User talk:Widefox/Archive 5

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 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this userpage qualifies for speedy deletion under either of those criteria (U5, G6). There's no harm in someone having a bit of gibberish on their userpage if they wish, and, if anything, it serves as a bit more evidence. With the piped username, the piped talk page, the gibberish edit summaries, and the questionable edits I'm leaning to troll rather than newbie-in-a non-native-language (as the user claims). If he stops it can all be ignored, if he keeps it up we can look at blocks or ANI. Meters (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In itself no, WP:SPEAKENGLISH is preferable, although we can't assume it's nonsense given this account and claim it isn't. But together with the other disruption as you say it appears to be a troll account. Widefox; talk 19:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It certainly smells like something form under the bridge to me. Meters (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I see you have submitted an AFD. What do you think of Kim Carson? Two users have usernames that resemble the article name. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Usernamen1 I have no idea what article you're referring to. As I've not edited Kim Carson, I can only guess you should read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Widefox; talk 12:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 'Tis the season. Since you had some involvement with the 'Tis the season redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on ChatSecure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DrStrauss talk 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Velites, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GAR Policies before attempting one. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see the directly linked explanation then. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I saw you have been doing assessments of various articles, I'm curious, is there a best practice or essay on assigning article assessments outside of the GA review process and FA review ratings? I.e. for stub, start, C, B classes, as well as qualifying importance. Additionally, does one have to be a member of a project page to assign a project page assessment to an article?

Thanks, Shaded0 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I do. Good question, nope, anyone can, but you're right there's best practice, which would be to look at each project. This is explained at WP:PROJECT and Wikipedia:Assessment. Hope that helps, regards Widefox; talk 03:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, the FAQ answered most of the questions that I had. I was unable to find this FAQ when I was looking around at the assessment detail pages. Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting your edits and I really hate doing it. The reason I did so was because an admin indicated to me that CSD could be placed co-with AFD. I’d not want to argue the merit of it being CSD or not but I want to apologize for reverting. I still maintain that due to the admin saying it’s okay to co-tag I am not wrong for doing so but I’d rather never revert edits. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 09:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Wiki-Coffee Even if not the case, you risk the appearance of trying to subvert debate. As the AfD is controvercial, A7 doesn't apply, but instead of edit warring over it, I leave for you to see this and revert. Widefox; talk 09:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you for your objective reasoning. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 10:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Västra Frölunda IF (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirect from page move at very old title. List at RfD for deletion. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Possible improper use of page move redirect suppression". Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your improve tag removed - cite notes added. 2A00:23C5:BC00:8A00:84EC:E504:F5B:D177 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This was a Q I asked about on a MOS page (whether book acronym s/ also be italicized) and never got a reply. And I could not find any answer in the WP:MOS. I haven't researched other writer's guides, they wouldn't apply necessarily to Eng WP anyway. What is it about the one example at The Times Literary Supplement that sways you to know right or wrong re it? (I'd like to learn something if you know. I presume applies to magazine ancronym names as well, like VC? Since couldn't find a standard I decided the practice to not italicize on WP must be the norm, I started italicizing them couple years ago but backed off doing because of all above reasons, and also, because it wasn't the norm in chess articles the italicized acronyms started looking somewhat odd to me. Anyway is there something definitive somewhere, it seems it is a lacuna re the point at WP:MOS, I'd like to carry forward a suggestion there to include at MOS:ITAL perhaps, what's the best argument for doing so that you know?) Thx, --IHTS (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Think I've seen them on more than one article (e.g. ES), and TLS seems stable/they're not contested so that's edit consensus. Could be put in MOS. They may not be many of them, though. Why wouldn't one italicise it if the full is italic, it's inconsistent. Widefox; talk 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx for your reply. That's what I thought (i.e. consistent if the full name italicized). But w/ need a stronger rationale like ref to a notable style guide. (I'm sure there are stable article counter-examples too, I'll look at more articles, perhaps there's a FA to draw on, tho of course WP:WINARS sort of applies [not really for styleguide issues tho].) I'll research also outside style guides & report back what I find. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

