User talk:Widefox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Quick facts
icon
Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.
Close

Widefox

ｗｉｄｅｆｏｘ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.111.219 (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

BRD

Hello! When your edit gets reverted, please don't redo it, and don't discuss in edit summaries. Instead, discuss on the talk page. This is called the "bold, revert, discuss" process (BRD) and it's used to avoid edit warring. Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I'd be happy to reply to your edit summary if you posted it on the talk page in the form of a comment. — W.andrea (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
(ec) Whilst technically correct per that essay. Reverting others edits whilst giving 1. invalid reason Unexplained removal of content "usually abbreviated". 2. no edit summary , then invoking "BRD" - is best tackled at the article not here nobody has a clue why you object! See policy WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR 4. and 5. "avoiding the topic of the article altogether". (did you actually read WP:REVTALK you're quoting to me? your revert 1. fails "Edit summaries should accurately") Widefox; talk 13:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Could you please proofread your comment? There are some grammatical errors, like "Whilst technically correct per that essay." is a sentence fragment, and "at the article not here nobody" seems to be missing punctuation between "not here" and "nobody". I think I understand most of what you're saying, but I don't want to get into the weeds if I've misunderstood you. — W.andrea (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, and "(ec)" means "edit conflict", yeah? You can use {{edit conflict}}. — W.andrea (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
(ec) I have put a warning on your talk page per WP:TPO. (I do not wish to continue talking about your WP:OWN issue here, but only on your page). p.s. I'm glad you know what (ec) is. Widefox; talk 15:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

  • Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident?
    A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Widefox. Thank you for your work on Gasoline particulate filter. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources and footnotes and establish notability as per WP:NPRODUCT. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mariamnei Once again you're talking to the wrong editor: the first person to create this as an article, not a redirect, was @Petew0301.
Why do I keep seeing your misdirected NPP notices? I suppose because I have several very long-established users' pages on my watchlist, and I notice with surprise when they are sent NPP notices. You seem to be the only NPP editor doing this regularly recently, suggesting that other NPP editors are checking more carefully to make sure that they address the page's real creator, not the editor who created a redirect years ago. Yes, it would be good if the NPP software could distinguish between the redirect creator and the substantial page creator, but if it can't then we have to rely on NPP editors to check for themselves. Please do so. Thanks. PamD 09:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
yup, PamD is spot on. @Mariamnei This section should be titled "I have sent you a note about a page you never started".
You really should stop sending the wrong editor NPP notices, and more importantly start sending the correct creator an NPP notice...
I can also add - this tagging is a mess - it already had a multiple tag. Did you actually review your edit? Widefox; talk 19:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
...after checking WP:NPP - I would have thought you also should have stubbed it, selected an engineering / technology / GNG for notability, and added the projects to the talk (via Rater if you like automation). Widefox; talk 19:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the notices - it is automated. I will try to pay more attention to whom I send the notices to.
Regarding your other comments - I did add a GNG tag. I'm not sure what you mean "added the projects to talk". Please feel free to specify. Thanks and have a good day! Mariamnei (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
"it is automated" - I would be for removing any editor's privilege bit with such an answer. You are responsible for all your edits. Please confirm, else I think this discussion should be moved to the forum for removing your page patroller right.
"I did add a GNG tag" - no, incorrect - see "notability|1=Products|date=March 2026"
me "added the projects to talk" - see WP:NPP#Optional steps "WikiProject Sorting", and for stub "Stub sorting" - but I see now they're in Optional steps so it isn't obligatory.
WP:NPP says New Page Reviewers are expected to have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia's...expected to work carefully. Widefox; talk 12:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI