User talk:Widefox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user is a member of
Wikipedia.

I use the name Widefox. This is my page on the English Wikipedia. The name originates from a web browser.

Contents

[edit] Jeremy Clarkson

I have a feeling that the £7000 for a Maserati might be correct. Top Gear did a programme where the three presenters each bought a car (Maserati, Ferrari and A.Nother) for about that price and then had to do various tasks. Needless to say the cars were in a bad way and kept breaking down! --jmb 10:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

£7000 was correct. I reverted. I then clarified by adding link, and changing "the" to "a" because it was the purchase price of a used car, not the list price of a new car. --widefox 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hard to track of Clarkson's page, it is being altered so often! --jmb 12:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture of the Windows NT operating system line

Thanks for pointing out that category problem I created by changing this article. Not sure what the best solution is so I undid my change. I was considering a category for all of the MS OSs but I'm not sure that is needed. One plus for that approach is that it would provide a better home for OSs where there is only one article like Windows ME and Windows 2000. If you think this is the right way to go, feel free to make those changes. Vegaswikian 23:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely defer to you for categorising! I'm back to making the page consistent....mind you, while I'm here I thinks I'll cleanup this "microkernel" usage after all....

--Widefox 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the title. I'm currently embroiled with a dispute over an article title while said article is on WP:FAC - nevermind the article's merits, it's being picked apart over the title. I pointed out the Windows NT Architecture title, and a unilateral move was made without regards to prior consensus. The "earlier discussion of the shorter title" was cited, though I think it's quite clear that there was no consensus for that. Move it back to where it seems most logical, and I'm sorry you guys got mixed up in this. --JohnDBuell 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preimplantation Genetic Haplotyping

Hi. I've made some comments here: Talk:Preimplantation Genetic Haplotyping, hope they are useful. --apers0n 11:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject CS

Hi! Just noticed that you have signed on as a participant in WikiProject Computer science, and wanted to welcome you to the project. Please stop by the project talk page to see what the other participants have on their minds right now, and to add your own thoughts. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrian

Hello. I understand that you are currently underway fixing links to Tyre, as you said on your user page, so I will not disturb your progress. However, I have been brought to my attention that you have redirected the term Tyrian to Tyre (Lebanon), and that even though you have added Tyre (disambiguation), there is no mention of the computer game Tyrian anywhere. Searching the term "Tyrian" on Google shows the first few results on the page relating to the game, so that grants that the game is notable enough. If you eventually are going to add the link back in somewhere, thank you; if not, I would just like to remind you to. However, I still believe that the article "Tyrian" should stay as a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. --FlyingPenguins 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is true, fixed, now Tyre has link to Tyrian (disambiguation) (excuse not using links, but we have enough already!). Thanks for pointing that out. Tyrian (disambiguation) was already to go. Your issue is similar to what I've fixed (am fixing) with Tyre. The central problem (nightmare) with both is the Tyre and Tyrian have numerous (understatement) links (due to historical and biblical references). Tyrian links cant go to a disambiguation page. Of course, while here, I have also changed Tyrian to Tyre (Lebanon)|Tyrian, and tyre to tire|tyre to be flexible about the priorities, but I cannot be there when users write all those nice new links! Widefox 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great to hear. It'll take an extra click to get to the game... I guess that's okay. IMO it still seems a bit confusing to browse through all those disambig links though. --FlyingPenguins 02:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad it seems OK, sorry about the extra click. BTW, searching wikipedia, you avoid the extra click (still get no. 1 and 2 hits Tyrian (computer game)). Widefox 15:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your changes to asphyxia

I'm unclear as to your reinsertion of the statement about strangling and asphyxia. The change to ischemia is simply describing the change in terms of blood flow instead of oxygenation/ventilation. Stedman's medical dictionary includes the term "local asphyxia" for cases of stagnation of blood flow, as in cerebral ischemia from strangulation or vasospasm due to Raynaud's phenomenon. It's certainly not as big a deal as the rest of the introduction, which incorrectly states that asphyxia can occur with pure hypoxia and no hypercarbia. I plan to work on the article, but wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from before I started. InvictaHOG 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[cerebral ischemia] is the correct term according to the context of the sentence. asphyxia and ischemia do not appear compatible at all to me. (A heart attack is not asphyxiation). I've changed the text to include the local asphyxia term, and look forward to your more learned text. Widefox 02:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corey Bryant