TES (magazine) (and the dab TES). So yes they're all italic. I checked them to make sure it wasn't my edits that italicised the acronyms, so it's consistent. A similar issue is with acronyms from non-English titles (the full name being italicised). Widefox; talk 10:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I found it within the current MOS -- the example OED along w/ sentence Such abbreviations follow the italics or quotation-marked style of the full title. at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Abbreviation of long titles. (Do you think that's it?) --IHTS (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Widefox; talk 22:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Case closed then. Thx for discussing this w/ me. --IHTS (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Widefox, I see you reverted my edit here. Please help me understand how folk are meant to know from the wikt link that "Signalberg" is German for "beacon hill". I see dozens of other dab pages that include a brief description of the main meaning of the word; why not here? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, unfortunately, as I explained in the edit summary, wikt doesn't have an entry for the compound noun so I'd added it commented out. I've now split it into the two nouns which covers it. WP:MOSDAB says to use wikt rather than description and as we're EN WP, this is already more than enough. Users can switch to DE if they want it. Widefox; talk 00:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just re-read WP:MOSDAB and it doesn't really say we should prefer wikt. In fact it says "a short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." And there's clearly no point using wikt if the word isn't actually covered there, which it isn't. Finally, German Wikipedia is no use to an English speaker. So please can we agree to aid the reader by explaining what this non-English word means? --Bermicourt (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:WTLINK "...When a dictionary definition should be included (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation § What not to include), rather than writing a text entry, create a cross-link to Wiktionary..." Widefox; talk 16:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, read that and it's qualified, i.e. "when a dictionary definition should be included...". As a dictionary definition is not required here, nor is one supplied by wikt, all we need is a simple explanation of the term. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. A simple explanation is via a dict def. If needed, use wikt, else don't bother. Anything original on a dab fails WP:V as we don't put refs on dabs. German compound nouns can be split and done as is, done. Anyone wanting the German can via de wiki - this is en wiki. Widefox; talk 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As for other dabs with defs - show me and I'll see (and of course WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Widefox; talk 17:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just your interpretation and not supported by the guidelines. MOSDAB does not say that simple explanation = dictionary definition. And BTW, in German, compound nouns can't always be split meaningfully. Otherwise Hauptmann (captain) would come out as "main man". But here's the thing; we should be writing this encyclopaedia so that the average English reader can understand it and not applying the guidelines in such a way that they're none the wiser. ☺ --Bermicourt (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It is, and on my page that's what sort of answer one gets! The policy of WP:V is something that one cannot overcome interpreting the guideline WP:MOSDAB. How are you planning to give a citation for the content that I'm challenging? Discussing the fine points of literal German translation is great, but there's many languages here and dab and en are for readers looking for en articles not dict defs or translation. The assertion that a dab page assists readers if it has a translation is just that, I assert that unverified content on a dab is a maintenance chore, fails WP:V and, on the contrary, assists less that providing wikt link. Better to take it up at wikt and link from here. Widefox; talk 18:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"not supported by guidelines" should read we interpret it differently. I do not agree with your interpretation. WP:DABDIC "It is also not an interlanguage dictionary". That seems clear. MOSDAB follows best practice, which I believe is nowadays to refrain from dict defs of old. Third opinions are available. Those others dabs?... (ps I speak German. This dab with this meaning is correct literally translated, so that objection doesn't hold here anyhow, although I could have spelt with capitals for wikt linking to highlight the German nouns, I didn't as I can see both ways and more can always be added etc, no big deal) Widefox; talk 18:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DuBois Area School District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DuBois. 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) 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

fixed. Widefox; talk 11:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? It can be enjoyable, challenging, and a great way to help Wikipedia.

If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For discovering the Law of Hats! Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(discussion on a topic moved to its talk Talk:Earlham School of Religion). Widefox; talk 12:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(moved to Talk:TCP ) Widefox; talk 07:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to delete my post, but you didn't actually move it where you said! PamD 08:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You're just quicker than me (early coffee not kicked in). Widefox; talk 08:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Widefox

