone can create the Category or Category-like-listing needed, then we may have a powerful addition to all our dab and surname pages. Unless it gets shot down. PamD 18:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, surnames (and let us not forget first names, nicknames etc) may be best dynamically available due to how dynamic the articles are (more so than say cities/towns). Widefox; talk 19:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged an article of a United States Article III Federal Judge, to wit Sarah S. Vance, with some maintenance tags, including the notability tag, back on October 25, 2015. After noticing it today, I removed the tag, leaving the other tags in place. For your future guidance, the community consensus is that any individual who has ever held a United States Article III Federal Judgeship is inherently notable and gets a biography article. Just a heads up in case you evaluate articles of these particular judges in the future. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Safiel, see WP:NRV "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". That's clear. To contextualise - yes it's a presumption of notability. If there's no sources no (here there are sources). You also need to be aware that policy WP:BLP / WP:V trumps guideline WP:GNG / WP:NPOL, and higher levels of consensus trumps WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If there's only WP:PRIMARY sources for a BLP that's a problem as we base all articles on secondaries. Widefox; talk 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(this has been copied to the talk of that article, and should be carried on there as a content issue). Widefox; talk 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(snip)

I did ask on your page if you had a COI, which is not answered (yet). I will move this there.... Widefox; talk 14:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Widefox!

I wandered over here after having tried to figure out your dispute with TheProfT2T2 (that's modified leet-speak for the T's... I'm trying to be sub-rosa). I couldn't make sense of it and promptly lost interest. I am an enthusiastic Twitter user, so I ambled over to your Twitter user page. These flowers are very pretty!!! Are they foxglove or gladiolas or something else? I indicated my appreciation on Twitter ;o) --FeralOink (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake with removing the November tag. I am new to Wiki and only try a little bit write a few little text. Only wanted to delete the "delete" request as was written in the document. And for your question of Conflict: I write answer on my talk page. Can you see it? Or should I also post answer here? Thank you. Xu (Xhowiet) One more question: I see that you want to delete the OWASP page, too. I am going to OWASP meetings in China, now also visiting OWASP conference in Germany. And I think this is good community and should not be deleted. Can you please think about it?

Hi Widefox, is this a case of PTM? Mistakefinder (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I replied Talk:Retrocession, regards Widefox; talk 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Widefox, thanks for your message. I don't personally know the subject except for the work he did in relation with Semantic Web platform and research. At the time (2 Christmases ago, wow) I had some spare time during the Holidays and made a thorough research on the subject. I still think he might satisfy the requirements to be on Wikipedia, but I can also see that the page has been turned more into a personal one (with links to his personal website?). I am neutral whether to keep it; if kept, it would require some maintenance for sure. --Devbug (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you good with LaTeX? One of the new devs is working on an expanded LaTeX-based tool in VisualEditor. Would you mind helping her with some testing work? I want to give her the benefit of hearing from a couple of editors who have never used VisualEditor. All you need to do is to click here: http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Equation?veaction=edit and see if you can figure out how to change a formula that's there and/or add a new one. I'm specifically interested in your thoughts about the formula editor. If you want to look over the rest of it, then you can click here to edit my sandbox on the English Wikipedia, which has already almost one of every kind of formatting, and would let you see the old version of the math tool. It's not difficult; it basically works like any word processor, except that the display doesn't entirely match what you see when you save the page.

(That first link takes you to a test wiki, so if you want to save something and don't want your IP address exposed, then you'll need to create a new account. Please use a unique password. It doesn't have to be a strong password, but it should be a password that is not used on any other website, including your Wikipedia password. This is the Beta Cluster, aka where the devs upload their new patches first, which means there's a very small but real chance that something involving basic security could break at any second. Thus it's important that you not re-use a password that is used on any real site. There's no connection between your account there and anywhere else; it's not in the WP:SUL system.)

You can leave feedback at WP:VEF, directly at the dev's talk page at mw:User talk:TChan (WMF), or in phab:T118616 and related tasks, if you'd rather post directly to Phab. You can also reply on my talk page, and I'll forward it. Thanks for considering my request. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've used VE, looks like I'm not useful for that. Widefox; talk 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you? Every edit is tagged, and I find none in your contributions. You might still be able to contribute a useful perspective for this purpose. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Years ago. I can't help you find any, or even remember if I saved any edits but you realise any deleted articles won't show, or some other reason. Widefox; talk 09:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to try it again. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Widefox. I'll let another admin look at the csd rather than revert again, but I dont see anything particularly harmful with a repeat of their username being the only content. As for the indexing, a recent technical change means that user pages and subpages are no longer indexed; see here. Sam Walton (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sam, good to be informed about the tech change, but having a quick look at the discussion - the limited consensus means it may (or may not) be overturned. Certainly it obsoletes most of the usage of the userpage template and the guidelines need updating. Until that lot, I'd rather template to cover that blocked account. I already undid the CSD as it was more about closing down the borderline CORPNAME / vandalism account which is achieved by the block and noindex. Regards Widefox; talk 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; I removed those couple of paragraphs which were only relevant if userpages were indexed, but it could probably benefit from some mention of the lack of indexing now. Sam Walton (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green Pine (communications), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melville. 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, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

