User talk:Widefox/Archive 6

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.

Greetings! I love your reference addition on the POWER10 page. I don't have access to such publications. But I surely would love to read some.. Can I pretty please? -- Henriok (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Erm thanks, but it was just a Google search that found it (as they've indexed it). A quick search for the title gives a free download here [1] . Enjoy. Widefox; talk 20:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cable television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impedance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please do not change the importance of WPDOGS articles on the talk page unless you are a member of said project and are referencing the project's assessment criteria Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Assessment - we have it covered. William Harris (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:William Harris which article? If I did a bad job, I may agree it's a bad edit, but until I know what you're talking about I'm none the wiser. Have you made such a request to other editors? Please read the guideline WP:ASSESS#Assessing articles "...anyone can add or change an article's rating..." Widefox; talk 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No, its not a "bad edit" to Rabies virus, and yes I do advise other editors. The assessment policy (above) relates to class=, and not importance=. WPDOGS has its own importance scale, which we use to prioritise our articles for actions, as below:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Tagging pages with WikiProject banners: "Many WikiProjects use talk page banners to mark certain pages as within the scope of the WikiProject. This helps the WikiProjects to organize their progress improving pages within the project's scope......Consequently, pages should only be marked with WikiProject banners for projects that intend to support the tagged pages."

Regards William Harris (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, now I know what edit you're talking about (my advice is always include an edit link or at least the article name when talking about other editor's edits), and yes I'm aware a talk page edit is not an article edit. It isn't a "policy" but a guideline, and with that in mind, I'm sure you've seen that the article was originally assessed by a non WPDOGS member [2]. I guess my 9 month old edit [3] was about the disparity between WPdogs and WPcats, which now seems to be correct per the scales, seems I corrected in the wrong direction on further inspection. I would personally encourage non project members to edit, the exact opposite of your advice, despite you having to correct that rating twice, partly as there was clearly an issue with the ratings, but more importantly... to foster the bigger picture of collaboration with this being, you know what, a wiki that can be changed by anyone. Widefox; talk 00:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Hodl, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Hodl and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Hodl during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I support with the quality scale, but do you have any opinions about the priority scale? I was not able to evaluate the priority scale because I was told at the help desk that Vital articles and maths ratings are different criteria, so I decided to listen to them instead of immediately evaluating them based on Vital articles. If you don't have an opinion, I would like to gather opinions by WikiProject mathematics.(I mean, I can't decide.) Thank you for improving the complex analysis article.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No opinion - the automated rater removed it, so I didn't even see it had changed it. I'm guessing that's correct, else it should be fixed. Widefox; talk 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Melania Lamarck. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 23#Melania Lamarck until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Melania Wallengren. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 23#Melania Wallengren until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Remember this discussion? It partly concerned one editor who was in the habit of mechanically removing any acronyms from dab pages that didn't happen to be mentioned in the linked articles. I was left with the impression that there was going to be a project to review those edits and add back inappropriately removed dab entries. Has there been any progress on that? I've had a quick look, and there were just over 1,000 such edits in the past two years. In the small sample I've examined, there were a lot of entries that should probably be added back. – Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I've just re-lived the discussion. I don't remember any project, but the thought of validating n abbreviations on 1000 dab pages is something. It may be useful to bring up the subject again if it's still ongoing, to attempt to reach consensus on the edits. Widefox; talk 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a massive undertaking. I'll bring it up on the project talk page at some point, though before that I think there'd need to be a good re-evaluation of the existing guidelines in WP:DABABBREV (its fundamental assumption, for example, is that articles will necessarily mention any acronyms – but that's often not seen in practice, and there doesn't seem to be anything requiring it). – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, as I detailed on that page, in practice I suspect that users land on the dabs and add missing initialisms there, job done as far as they are concerned and they can then navigate on to their articles. Article editors may be unaware of the abbreviations. The freedom to navigate to articles outways the freedom from obscure (not not incorrect) initialisms in the spirit of disambiguation being about navigation only. To satisfy WP:V and keep editorial control where it should be at the article, a reference on the talk of the article would be suffice IMHO, where consensus could be reached for invalidation and would make checking validity on the dabs quicker when dab editors periodically clean dabs. Widefox; talk 22:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Melania (gastropods). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28#Melania (gastropods) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Color wheel (optics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RGBW.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm hosting an online meetup this Saturday: meta:Meetup/UK Teams/1. Let me know if you're interested and feel free to spread the word. Cheers, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Advanced driver-assistance systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tesla.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#How we deal with entries that plausibly fit in multiple sections ) Widefox; talk 19:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment off topic from the main: I'm not feeling heated about this, and I hope you're not either. I'm sensing some edge in your reply; I'm sorry if I'm misreading that. I'm about to drop off for the day, you might think about doing that too if this is bothering you. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 21:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well feel heated, listen to feedback, live! Widefox; talk 21:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying, I don't have a problem if you're annoyed about your edits being reverted. Widefox; talk 16:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been clear about my concern, and that isn't it. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