Recently you have deleted a Wiki article called Payrexx. Would you please let me know what is the reason? The article was reviewed by multiple Wiki editors and they have not found any issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveurope2016 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it has been deleted by multi admins and deleted per G11.Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Loveurope2016 please read the top of this page. You haven't disclosed a WP:COI on your talk page, please discuss at WP:COIN. Widefox; talk 01:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(NHS Digital topic moved to User talk:Sallybrownsjb ) (from now on, COI editors talk will be moved directly to their talk page without exception). Widefox; talk 08:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Another sock CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You previously edited BSD Records. I wanted to inform you I have just nominated it for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I commented there. Widefox; talk 03:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(discussion moved to Talk:Special envoy on intelligence and law-enforcement data-sharing) Widefox; talk 03:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you saw one of my edits to you on my talkpage, it was really snyder and I did it because I completely misinterpreted what you wrote at first. My English comprehension was clearly failing me at the moment and I regret that. Again, sorry.★Trekker (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

All this from unlinking a redlink (validly). Next time talk about edits not editors and stop pinging me. Widefox; talk 11:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no way for me to know that you're actually seeing my comments otherwise so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't if I wanted you to reply.★Trekker (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You've had your little protest about my valid edit. That's WP:DEADHORSE. Stop posting on my page. I've asked twice to stop alerting me now, continue and I'll escalate. Widefox; talk 13:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted the external link I added. I read the links guidelines and there is nothing wrong with my link. It makes perfect sense for an article talking about the translation of something to have a link to such translation. The link I added is NOT my own website; rather, it's a well-known website that has translations of the Quran in many languages (which what the Wikipedia article talking about). Please let me know what is wrong with the Quran translation link I added. - unsigned by User:Daltarawy

User:Daltarawy We don't add inline external links in the body of the text [1] - see WP:EXT where it says how to add an external link, and that they are to be used sparingly. That edit triggered a vandalism system which led to me undoing it. Hope that helps. Regards Widefox; talk 16:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have been working on your BOGO essay quite a bit recently (it is on my watchlist). Is it in preparation for something? I was thinking that a good Signpost op-ed might be doable from it. - Bri (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, glad you noticed. It needed a copyedit, and the timing was in reaction to the comments on the talk. It appears to not have that much readership yet, with comments suggesting others should read it, so yes could be good timing for a Signpost. Widefox; talk 08:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm helping out this month so I happen to know our writing deadline for the July 14 issue is in a little more than five days...? - Bri (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Go for it, I can't make that deadline. Widefox; talk 10:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you apparently gave me a warning saying that " Please don't remove reference sections" which I do not seem to understand. You did not even tell me where I changed so I seem to not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisIsAgain32 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ross.sj (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC) (snip)

moved and replied Talk:Spreadsort#COI. Please note the message at the top, that all COI editors will not be responded to here. Widefox; talk 18:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

With all the changes, what is a better target for Animal enclosure? --RAN (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As I just said at the RfD, it's now a slightly better target as a broadconcept, but "cage" is still too narrow, so a bad target. Pen (enclosure) is also bad. There's many ways to enclose the millions of different animals. CSD. Widefox; talk 13:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] (and the related [6]). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ed I feel like I shouldn't speculate, but maybe he just needs to take a wikibreak? I'm involved, so if others consider I haven't covered the extent of this behaviour (I haven't looked into it), then someone not involved should follow up rather than me. Widefox; talk 01:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, I'm involved too. Have been since I saw [7] and [8]. This is not a short-term problem. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed them a bit more. Yes. Widefox; talk 09:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I had looked into this discussion on Enclosure, but couldn't decide which way I should argue; so I didn't. Regardless: after your clean-up work on Enclosure (disambiguation), it now looks more like a DAB page rather than like a collection of free-associating musings. I know from experience that that sort of pruning needs thought (I had put that DAB page onto a back-burner until I felt strong enough to deal with it). Narky Blert (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Since you worked on the dabconcept page for Cage (enclosure), I thought you might be interested in taking a stab at building the draft for a dabconcept page for Captivity (currently at Draft:Captivity). Cheers! bd2412 T 16:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, that looks like it needs a real editor! Although outside my normal stuff, I will tinker a bit... I've encouraged others at the dab now. Widefox; talk 17:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I only fell across this after writing up Topshop (workshop). Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Narky Blert I'm glad you created that article on such an interesting topic, and also so my MOSDAB-bending kludge wasn't in action long. Widefox; talk 18:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I've used that WP:MOSDAB kludge myself before now, putting more than one bluelink on a line - slightly messy, but WP:IAR if it helps readers (and perhaps also other editors). Not everyone knows the trick of opening a redlink and finding what links to it.