My reason for objection against the Proposed Deletion of a previously improper redirect page to Occident is because I had made the redirect a proper hard redirect.

Best wishes, from TheGreatEditor. 2602:306:CF2A:5580:B4A1:AD04:ACF9:4A0A (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)TheGreatEditor

It wasn't a PROD but a CSD (a technical move to undo a previous move). There is no soft redirect. Your subsequent edit [7] is also a mistake, I only didn't revert you as I assumed you would be forthcoming with an objection. (ec - now you've corrected "soft redirect" to hard) Widefox; talk 03:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I have been having similar issues with Debresser. please let me know if there is a way I can help stop his aggression. Lokshin kugel (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Lokshin kugel, I don't have any knowledge or judgement on the interactions between the two of you, so you would have to decide if your input is relevant to my (and the other dab editor)'s ANI. You are of course free to comment where you deem fit. Widefox; talk 09:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have the same complaint you do, as did user Boruch Baum. Thing is I don't know my way around the Wikipedia complaint process well, so I haven't been successful with my past complaints about him. I can use some advice on how to productively go about this. Lokshin kugel (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Lokshin kugel, the correct place to comment is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_.28relist.29, but be aware that scrutiny will be on anyone who participates per WP:BOOMERANG. Widefox; talk 11:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't look quite like an accurate summary of your essay: On the Radar 6 Feb 2016. You may want to contact the author before it is published more widely. It has been recommended to Signpost – Brianhe (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Brianhe Agree with you. Taken up there. If you consider any part of BOGOF that is giving that impression please say and I'll fix the essay, as that was never my intention. In fact, BOGOF is just to highlight the systemic bias, and empower by knowing about the choice and consequences. I'm sorry to hear that the essay had any part in your admin !vote. The essay attempts to portray both valid viewpoints, and not as somehow advocating deleting rewritten good content. Widefox; talk 13:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I started User:WhisperToMe/Lorenzo Belenguer. One source is a Spanish newspaper and the other is a Spanish-language newspaper in London. How many more sources/how much more sourcing do you think is needed before this is viable? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe, as you're rescuing one you've closed I think I should just let you follow your greater experience and I will not interfere. My only comment is the sourcing hasn't changed so still appears too soon. I have nothing to add since Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lorenzo_Belenguer. Regards and thanks for asking Widefox; talk 14:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again.[8] Although Template:Reflist#Columns is confusing, why not just subst out 2 for "30em" under the hood if they are the same? Then it's deprecated because of mobile, but then that it's ignored for mobile anyway? Story actually doesn't check out. You might be putting a little too much faith in the manual here until such a point as the tech-heads have actually figured this mess out. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kendrick7 The right place for that discussion is here Template_talk:Reflist. Widefox; talk 17:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Already on it: Template_talk:Reflist#Deprecating_.7C2.2C_.7C3_etc. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I know, as in next time just put a link to the discussion rather than duplicate, OK? Widefox; talk 08:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crossing the Chasm may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | genre = [Non-fiction

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oeuvre. Since you had some involvement with the Oeuvre redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Project Tango, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobile. 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) 10:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Widefox; talk 09:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