While your reverts to Corey's edits were justified, calling these (duplicating info is most definitly not vandalismnon-formal tone and unsourced statements aren't vandalismrephrasing in this case while not helpful is definilty not vandalsimwhile he has added this to several articles, it is just an unsourced statement, not vandalism) vandalism is certainly not. He has edited incorrectly and clearly doesn't understand wiki policy, but his edits are not WP:Vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I do not believe those edits would fall under that category. I am leaving a message on the user's talk page to furthur explain why what he is doing is wrong, but it would be easier if his justifiably reveratable edits were called what they were. Chris M. 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Corey, if you're reading this, this explains my side...I assumed good faith to start with but the scale, style, and lack of a single reference eventually lead me to believe the account was only used for vandalism, and some edits can be called that, although I'm unusually not looking through the evidence right this minute. That is certainly how I first approached Corey Bryant's edits to begin with, on pages I had been improving. I actually fixed-up the first one or two, thinking they were just style issues, but actually had some good new information (even though, as unreferenced, it would take work to just allow them to stay, just in case they weren't factual). Then as I had to check the users history to see what further edits needed fixing, I saw a new article Asphyxiant gas and made a comment of agreement with another editor - who promptly requested deletion. At that point I started to realise the scale of the problem, and the fact that it was more than 1 editor involved in fixing things - because you must admit there was a lot of reverting to do! I spent 1/2 hour researching one particular sports article where some statistics were changed - core game stats from an 1930s match that I just couldn't work out why they would have been wrong, and as all the edits, not a single reference, so the research was laborious. My judgement on intent was based around here, and another article as well, in which Corey was the only author. It seemed more like someone parodying the site, by creating a masterpiece of fiction! Some parts were actually humorous, with comical names.
Anyhow, if all was well intentioned on his side like you're saying, and I believe you, then I apologise, but it then raises the question - Corey's been editing for months, how come nobody up until now has remarked to point him in the right direction? Is this a failing of buddying or tutoring of new editors? Widefox 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm thinking. If you look back at that article he made, it has become quite presentable and verified through the efforts of User:InvictaHOG. I realize it was a lot of effort, and he may have had this problem for a while, but the fact is that those edits really aren't vandalism, they had problems, and it would have been better if the buddying or tutoring of new editors would have shown that but it didn't, so the best thing to do, I think, is to revert what MUST be reverted because of WP:OR and let him know about it. His talk page didn't actually link to OR and the page may have helped him understand what you were first saying. Chris M. 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you to some extent before, but I'm afraid you've picked a bad example. Somebody else has put it up for deletion and there's a slim majority for it! If you look back at that history, you'll see that I'm actually the main author - in terms of lines, number of edits, protecting it from inclusion of general asphyxia (and hasty references), and possibly most importantly - the definition! User:InvictaHOG is doing a good job trying to justify the article before deletion, but given the time constraint, he might be cutting corners a bit? It looks like he is a busy guy, as I'm waiting for him to fix something on the main article asphyxia (that both of us are not happy about). Despite both of our efforts, please check the deletion page for why it's misguided, where I lay down my argument why it still needs deleting (remember, that's despite being the main author now, and despite my efforts to try to see if it was worth saving). The article is a stub, and will remain a stub, with much duplication of asphyxia examples that all belongs in asphyxia. To put it another way, if you properly separate asphyxia and asphyxiant gas, then the main article asphyxia starts to look like a stub! The main reason for deletion is WP:WINAD Widefox 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
oh, and it was also against WP:NC (plural) Widefox 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but it does show good faith (in general) I'd say. Chris M. 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand - this example is neutral, and I think I've already said that my decision of bad faith was based after *extensive* research after that! Widefox 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox TOC, and Swiftfox

<snip> reply reunited on your page, with existing thread. - see your user talk page dito Widefox 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Widefox 19:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: AHB on the Schmidt Sting Pain Index

I think you are making a distinction without a difference here. Despite the bad press and hype, AHB is biologically a relatively minor variation of the European honey bee. Unless you can show some evidence that their individual stings are noticably different, it makes no sense to have separate lines. In fact, your own recent edits to the article's Talk page reinforce it. Apis Mellifera is the parent category and encompasses a number of races. Any educated reader will naturally ask why Apis Mellifera Scutellata is singled out in your list? The separate line implies a distinction where none exists. I'm not going to fight you over it but I think having the separate lines without such a citation undermines the overall credibility of the article to anyone who actually knows bees. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For the simple reason that we write an encyclopaedia to disambiguate. Laying down the fact that the two stings have the same effect does that. You have to see it from the readers point of view, not the authors. Widefox 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Then why are you not disambiguating all the other races of Apis Mellifera? You are singling out one race and so far I can not understand why. The closest I can come is a comment you made on another page where you described the perception of a difference in sting as a "common misperception". Please cite who actually has this misperception. No one that I know or have ever read about holds this misperception. To the layperson, a bee is a bee is a bee. They can't even tell the difference between a yellowjacket and a honeybee. They don't even consider that there might be a (nonexistant) difference between the sting of a pure European honey bee and an Africanized honey bee. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristics of common wasps and bees

By the way, I will comment more extensively on why I think the "hive defense" comment is bad for the "Characteristics" article on that Talk page. But you also reverted an unrelated edit without commenting on it. Was that intentional or an oversight? If an oversight, please permit me to correct it. If intentional, please explain. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Errm, I've already said let's move to the talk page, now we're split over three pages. I've replying there... Widefox 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pango

Hi there. Thanks for the comment. I don't quite get it what article you suggest I not edit; the Pango article I assume. Are you suggesting that I should have left it to someone else to list change the maintainership, not myself? Honestly I've read enough s. about vanity and NPOV that I'm not going to edit any articles related to anything I work on. Michael Everson's vote for deletions for example; twice... —behdad (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

no, just a heads up - I initially thought it was anyone just putting themselves in as vandalism, it's OK. Widefox 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Oxford Dictionary of English move

Thanks for the heads-up. I guess I was in a rush. If I recall correctly, there was alrerady a "Oxford Dictionary of English" -> "New Oxford Dictionary of English" redirect in place and I couldn't do a standard move without deleting the redirect, which I couldn't or didn't do. I'll see about getting a mop-and-bucket type person to help! --Charles Gaudette 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

I am giving you notice that you are not allowed to revert the article Swiftfox for the next 24hours due to reaching the 3Revert rule limit. Please see WP:AN/3RR. If you do revert one more time, you will be in violation, and I shall ask you account to be closed for 24hours, according to the rules.

  • In addition do not replace "freeware" or I will replace the advert warning.

You replaced non-free with freeware on the 18th. This was an illeagal edit as there was a discussion on the subject. The first edit of mine today fixed that illeagal edit of yours on the 18th Kilz 00:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

the article is already locked. You are too late. Please look at the 3rd opinion. Widefox 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I did, the link he points to is one that I had removed "Freeware". Anyway. The article may soon be up for deletion as a mod has placed a notability tag on it. We continue fighting and its likley to happen as no one else seems interested in the page.
Its time to stop this argument and move forward. But one thing remains, I fully expect an apology for the sockpupet accusation. It was totaly wrong to do that. Kilz 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you checked the sockpuppet page? Widefox 02:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I just did, looks like it isnt going to fly. I think you knew it wouldnt. You just edited the discussion page on Swiftfox, I thought it was locked.Kilz 02:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

The SR-71 was originally the RS-71 until Lyndon Johnson called it the SR-71 at the first public showing of the Blackbird.
The EITC, was originally the EIC (Earned Income Credit) until Bill Clinton called it the "Earned Income Tax Credit" (hence EITC).
Early on, George W Bush tried to say "War on Terrorism", but given his difficulties with the language, it came out as "War on Terrism", so "War on Terror" was adopted to make it easier to say (plus there was an additional PR value to the term). Cheers. •Jim62sch• 01:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see, from what I remember of the articles, not all these details are in. Would you add them? Widefox 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case you filed

You filed a medcab case. We can not hear it due to the disciplinary request. Geo. 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me elaborate further. The only thing you listed is a ban.