It helped in writing that article that I knew exactly what to look for - I used to drive by the Cash's factory on my way to and from work. TY for adding more WikiProjects (I like them on Talk Pages, they alert interested editors), and for uprating from stub to start. Narky Blert (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I go past Cash's site every week at the moment, but I don't know too much as I'm not a Coventry local, but from the shires. Widefox; talk 17:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trumponian. Since you had some involvement with the Trumponian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Campaign Against Antisemitism 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/Campaign Against Antisemitism 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. Amisom (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Please do not put more templates on my talkpage ever again. You're not an admin and can't block me. If you have a problem with my behaviour, take it to someone in authority. Amisom (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As Alison has removed the section, I will respond here. You are correct that the content was incorrectly attributed to you. I did not realize that until you pointed it out. The attribution is now gone. U5 has two pieces and a page must meet meet both to be speedy deleteable. 1. "writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals" 2. "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages" The page does meet 2, but as I said in my decline I do not believe it meets 1. The content of the page is closely related to Wikipedia's goals as it discusses where this editor has been mentioned in the past. If you feel it does should be deleted, WP:MFD is the way to go as I do not believe you discussing your concerns with Alison will make any difference because of the bad feelings. ~ GB fan 16:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the attribution. Now it doesn't mention editors I consider it OK.

I don't know of any bad feelings. It's a newbie account, so I'm impressed they managed to follow the COI disclosure advice I gave (as most COIs I've dealt with don't disclose to the letter of it). My underlying concern is this is BLP, COI, and pre-trial, so I don't think it prudent that we get involved, especially with undisclosed COIs, and attempts at deleting the article. I just created a redlink a year ago, then fixed sourcing recently (which I feel is my duty as creator). That's it. Widefox; talk 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at the page history Alison does appear to have bad feelings towards you, not sure why. ~ GB fan 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. First of all my apologies for not being capable to chat you in the correct page, but i'm not used to edit wikipedia. The reason why I write you (you: Widefox) is because I have seen that you have modified on 1 May of 2013 the page: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_loss_concealment". You might be an "expert" of PLC. So I was wondering if you could answer a question i have. I am working with a recommendation which says that de decoder can work with two different modes of operations: FREEZING (the PLC scheme tries to repair erroneous frames (either due to packet loss or error propagation) with the previous error free frame until a decoded picture without errors has been received) and the other mode is SLICING (the PLC scheme tries to repair erroneous frames). So the question is: Do you know whether it exists a player or decoder in which you can configure the PLC scheme you wanna use?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.146.211.32 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't help, suggest a search engine (e.g. Google), or asking on a QA site like Stack Exchange. Widefox; talk 23:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Process context identifiers. Since you had some involvement with the Process context identifiers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, if you would not participate there. I really am trying to talk with Bluerasberry. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog No worries, you may not have seen that I've already agreed as it's now collapsed (and the section's renamed) [9]. Widefox; talk 17:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

thx Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I'll go further and say I'll leave all this including COIN for you as I think I've said the obvious and all parties seem to understand now. We've waited years for Ɱ to action best practice, so they either do or the issue won't go away. WiR should be teaching best practice IMHO. As WiR is such a positive, but delicate grey area, I don't envy that task Jytdog. Keep up the good work. Regards Widefox; talk 17:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goldmont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AES (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Widefox; talk 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good catch on Blackwater Islands and Attenborough Island. Not only do these places fail to exist anywhere online other than in recent Wikipedia mirrors, but neither do any of the places mentioned in the articles. Deleted accordingly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The articles failed WP:GNG with not a single independent webhit, which lead to the creator's edit history of hoax articles, which lead to dropping the presumption of good faith. It's a hoax rather than just WP:OR as they went to all the effort of making up names on their own map, but the substance of the topics and their chosen names had obvious comedic value. Widefox; talk 01:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to you here. I am not sure what turning an article into a stub entails other than slapping on the stub template. Richard☺Decal (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I really appreciate the time you spent to help me understand notability guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

On my talk page you posted a template about edit summaries but didn't explain which edits were missing summaries or why I had to give a summary to every edit, could you please explain? --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 21:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Widefox, just want to mention that I undid a couple of your changes on GA, where you moved "other uses" entries to the tops of their respective sections: MOS:DABGROUPING explicitly guides against that, and I don't see a reason for an exception here. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(snip) Content discussion best on its talk page - moved Talk:Reproof. Widefox; talk 23:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Taze (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Taze is already a disambiguation page

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jeffro77 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(moved to Talk:Taze (disambiguation)). Widefox; talk 08:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elaine_Herzberg#Requested_move_6_April_2018. — IVORK _Discuss 00:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I spotted a couple of edits you made[10][11] that appear to be a misreading of WP:BRINT, which states that "where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template." --woodensuperman 11:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, not misreading, just ignorant of the exception in BRINT. The second template is better without the tour as per your edit [12]. Regards Widefox; talk 12:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay!  :) Yes, I removed the tour as for the most part repeated links to the same article from a navbox are frowned upon. --woodensuperman 12:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Widefox; talk 14:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Given some of the recent oversighted stuff on your talkpage, would you like me to apply page protection for a while? Wouldn't like to do it without your say-so, but I'm happy to lock it down for a bit so that unregistered users can't post here. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 month; let me know if you'd like a different protection level/duration. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you included one clear improvement - bolding of acronym closely associated with the subject. With regards to the other changes, I used to also fuss with caps in piped linked. I went the other way, towards caps. My experience doing this taught me that an argument can be made for either form. So I decided this was not an improvement and have stopped making these changes to lessen the burden on others reviewing things that don't change behavior or appearance of the article. ~Kvng (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I do a fair amount of work fixing acronyms including incorrectly capitalised expanded acronyms on dabs, I'm highly biased towards fixing invisible incorrectly capitalised links too. Although invisible to readers, it's only a feature bug of Mediawiki that it isn't case sensitive for the first character. Irrespective of if that changes in future, and the irrelevancy for readers now, if it educates writers and prevents a bad habit of utilising the bug that's useful. In my experience incorrect caps is a sign an article needs some work. What's the argument for using the wrong caps? Widefox; talk 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't have to wait long - [13] example of fix of an overuse of capital for an unpiped link to an article title. For piped links, all it takes is an editor stripping the piping (for example after an article move or removing an obsolete link parenthesis) or changing to link via a redirect and the incorrect uppercase may then be made visible and wrong by all counts. Best avoided. We have more incorrect caps than incorrect lowercase, so any reduction is the right direction for training editors IMHO. Widefox; talk 10:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The argument for an initial cap is that this is exactly how the title of the target page reads. Maybe not as strong of an argument as you present here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Using an initial cap for the article is the MOS when referring to the article not the topic (for example even when not a (bulleted) list item in hatnotes, see alsos, etc). In normal use in a sentence if piping is stripped it is incorrect per consensus. It also reads bad for writers with incorrect caps mid sentence. I normally put it down to inexperience or copy/paste of titles similar to seeing underscores instead of spaces. Sure it's a little effort to strip unneeded caps and underscores. There's a reason titlecase exists which is always different to mid sentence use. It is moot as hidden from readers but IMHO, just bad practice. Widefox; talk 15:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits at C11 (C standard revision) and C18 (C standard revision). Just the statement that "C18 addressed defects in C11 without introducing new language features" is really useful. Great work! CWC 05:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Yes, sometimes it's easy to make a quick edit that's actually useful, and I saw folk on the Internet frustrated at not being able to find info, so I'm glad it already has views. Widefox; talk 09:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting the original comment you left on my talk page; I truly thought it was a bot edit. I have properly replied to your original comment. In order to do that I had to remove your subsequent comment. Sorry about that as well. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Another admin has already responded at UAA, but for the record, please don’t report accounts that were active for seven minutes nine-and-a-half years ago.[14]. The instructions for reporting at UAA are very clear about this sort of thing:”Only report users who have edited in the last 2–3 weeks. When an account has been dormant for this long, it is unlikely to be used again. Therefore, we do not want to waste our time dealing with these accounts. ” UAA is regularly backlogged and reports like this unnecessarily add to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Common sense is that old accounts with promotional names which would never be allowed if active could be closed off quicker than writing this reply. For the record. Widefox; talk 19:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, common sense is that if an account hasn’t editied in nearly a decade it isn’t a problem that needs reported to admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I've seen sleeper accounts wake, especially shared/role/corpname accounts / WP:SPAs / WP:COI are incentivised to wake, especially with a unique corpname. It is quicker to close the account than argue about it - the account(name) can't be used for legitimate purpose ever again, so anything other than closing it is extra admin. I am aware and agree there isn't a way to report stale accounts in the WP:BURO, but stale accounts get closed when the will is big enough, despite the age, so there is no hard cutoff, more a tail of reasonableness. In any case, there's no point in blaming the messenger when it's for the benefit of the project, and common sense would say it takes less time to close it than this. Widefox; talk 08:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What really beggars belief is the content issue, as you say, in nearly 10 years nobody noticed / flagged up that Oracle Education Foundation mess was created by an SPA / COI / accountname vio User:ThinkQuest (which went unnoticed editing Oracle Education Foundation's ThinkQuest), and only now sees some tagging, including by the queen of accountnames User:Bishonen. Widefox; talk 08:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to restate my views. I don't consider them IAR, or need to argue on that basis: I consider them based upon the various provisions of WP:NOT and the pillars. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologise if I gave any misrepresentation as IAR. Widefox; talk 18:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my addition of boxes to the AFD discussion and unintentionally removed a comment. I request that you restore it. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