He is most radical User everSchmitty on Wikipedia. Ask the people. He also talking about you administrators on engl. wikipedia. He saying you never get the quality of our articles. The engl. Wiki are writing about every stupid theme. So and check his site. He wrote his full site about stuard in the worsest form. Attacking in personal way is what he doing and everyone can see it. Thats a criminal and must be stopped. He dont care about the rules of wikipedia, he is here like a dictator. Wikipedia is an american institution and he never respect it. He is killing the trade. And no one was successful to fire him from his work. So, watch more and more without seeing the hard truth. Thats a typically german radicalist at its best.He is deleting everything on his own and let just the positive words for his best. You guys on engl. wiki or You widefox are awesome and golden if i had to rate you all in all. be careful and take your time to search the footsteps of Schmitty. Go deep inside and you will get a dark picture of his character and his world. Fighting with everyone is what he doing. But the end is near. He gone too far. We contacted already the police and gave all informations, also 2 lawyers are now trying to get his real name. Remember my talking here from time to time. Schmitty he got more than ten other accounts. He got every tool to delete very fast, because the other real administrators don´t want getting in touch with him. No one got courage to talk some hard words to him. I think he is a good donate donor and also they all are working for wikimedia. Every one knows about each other as a family and new persons are not welcome, They all get later in trouble from time to time. --2.244.158.181 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Check out the sites from "Schmitty" His Front site...Would you doing this same? No widefox, you are gentle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.158.181 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I admit I am starting to assume bad faith with your comments at the RfD discussion, and this is an attempt to resolve it. I shall start out by laying out that I was not happy that at 5.30am you called me out personally in a discussion for which you know full well I and you are both taking part. (I think that you would not have been taking part if I did not call you out orignally as having moved it, because you would not have been automatically notified, but I thought you would be interested in both senses of "interested" in the discussion, so it was right for me to notify you.)

So let's get that out of the way. You have good arguments and I would prefer them to be in a public forum not a talk page; it is perverse for you to say you consider the discussion closed and for anyone to make replies at your talk page, your talk page is not a forum. The redirect is discussed by the bloody great big Rfd tag on the redirect, far more obvious than a page move tag on a talk page. I did what you said and what is right, to notify the disambiguation project and so on. I have done everything I can do to encourage other views on this topic. I can speak French and I I know what it says in the French Wikipedia; my view is that in English, as an English word, it has more nuance (another French word!) than it has in French. (If you doubt my French, you can look at my translation at Tallet 86, that I just tr from WP:PNT. THat article is possibly not worth having, but it is easier for English Wikipedians to say so when it is in English.)

I think it is best to keep your comments to the RfD page and please don't ping me personally, I am following the discussion already and it starts to look like WP:HOUNDING, which I am sure you don't mean to. Si Trew (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not responsible for your assumptions (of bad faith), or know what timezone you live in, so 5.30am doesn't narrow anything down for me as to what edit you're referring to. I have pinged you, say here [9] as the comment is higher up so you wouldn't miss it. I will not ping you again on this as requested, OK. Also, to correct any impression: I said to ping me if further discussion was desired [10] with no intention of moving discussion to my talk (as anyone can see at the top here, I try to generally keep lots of stuff off my usertalk). As for "hounding", you're going to have to provide diffs or withdraw that. This message on my page comes across as an WP:NPA as the RfD is a trainwreck of facts and guidelines at the wrong venue. Don't blame the messenger. Widefox; talk 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

SimonTrew - To be clear, hounding is a serious accusation that still is without a diff or a withdrawal. I've asked above and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_7#Oeuvre several times. I was happy to let this go, but this WP:AGF / personal issues go on..can you explain why you reverted these edits [11]? even though you say here they may be OK [12] and the edit summary is correct (the dab has a primary topic)? care to reply? Widefox; talk 11:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please notice de:de:Benutzer:Schmitty#.22Wenn_Du_entdeckst.2C_dass_Du_ein_totes_Pferd_reitest.2C_drohe_dem_Pferd_mit_dem_Tod..22 and de:de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer:Helde43,_Benutzer:Schitty666,_2.243.198.61,2.244.40.225.

multiple threads with places user in dangerSchmitty (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Schmitty I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I commented at WP:ANI. Widefox; talk 09:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, heckuser performed: de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer:Styron111,Patriska2601,Helde43,_Benutzer:Schitty666,Schmidtrach2. Schmitty (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Widefox, I've taken care of the Stuart Styron sock farm. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Could you, please, have a look at the Omaha (disambiguation) disambiguation page, and have its layout brought up to the required standards? I'm asking you because you're much more familiar with all of the guidelines that apply to our disambiguation pages, while I'm not exactly sure how to properly restructure this particular disambiguation page. Any help would be appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, will do. Thx for asking. Widefox; talk 19:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it! I'm just wondering whether it would be better to have the section entries alphabetized? It might be debatable which order would match the importance of entries, while alphabetizing them is a somewhat "neutral" approach. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Omaha (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 07:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HTTP cookie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Server. 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) 09:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw your warnings at User talk:Throwaway987987. This is an alternate account of mine that I use for testing code on the side. If I remember correctly, I had reverted some vandalism on GregJack’s page using that account which was later oversighted after I reported it to the OS team. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I've now included an alternate account userbox on the user page. - NQ (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What activity didn't you find constructive? And I do not understand what further explanation you require or your edit summary "why sock, and act?". You can reply here, I have your talk page watchlisted. - NQ (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied on your talk. Widefox; talk 10:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Oheka Castle#MOS. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. BMK (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken Let's analyse this per WP:Canvassing:

• The first line "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."  Done
• Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. Not done
• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. Not done
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Not done
• Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking. Not done
• Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki  Not done

I note no evidence has been provided, so care to strike through, as clearly this is unfounded and is, in fact, continuing the OWN. Trout 3 is it? Widefox; talk 01:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You reverted additions as too "primary", but this page is about a book, so I think the additions are approximately equivalent to a plot-summary of a novel, and do therefore belong on the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

moved here Talk:Banker to the Poor. Widefox; talk 15:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for PROD of Recode (fashion company); seconded!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi In your reversion of my old edit to monopole you justified it by ref to WP:MOSDAB but I can only see that it says "transcluding templates are discouraged " - Did I miss some advice to avoid other templates such as {{colbegin ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Talk:Monopole. Widefox; talk 22:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justine Suissa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Suissa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Widefox. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotWildDaisy. The connection seems obvious to me, but I think it is best to defer your AIV reports to await the outcome of the SPI. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, while following/reporting the EXT spam it uncovered many accounts, and there's likely some that have had their EXT spam removed already so more difficult for me to find, so an SPI is correct anyhow. Widefox; talk 18:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotWildDaisy. The connection seems obvious to me, but I think it is best to defer your AIV reports to await the outcome of the SPI. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, while following/reporting the EXT spam it uncovered many accounts, and there's likely some that have had their EXT spam removed already so more difficult for me to find, so an SPI is correct anyhow. Widefox; talk 18:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I learn (or unlearn) stuff every day. Regarding this: For years, I thought that piped links are discouraged in "See also" sections. Your revert sent me hunting, and now I find absolutely no reference to any policy like that. So it's time to recalibrate my assumptions, once again. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's very confusing as dabs are so different to the rest of WP. See also items being not piped in dabs, but piped in articles. See also being "," separated in dabs and "–" separated in articles. The weirdest bit is piping in dabs where at the beginning of the entry even the part in () is italicised (following style), whereas if a link is in the description the () is hidden with piping. Regards Widefox; talk 18:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think my problem is that I've been working on dabs so much that those formatting constraints bleed out into everything I do. :-P — Gorthian (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Widefox. I was just reviewing my talk page and realized I never followed-up with you. My apologies. Here is the content from the deleted page; I agree not sufficiently artistic in expression to merit copyright protection, so, here you go:

Dodd, A., Love, J. and Webb, A.R.R. (2005) The plant clock shows its metal: circadian regulation of cytosolic free Ca2+. Trends in Plant Sci. 10: 15-21. Love, J. Dodd, A. and Webb, A.R.R. (2004) Circadian and diurnal Ca2+ oscillations encode photoperiodic information in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 16: 956-966. Stevenson-Paulik, J. Love, J. and Boss W.F. (2003) Differential Regulation of two Arabidopsis Type III Phosphatidylinositol 4-Kinase Isoforms: A regulatory role for the pleckstrin homology domain. Plant Physiol. 132: 1053-1064. Perera, I.Y., Love, J., Heilmann, I., Thompson, W.F. and Boss, W.F. (2002) Up-regulation of phosphoinositide metabolism in tobacco cells constitutively expressing the human Type I Inositol Polyphosphate 5-Phosphatase. Plant Physiol. 129: 1795-1806. Love, J. Allen, G.C., Gatz, C. and Thompson, W.F. (2002) Differential Top10 promoter regulation by six tetracycline analogues in plant cells. J. Ex. Bot. 53: 1871-1877. Persson, S.H.,* Love, J.,* Tsou, P.-L., Robertson, D.,Thompson, W.F. and Boss, W.F. (2002) When a day makes a difference. Interpreting data from endoplasmic reticulum-targeted green fluorescent protein fusions in cells grown in suspension culture. Plant Physiol. 128: 341-344. *Authors contributed equally in presented work

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ha User:Fuhghettaboutit, a different person then! Widefox; talk 10:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from The Klingon Way, 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! noychoH (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I hasn't been removed. Widefox; talk 22:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been removed, only due to some time delay (for technical reasons unknown to me) it came into effect later than you changed your proposal for deletion to AfD. Reverting my edit you have removed all my numerous corrections to the article. Now please be kind enough to restore them and only afterwards add your AfD. noychoH (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. You removed the AfD which you are not allowed to remove. Instead of debating this on here, the talk, and AfD, suggest you don't create articles if they fail WP:GNG, by using WP:AFC you will get guidance without risking deletion. Widefox; talk 23:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that I removed the AfD, but only by error, which I have realized only later.