The Medcab can not ban users. I will reopen it if you post what you want help with. Just leave me a note Geo. 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just reopened it, you should see it in 15 minutes. Geo. 21:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving discussions

A user moving a discussion/comment on his talk page to the article talk page is fine and certainly not vandalism. Discussions about articles do belong on the article talk page. Is there something else going on that makes this different? —Centrx→talk • 23:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kilz

Hello! I see that you have opened a Mediation Cabal case about a static IP attached to a user with which you are in dispute, Kilz. If you were not aware of this, you should add your grievances with Kilz to the mediation request. If you are, then you should as well, or it may bee seen as opening the meditation case in bad faith. Also, I would suggest that you do not interact with this user again until the Mediation case has been opened by a Mediator. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi WD. I don't understand - the MedCab was not about IP editing and has the grievances all listed - it was started before the first edit war (where Kilz did an IP edit). If you think I shouldn't interact with Kilz until MedCab action, that's fine with me. Considering the NPA on me and Swiftfox author, I think things might have gone past MedCab and a ban is all that will do anything. I say this because he has ignored the 3rd party I called for and any other editors. As you can see from the difference in edit histories between Kilz and me, I am not a single issue editor, and so do not wish to be restricted long, even if it is the common good. I consider the only workable fix is to either ban Kilz NPA , disruptive, NPOV, personal involvement in Swiftfox story etc, or quickly get some mediation together. I've already waited a couple of weeks, and I don't want to see Swiftfox defaced Widefox 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You must take steps in the resolution process one by one, and in good faith. If you take them expecting them to fail, they will, but in doing so you may be seen as the disruptive editor. You're going to have to find more substantive evidence of wrongdoing before a block is issue. If you feel you have been personally attack, a block isn't the dispute resolution you're looking for. WP:PAIN is. And with all due respect, you don't really have anyone but yourself to blame if you put off formal dispute resolution for two weeks. Give it another couple of weeks of formal resolution before considering elevating, and try to cool down. Wikipedia has over a million articles, that one isn't the only one there is to edit. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Step by step is OK, but don't understand again - I did them in good faith! The edit war started while waiting for step-by-step! I wait patiently, but my expectation is low (maybe I shouldn't say that) but it is what I feel. I'll checkout your link. "two weeks" - do you mean the two weeks I've been waiting for MedCab. You think I should make a formal mediation instead. I've only done what others have suggested (see Swiftfox talk page). Widefox 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's two weeks for any mediation - the admins are backlogged. A warning - you edited one of my edits on Kilz's pages out. Do not do so. Doing so, as I have warned Kilz, is vandalism, and I frankly don't much appreciate it when the person I'm trying to intercede on behalf of deletes my intercession. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Just checked - you are right this edit [1] was just an error. I will continue to leave page alone as agreed yesterday, so please could you fix my error. Widefox 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Munich

Would you like to participate in WikiProject Munich? I see that you speak German well. Maybe you can help out with the Translation section of the project. Kingjeff 07:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

too busy right now, sorry. Widefox 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual classroom

I've set up the Virtual classroom (VC), which is a forum for the discussion of advanced Wikipedia skills. It differs from the help forums on Wikipedia in that major topics of discussion are scheduled and once started remain continuous.

The reason I'm contacting you is because one of the class assignments is a comparison of our user interfaces. A lot can be learned from individual users, who usually have developed their own ways of doing things. I noticed you are an advanced programmer, so you no doubt have some tricks up your sleeve. I'm hoping that you will stop by and share and compare the interfaces you use when browsing and working on Wikipedia. I've also constructed a tools page which presents everything learned from these discussions, and it is growing -- there are some pretty powerful techniques on there now. Even Interiot, Rich Farmbrough, and CBDunkerson have stopped by the VC to show off their tools and methods. It's been a lot of fun, and you are invited. The interface topics are called:

and

I look forward to seeing you there and to learning your wikiways. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist    23:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Germany

Welcome, Widefox, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.

Here are some tasks you can do:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Kusma (討論) 16:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Eastern Germany

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/d/User_talk%7EWidefox_c060.html"