No. See WP:REFACTOR If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. You've done it twice and been reverted twice by two different editors. Stop now before you lose the ability to do it a third time. Widefox; talk 23:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Widefox, I'm not going to add back my collapse things, but you removed a comment of mine. All I'm asking is that you restore the comment you deleted when you reverted my collapses for the second time. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what comment you're talking about. I've already restored one or two, and I double checked and saw none that I haven't done, so unless you provide a diff (common theme) I don't know what you're talking about. Widefox; talk 03:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 03:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Widefox; talk 03:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(moved to Talk:Leading–edge_extension#Move, thanks). Widefox; talk 21:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I resolved the notability and the unreferenced issue for the game. It's not uncommon for obscure games to not get any refs on Wikipedia. If you know of any other video games, especially console games, feel free to ask me if I can find anything on them. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Widefox, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Everedux (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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

Hello. I saw your adding a categorization level to Paragliding‎; I wonder if you would take a look at Hang gliding and History of hang gliding. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Widefox; talk 00:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Lets top it up with Powered hang glider. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ++ Widefox; talk 01:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI. I saw this relates to an edit you made. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Change to "Female Athlete Triad" wiki page Cheers. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Seems like it may be useful for me to comment there, flag up the username vio, whilst allowing other editors to answer their (COI) edit request. Widefox; talk 15:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Widefox, I noticed that you placed the notability tag at Harald Tveit Alvestrand in November 2015. There is currently an AfD for the article now so I wanted to notify you. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Widefox,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc ^connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C18 (C standard revision) 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/C18 (C standard revision) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Yoonghm (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parsey McParseface. Since you had some involvement with the Parsey McParseface redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Burba & Hayes was nominated for deletion as it is considered to be not notable. Your input to the discussion would be appreciated. Sandcherry (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

When pursued by bear, I should have kept running! I won't spend any more time on it.

(snip - moved to Talk:Stratford) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

More like pursued by editor wielding strict compliance to WP:MOSDAB, beware! Replied there - it's all per MOS, covered in WP:PTM. Widefox; talk 09:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the submitted Signpost article. I just have a question about the R-squared. It doesn't look like a talk-page question though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll turn on my email and hopefully remember to turn it off later. Widefox; talk 23:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Tuuli Shipster has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Simply a redirect to the photographer who presumably has photographed this person. But no evidence of notability. At best, this should be a red link.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Springnuts (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Counter-electromotive force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

As a recent contributor to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, I felt that it might be useful to invite you to contribute- as a neutral third party- into the discussion at Talk:Holmes_and_Watson_(disambiguation)#Two_disambiguation_pages.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Ubcule (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Preference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(snip...moved to Talk:ATC code V10) Widefox; talk 18:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Claude glass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Microwave popcorn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thixotropy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electrical ballast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sebaceous gland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Follicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited E45 cream, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraffin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Assuming this is accurate, take a look at this. You were the one who said the capital was most likely, but has the capital ever been misspelled by someone whose writings are part of history? I'm not saying this person misspelled anything, but perhaps that was an accurate spelling at the time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If this is important to you, this discussion should be moved to Talk:Ottowa. Neither article mentions the misspelling or alternative spelling, as is usual around here for the former and sometimes for the latter. This makes me ponder what best practice is for the redirect decision - which should be verifiable per WP:V or at least documented somewhere. Theory aside, Wiktionary has the misspelling for Ottawan (a person, not the band) at wikt:Ottowan, which is enough for me not to consider this again. Widefox; talk 21:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ping User:Vchimpanzee. Widefox; talk 21:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the writer of the column is deceased and the newspaper is doing a "Best of" series. So I can't ask him where the misspelling came from or if it was an accepted spelling. And I'm not entirely sure all the facts are correct, though I did find one source that said the man who was quoted was the brother of the actual superintendent of Indian affairs. One source which Wikipedia likely wouldn't consider reliable did say Henry was the deputy, which is consistent with my source.

The closest I have gotten to a source Wikipedia would be able to use is the footnote "Report of Henry Stuart, Pensacola, August 25, 1776. (N. C. C. R., Vol. X, pp. 763-785; B. P. R. O., Am. & W. Ind., Vol. 280.)" I have no idea what that is or where to find it, but it doesn't mention "Ottowa" in the source where I found that footnote. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really following your point. To me it seems like a variant or miss spelling that if proven correct still would not affect the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of a capital city. Widefox; talk 16:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying if I could somehow prove it was a common spelling, it might. And if it's just an error, then you are still right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncommon occurrences of a common spelling? (pause)

I do agree that the whole issue of providing alt/miss-spellings is an issue, as we favour WP:RECENTISM for navigation with redirects to trump older meanings (and quite frankly, this topic is more for Wiktionary than here). The PT has a hatnote, there's nothing to see navigation wise. Widefox; talk 18:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Widefox. Thank you for creating Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free, which I only just discovered. Very cool. Bishonen | tålk 21:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

Thank you for stopping by, I feel honored. I hope all of your collective gets to read it, much regards Widefox; talk 23:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wildefox,

Re: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Sorry, please enlighten me re your reversion of my italicization of virus species name on the page on 8 April. What do you mean by "sub"? If subspecies, I had not understoof that SAR-CoV-2 was a subspecies.

Thanks—GRM (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi GRM, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a strain, and Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus the species. My understanding is we italicise virus species names, but not lower on the tree. The link I provided in my edit summary was the source, but I didn't find it again when I looked. Widefox; talk 23:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Wildefox. I am insufficiently knowledgeable about virus nomenclature, but certainly subspecies are italicized in botany and zoology. Where a strain fits into the scheme of virus taxonomy, I have no idea. Note to self: More research required. Thanks again —GRM (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope GRM, that's wrong on all counts I'm afraid. Firstly, that's not correct for normal (non-viral) species, e.g. take dog and cat for example (no italics for common names), dog breeds are at the sub-species (strain) level and are not italicised. Using binomial nomenclature they are, of course, italicised, but that's different, they're Latin too. Back to the point, secondarily, viruses are different to the others anyhow, so that is irrelevant anyhow. (As they aren't even living, the concept of species is weird too.). Sub species aren't italicised from what I read on WP Virus project. Saying that, when trying to find that again, I failed but found conflicting advice. My understanding is currently (other articles etc we italicise the species name but not sub species. It's even more nuanced too, as the species are only italicized in the context of species, but not generally when referring to normally. If you search the Virus and SARS/Covid project talks you may find what I read, I think it may have been more the latter than the former. Widefox; talk 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Transport Sample Protocol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this is a notable protocol. Only source since creation is primary, not independent.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect End-of-sale (disambiguation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#End-of-sale (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DannyS712 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colin Furze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fabricator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Field electron emission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Valence and Electric fields

