User talk:Widefox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A page, about me, and edits on the English Wikipedia. Talk to me...

If I reverted, or undid your edit, please see User:Widefox/Why I revert vandalism.

Tagging articles[edit]

Hi Widefox,

I have just undone some of the tags you put on the Andrew Dallmeyer article as I felt you have put them there due to your conflicts with Hillysilly. I also noted that he hasn't edited since December therefore your chasing of him seems unnecessary. If you have any issues with the Andrew Dallmeyer article please bring them to me and I will try to resolve them best I can (you will see I kept the notability tag as I accept it is a borderline case).

Thanks ツStacey (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your assumption. We have WP:AGF (read the first paragraph) to prevent your expressed concern from distracting editing. I will take the concerns about their validity to the talk page, where the edits and not editors are pertinent. I would appreciate if you can follow up your remark here with a discussion of the merits there. I will have to decline your offer to check edits with you, per WP:OWN. If you're interested understanding the sockfarm background to this, see the WP:COIN archive so you know what evidence I'm basing my opinion on. Widefox; talk 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Article[edit]

(snip) Walesgreens (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Rahul Mewawalla - don't copy/paste in two places. Widefox; talk 09:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

Civility please be careful on talk:ISIL[edit]

I realise you are a much more experienced editor who probably understands Wikipedia's rules a lot better than me, and I thank you for your long service in helping on Wikipedia. I'd also like to appologise for misreading your comment on

However, the ISIL talk page is very tense. So I'd ask you please be careful with edit summaries, slight incivility on this page quickly escalates and become non-slight, even when all involved editors have good intentions. I'd therefore ask you to be careful of little things like saying "you actually serious?" in edit summaries on this page. Escalations have lead to a number of ANI incidents (including at least one user who is currently indef blocked for reasons other than sock puppetry and edit warring), and are the reason why we have the civility header on the talk page. Thanks again. Banak (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no concern about anyone being uncivil, but thanks for the concern. WP:CLUE is a good read for any editors proposing preposterous arguments, so giving the opportunity to that editor to back away from their argument is important. Widefox; talk 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed blocked sock spammer[edit]

(snip COI spammer who's been previously blocked for socking) - replied on their talk. Widefox; talk 10:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you collapse this content[edit]

here. I agree that there may be a call for page protection for the ISIL page from IP address contributions but, until then, all contributions can be given hearing. Daesh and ISIS are both used in other language versions of the ISIL article and an opinion on this type of usage has relevance to the discussion. A comment was made and it was responded too. You are not an uninvolved editor in this topic. You can suggest that a collapse be made if you think it appropriate but you can't just collapse material because it does not fit in with your personal arguments. In the meanwhile please reverse your collapse. GregKaye 00:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course editors can per WP:REFACTOR "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material" "Restructuring of discussions for clarity" (emphasis my own). The section is about alternative names, not about article titles. That comment would distract, especially at the bottom. We should all try to keep that clear to prevent any more editors misunderstanding. Of course, per WP:REFACTOR I should undo my edit given that you have objected. Being as the comment is solely about the article title, I will leave that to you to undo if you insist it is still important in a section explicitly about something else. Widefox; talk 01:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Your point was, "The official name is Islamic State. That should be listed as such in the lede as a valid alternative title". The response was, "All should redirect to Daesh. This page should not be called Islamic State. Seeing no objections I will make this correction" which fairly succinctly presented a related opinion. The topic was not discussing the fragrance of daffodils or similar. A corrective counter response was given.
I have been in article discussions in which threads that I have started have been I think deliberately derailed and, when contacting admin, I was told that there was no possibility to collapse as I was an involved editor. GregKaye 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly my point, that comment/editor is only discussing the article title (i.e. moving it). The article title has been discussed extensively and other editors were also confused. Hopefully I've made it clear about what the section I started is about. It isn't about moving the article. WP:RM would be the correct way for that. This is not, and won't be an RM discussion as it was not started as a RM. Of course, anyone is free to start a separate RM section. I'm not sure what you're asking me for, and especially about another conversation I know nothing of. Widefox; talk 00:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)