“Ever” is used instead of “Every" 185.24.76.174 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. Widefox; talk 23:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Advanced Matrix Extensions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Return to launch site and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 26#Return to launch site until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Twiki (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(snip) moved to, you know, the article in question. Talk:St Margarets railway station (Hertfordshire). Widefox; talk 12:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Widefox,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The graphs you made there are really informative. Do you know if anyone has similar graphs that are more up to date?

I've noticed we have crossed the threshold and now have fewer than 1000 admins and <500 active ones. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Glad they are of some use. I don't know of any others, but I still have original data. I will update it. I'm keen to compare the extrapolation with the new data. Widefox; talk 00:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, terrific! --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Good news - last months data now in it, and yes the obvious is that we're at an all-time low. Technical glitch - the pre-release of LibreOffice has corrupted the graph, so I'm going backwards currently. Widefox; talk 21:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Really appreciate this. Please ping me here or at my user talk when the graphs update. I think the problems with adminship are becoming acute. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Widefox,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on MBIM (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Widefox,

Checking through some of "my" old articles and stumbled across an old GAR on Velites from more than six years ago, which you initiated; not sure if you remember it at all, but I wanted to apologize nonetheless. It was my first such experience, and I reacted very poorly, feeling as if you were personally attacking me and trying to "destroy my article" and "take away my achievements"; in all the ways that only a 15-year-old can feel, I suppose. Neither my age nor inexperience justifies how I acted though, so I wanted to apologize for that, even if it's long overdue by now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Mycroft Project has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 9 § Mycroft Project until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing with the section template. I did not know that that was an expectation or option for section-targeting redirects. Ancients and Antiques (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

NP. Widefox; talk 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Friedrichsstadtpassagen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 13 § Friedrichsstadtpassagen until a consensus is reached. --89.14.121.62 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Secure Transport has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Secure Transport until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Removed your tags from the Oberon-2 article which date back to over 10 years ago. They were arguably no longer relevant, but you may disagree. If so, perhaps you may want to create a discussion on Oberon-2's talk to discuss specifics on the need for any new tags. Thank you for your consideration in advance. Wukuendo (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I replied on your page. I suggest if you want further discussion, to have that on the article's talk. Regards, Widefox; talk 23:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Upon thinking about it, though I'm a fan of Oberon-2, it would probably better for me to excuse myself. Thus leave it to yourself and the other more experienced editors who have been involved with the article for years, and should be invested in its quality. This will likely be a better way to avoid conflict. Yourself and the others can lead and conduct the discussion on its talk page as you see fit and spearhead the effort to resolve the issues, so that the tags can one day be removed. Thank you for your time and service.Wukuendo (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Recuse because...you have a WP:COI ? Widefox; talk 12:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

To excuse oneself is a polite English term for leaving or (as in this case) to refrain from getting involved any further. I have no COI regarding Oberon-2 or any parties connected to it. I'm not sure where this is coming from or going, but letting you know that is the case. Do not want to entertain any conflicts about the issue. It was my personal assessment that you wanted to keep such tags above the Oberon-2 article, despite the years they have existed. As mentioned, I thought it better for yourself and those more invested in the Oberon-2 article (with years of making contributions to it) to resolve the related issues to get the tags removed.Wukuendo (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Rollback attack (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Podman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://github.com/containers/podman. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Long life motor oil has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § Long life motor oil until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hallo, I've just retargeted this redirect, which you made in 2018, from Iron overload to Hereditary haemochromatosis which appears almost certainly to be a synonym ... but checking in with you here in case there's something I missed and I've got it wrong!