Whose spelling errors etc. in discussion have I corrected??? I do not remember having done anything like that. I typically correct only my own errors, and this I have done a few times here also.

OK, I can agree that the discussion on this article is already long and very detailed, and you may want to call it a bad practice, yet it seems to me that a page of discussion on deletion of an article is yet another discussion page, concentrated on the topic. My discussion there is intended to persuade other Wikipedians and maybe even you not to delete this article. That's why it seems to me there to be a proper place for this. I might be wrong, of course, like anybody. noychoH (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the points you're making, just wanted to express a bit of concern that you might be coming off a bit aggressively. Just a thought; take it or leave it. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Heh, coming off aggressively on a Klingon-related article. I'm a riot. :p DonIago (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit victim blaming for my liking. Other's agree it should be salted to prevent such abuses of WP. Widefox; talk 21:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from The Klingon Way, 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! noychoH (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I hasn't been removed. Widefox; talk 22:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been removed, only due to some time delay (for technical reasons unknown to me) it came into effect later than you changed your proposal for deletion to AfD. Reverting my edit you have removed all my numerous corrections to the article. Now please be kind enough to restore them and only afterwards add your AfD. noychoH (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. You removed the AfD which you are not allowed to remove. Instead of debating this on here, the talk, and AfD, suggest you don't create articles if they fail WP:GNG, by using WP:AFC you will get guidance without risking deletion. Widefox; talk 23:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that I removed the AfD, but only by error, which I have realized only later.

Whose spelling errors etc. in discussion have I corrected??? I do not remember having done anything like that. I typically correct only my own errors, and this I have done a few times here also.

OK, I can agree that the discussion on this article is already long and very detailed, and you may want to call it a bad practice, yet it seems to me that a page of discussion on deletion of an article is yet another discussion page, concentrated on the topic. My discussion there is intended to persuade other Wikipedians and maybe even you not to delete this article. That's why it seems to me there to be a proper place for this. I might be wrong, of course, like anybody. noychoH (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the points you're making, just wanted to express a bit of concern that you might be coming off a bit aggressively. Just a thought; take it or leave it. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Heh, coming off aggressively on a Klingon-related article. I'm a riot. :p DonIago (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit victim blaming for my liking. Other's agree it should be salted to prevent such abuses of WP. Widefox; talk 21:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What was the point of reverting that edit I made? You removed useful information in the name of making the page adhere slightly more to the Wikipedia:MOSDAB. Instead I feel like the proper course of action would be to either fix the problems without removing useful content, flag it for someone else to fix, or don't worry about it. The bolt circle diameter is an abstract concept but for which no specific page exists (yet), but there are at least multiple examples for which it relates such as a crankset or wheel rim. I changed the link so it at least references a page which mentions BCD with respect to rims. Devon (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

My edit summary explains it all. Did you see it? I've reverted that edit (again). Moving this to the dab talk - reply there pls. Widefox; talk 09:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Widefox; talk 23:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

When you have a chance, please review the article Jambo!. I have expanded it and added more references.
And I believe a few are the type you were asking me to add. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Hello, you have previously contributed to the article Solidity. An editor has nominated Solidity to be merged with Ethereum. If you would like to comment, please visit the Solidity talk page discussion located at Talk:Solidity. Your comments are welcome. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(snip -moved to dab talk) MfortyoneA (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Widefox; talk 16:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:MfortyoneA, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Prefer not to delete sockpuppet user pages without some other good reason. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Widefox; talk 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh hey look, templates! But yeah, I prefer not to delete sockpuppet user pages unless there's something pressing that warrants deletion besides having been created by a sock. Otherwise I just replace the contents with a sockpuppetry template but keep the history visible. Not to give too much away, but nearly all socking users leave some kind of clue in their history that can be used to identify later accounts. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, templates are much better, more eyeballs for next time ;). Widefox; talk 19:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965#Blanking sockmaster's userpage allowed? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it, no. I agree that a template/blank is better than deletion anyhow. I'd CSDd the sock not the master. It was just before it was templated, and so I'd just jumped the gun before it got templated when I didn't see it there yet. As for what's allowed, G5 for a sock's edits, but the master is different before they sock. As for what's desirable, the ANI archive covers it well. Regards Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)