Exoelectron emission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Excitation

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Widefox

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Kj cheetham, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Rocket Lake, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Kj cheetham}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kj cheetham (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Next time you PROD, you may want to check the article history to see the creator, so they don't miss being informed, in this case User:Hkultala. I didn't create the article, just the redirect. Regards Widefox; talk 09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping User:Kj cheetham. Widefox; talk 09:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've undone a significant amount of what you did on Titan. I know you are a top dab editor, but I believe these changes were detrimental to the goal of getting the reader to the article they want. In particular, I believe:

• When an entry might make sense in more than one section, section hatnotes help the reader get to the entry quicker
• Using nested subheaders can enable readers of the ToC to quickly skip over large sections that don't apply to them (in this case, fictional entities)
• Sections should be alphabetized unless there's a specific reason not to

All of these practices have been discussed and found support. I don't know about consensus for, but there has definitely never been consensus against any of these in MOSDAB or DABYESNO. But if you think any of these make navigating slower overall, I'm interested in hearing your case, so we don't undo each other's work in the future. Cheers, —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 19:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Achates Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What is your source for this edit?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I have a new problem. JHvW made this edit but says on their talk page that they no longer log in and are unlikely to respond to messages.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee that edit is to a dab, so I don't know what you mean by "source" as dabs don't have sources. As it was 2 1/2years ago, can you narrow down what part of the edit you're concerned with? From the second edit [15] by JHvW, the musician entry was incorrectly piped, so that's a bad edit. WP:MOSDAB has all the reasoning I followed. Widefox; talk 14:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

JHvW changed Hayward to Haywood. I have yet to see why that would have been done because the David Bowie article, which is featured, makes no mention of either. As for your edit, I have no idea where you got that from, but you added the name Hayward that I don't know the source for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee I've created the missing David Robert Jones (musician) and used that to fix both David Jones and David Robert Jones.  Done Did you check the article when I made the dab edit 21/2 years ago? (dabs just follow the articles, we don't do more than that I'm afraid) Widefox; talk 16:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't check the article from when you made the edit. I have no idea how I would, but if it's featured, it ought to have the information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that I see what you just did, I'm assuming we can consider the dab page fixed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee Huh? you checked the history of the dab for an edit 2 1/2 years ago but don't know how to do the same for the article? Anyhow, I'm only assuming my dab edit was competent (I haven't checked) and that you're not only mistaken in your initial assertion of it being me that added any incorrect information, but I'm curious why you don't find the actual editor that introduced it in the article. You've been here a while, you may want to check the article next time before you assume bad faith about other editors. Dabs follow articles, so unless it's outlandishly wrong, I wouldn't blame any dab editor for doing their job of following the article. ps next time you fix a dab, please don't leave piped entries [16], as per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 22:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I had intended to fix the piped entry. I was debating about whether the blue link should be on the left or right and I was going to ask for advice. Your solution was the best one. As for searching for history in an article rather than a dab, while I didn't consider the possibility that the David Bowie article contained the information, I wouldn't know the first thing about tracking it down given the many thousands of additional edits. Rather than assuming bad faith, I'm actually asking for information, and in a sense, you gave it to me, but finding the version of David Bowie at that time is beyond my capability.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee Seems there's discussion on the correctness of that name David Robert Hayward-Jones] here...[17] . If you check the history of that redirect [18] you'll see I've never edited it, and seems I simply used that existing redirect (created in 2006!) for the dab as links at the the start of an entry are preferred (it's wasn't in bold at the top of the article on the day I did the dab edit here). Note that his son was born Duncan Zowie Haywood Jones (a redirect I just created to Duncan Jones as it was missing). In conclusion, meh. Widefox; talk 15:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm looking for. Information. But your most recent edit to the dab page seems to have settled the matter, since you didn't feel the need to add Haywood back.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Dabs are for navigation only, so they're not great for information, and follow the article / redirect so if either of those are wrong, they need fixing first. The article doesn't use the term ion bold in the lead which is one standard for inclusion in a dab. A WP:DABMENTION is another. e.g. if a well known incorrect name is used, and discussed in the article then it could be included in the dab. Widefox; talk 16:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)