I'm currently falling down a rabbit hole from adding a link to the longlist of Lakeland Book of the Year to writing about a poet who says she has "Genetic Haemachromatosis" ... when the article is ready I'll drop her an email to point out that there are at least two dead links on her "about" page! PamD 14:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi PamD, yes I concur. We still have this problem: Looking at Iron overload#Non-classical hereditary hemochromatosis and the hatnote at Hereditary haemochromatosis, looks like we may not be disambiguating Hereditary haemochromatosis / Genetic haemochromatosis i.e. there's a primary topic Haemochromatosis type 1 (aka "classical" hemochromatosis, aka HFE-related Hemochromatosis) and the other genetic causes of hemochromatosis (2-5) are potentially non-primary topics? I can't remember if that was my reasoning to target the broader topic rather than main genetic subtopic, but mirroring as a synonym seems better. In the absence of knowing more about it, I'm not sure what should be done, but we seem to be doing better than, say https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/haemochromatosis/causes/ . Congrats on Polly Atkin, very interesting read. Widefox; talk 22:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your summaries say you cleaned this dab up "according to WP:MOSDAB". Just a reminder, WP:MOSDAB incorporates MOS:LONGDAB, which includes MOS:NOORPHANS and MOS:DABOVERLAP, which says "For one or two items that fit in multiple sections: duplicate these entries in each appropriate section." Readers may reasonably expect to find a publishing imprint like Zephyr Books in the "Businesses" section, even if it isn't strictly speaking a business itself. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Swpb. I think there's two topics raised. 1. Zephyr and 2. MOS:LONGDAB:

1. The Books entry was listed twice, consecutively [4] which doesn't seem useful to readers to me, does it to you? At the top of all guidelines it says "common sense". So I'd say either way isn't a big thing for readers.

2. As you're the main author of MOS:LONGDAB, I'm not sure if you're really inviting other dab editors such as myself to participate in shaping it? Widefox; talk 18:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

1. It doesn't matter that the entries were consecutive, because there is a header between them – if a reader expected the entry to be in "Businesses" and so clicked "Businesses" in the ToC, the heading "Businesses" would be at the top of their screen, with the "Arts and media" entry off screen and the reader having no clue to scroll up to find it.

That's one navigation path, yes, but not the only one. In fact, last time I checked the majority of our users were on mobile, and there's no ToC on mobile (both app and browser), so simple analysis would say that's a minority case (caveat: mobile browser has closed sections, so there's at least merit there). I return to my point. I also stick by my edit summaries, MOSDAB was and is correctly used. I just don't know what you mean by "incorporates". Widefox; talk 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would a navigation route have to be the only one, or even the majority one, for it to make sense to help readers who do use it? Navigating from the ToC is hardly an obscure approach. "Incorporates" in the sense of incorporation by reference: MOS:DABGROUPING starts by directing to LONGDAB, which would be part of MOSDAB but for its length. It has the same weight as the rest of MOSDAB, so if you are claiming to be making changes to meet MOSDAB, that entails following LONGDAB too. "Following" doesn't mean "no exceptions", but it does mean that changes directly counter to the guide should be explicitly justified. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

2. It's completely irrelevant how much of LONGDAB I wrote; what's relevant is that it is an official guideline, and became one through explicit consensus like every other guideline. And so, like any other guideline, any part of it can change if there is consensus. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure we're both aware that until recently it was your essay. Do you think it's at all appropriate that you are reminding me about it like this, as if it's policy, which even MOSDAB isn't? Widefox; talk 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminding you that it's a guideline, since your summaries cite a guideline that includes it by reference. I know you don't go around ignoring all guidelines just because they aren't policies, and I know you know that's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to challenge part of any guideline, you know the way – and you know that "this used to be an essay" isn't going to work as an argument against something that was promoted to guideline status by the community. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) I looked at Zephyr out of curiosity, noticed that it started with "Zephyr may also refer to...", wondered what had previously preceded that line to justify the "also", and reinstated the opening line which has been present since 2016 and puts the rest into context, but was removed on 10 May. WP:IAR perhaps; I think it improves the dab page. It's also the meaning which comes to my mind first, though I know this doesn't mean it's the primary topic (but I'm female, UK-based, and a child of the 1950s, so not what's perceived as our typical reader or editor). PamD 07:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

oops, I must have overlooked removing that "also" with that diff above ...[5] yup, I missed it.

There's a few such dabs with dictionary type definitions at the top, which I generally consider legacy / in need of routine dab cleanup per MOSDAB. AFAIR I typically try to convert such "ledes"/ dictdef entries to an entry at or close to the top. OK, as to the merits of this one on Zephyr, I agree that it doesn't feel right to put those two entries in the bulk and at the bottom in the Other uses section. Would you be happy with the two entries like this:

1. Zephyr commonly refers to:

• Zephyrus or Zephyr, one of the Anemoi and the Greek god of the west wind
  • West wind or light wind, in European tradition

Zephyr may also refer to:
Widefox; talk 10:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC) (edited)

Hmm, I'm not quite sure about "commonly" as it may be a bit of an exaggeration. Could you put "traditionally" or "originally", in a slightly WP:IAR way, but which would be helpful and accurate? PamD 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the conundrum when the dictdefs aren't obviously the most likely / highly likely items but are more obscure words so seemingly useful to define at the top. Per MOSDAB we just rely on Wiktionary links and there's no special accomodation for the etymology...There's two other styles I've seen:

2. Zephyr often refers to:

3. least common, possibly only this dab, our "highly divergent" example Congo:

Zephyr may refer to:

I'd personally want to avoid "traditionally" or "originally" as it's veering into etymology, covered by our Wiktionary links. Widefox; talk 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Widefox, as you may know I often report on the slide of active administrators for The Signpost. Your page User:Widefox/editors is incredibly useful in putting this in perspective. I was wondering if you can share any fine-grained counts for 2005 or thereabouts? We are probably going to cross into the 420s soon, and I'd like to be able to say when the last date was that we were at that level. Thanks in advance for any advice here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bri, thanks, I keep promising to update it, maybe this month. OK, hmm, the raw data (active, semi, passive) Wikipedia:List of administrators (history has the totals) only go back to 2007 so doesn't help. The pre-2007 (User:Rick Bot) early data is different, just need to re-find it. Is that what you mean? I'll have a look in a minute. Widefox; talk 19:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table show active admins going over 420 for the first time in May 2005. It does a quick dip just below 420 in July 2005, then goes over 420 a second time in August 2005. If you want to avoid that temporary dip, a threshold of 394 to 416 would simply go back to April 2005. Widefox; talk 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

According to RFC, SSH stands for secure shell, so why change it?

ShiinaKaze (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the RFC. There's two (separate) things to fix - let's move this here Talk:Secure Shell. Widefox; talk 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jodi Hildebrandt 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/Jodi Hildebrandt 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 until the discussion has finished.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Pyston has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 6 § Pyston until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ettore Majorana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exchange forces.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited January 6 United States Capitol attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capitol Building.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited January 6 United States Capitol attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capitol Building.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Star Carr Pendant at around 3 cm in Yorkshire Museum is a fairly good candidate. There are a few individual rings in museums. Fulford ring also in Yorkshire. Ring of Silvianus at The Vyne. Shakespeare's signet ring perhaps but I’m not sure where is physically is. The smallest item in the crown jewels with its own article is the St Edward's Sapphire. The smallest individually notable item in Oxford is probably the Alfred Jewel. Smallest individually notable object in the UK is probably Williamson pink diamond but its not clear if it has a fixed location.©Geni (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks! Some good starting points. I see the existing coordinates are the locations where they were found, which is a setback. Widefox; talk 22:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Widefox:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Hey. You assessed inline skates in 2022. I thought I would let you know that I just spent 8 months rewriting it. Now it boasts a comprehensive coverage with 218 references. I just asked for a Good-article review. I am not sure when or if anyone will pick it up. I also added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment, hoping that someone would be interested. Or... perhaps you want to lend a hand? Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)