User talk:Oscar248

January 2013
Hello, I'm WikiPuppies. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Nick Clegg, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, WikiPuppies  bark dig 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602983629 your edit] to Hogsmill River may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The stream bends left Under Stoneleigh Park Road and runs under Walsingham Gardens and the A240 Kingston road where it enters Ewell Court. After running after Preston drive, it enters Ewell

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A217 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belmont, London. 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) 09:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Checking history first
Hi, Oscar248. I saw you made to the Ronnie Coleman article. Your edit summary said "removed unusual text in a box". The unusual text was because of. Bizarre rendering is often caused by random deletion of wiki-markup. You should check the article's history to see why it is happening rather than just deleting the offending text. In this case you deleted material that should be in the list (at least under its present standard of sourcing). Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Stoneleigh
Hi Al, I just had a go at copy editing a lot of the info on the Stoneleigh page. Have a look and let me know if you think I've caused any problems. Thegraciousfew (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Antonia Gerena Rivera for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antonia Gerena Rivera 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 Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera& 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. Fiddle  Faddle  14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2017
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Tom Jones (singer) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Graham 87 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Hillary Clinton. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read these carefully
Doug Weller talk 11:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones
The issue has been disused ad nausium on then talk page, and this begins to look like edit warring. Please do not revert gain without first getting consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I won't change it again. However there did not look to be any consensus in the previous talk page discussion, with the text in my view generalising the content of Infowars, as it suggests the whole purpose of infowars is for misinformation. I believe this is misleading and does not comply to a neutral style of wrting. Editors are clearly going to have different opinions of the wording (consensus will never be reached) but I think the current text is very bold and not appropriate for the lead of the page Oscar248 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * RS all seem to say it is either a fake news site, a peddler of fake news or promotes fake new (and yes there is general consensuses, consensus is not a vote). And whilst I may agree it's main purpose is not to spread fake news (I think it is just to make Jones lots of money, without caring how) I do think it knowingly and deliberately peddles conspiracy theories and fake news in order to drum up outrage that Jones can then con his "followers". So (in that respect) I think that it is a fake news site, as it pretends to be as news site, and knows what it publishes is fake.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that Infowars promotes conspiracy theories, just not that it is the entire function of the website. It is also conservative news site and it is not Wikipedia's job to explicitly say that Infowars is a 'conspiracy theories and fake news website'. I believe this constitutes a misrepresentation of Infowars. It might be worth reopening the discussion on the Alex Jones talk page. Oscar248 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No is is Wikipedias job to say what RS say. And RS say it is a fake news site. But if you wish to re-open the discusion (and provide RS that say it is not a fake news site) go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that the RS states that infowars is a 'fake news site'. However, it is important to note the agenda of all sources: The reliable ones would be very happy to see Infowars go out of business - the same can be said vice-versa. So we should be careful not to assume that all text from RS's are completely accurate and unbiased, with any misleading/weasel text changed or omitted for accuracy. It is possible to created misleading and biased text even through the sole use of reliable news organisations. Oscar248 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * and this is soapboxing, we do not second guess the motives of RS (nor their accuracy). If this is going to be your argument on b the talk page of the article I would advise against making it (or ever using it again on relation to any content).Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It is true though - distrust of 'reliable' news organisations are stubbornly low - this does not happen on its own. This occurs not just as a result if the agenda/bias of the news organisations, but also the institutional bias, where the news organisations believe they represent a neutral point of view when they don't. Wikipedia editors must not turn a blind eye to this. If such a bold claim had been put in the lead of the Alex Jones page 5 years ago it would have been removed in 5 minutes, despite the contents of Infowars being the same. Oscar248 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not trust, policy. If we do not have a policy on what is and is not an RS then we just end up with every Fringe idiot saying the moon is made of Green cheese or the earth is flat (or that Trump is a pumpkin). It is not a perfect system, but unless we say "all new media are not RS" (I have argued for just this) then we are stuck are we not (unless you want to allow "what I think is RS" as a a policy). If you disagree with the RS policy then take it to the notice boards. But until you get the policy changed policy is we go with RS (and not with out gun instinct of what RS should say).Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not arguing what is or is not a reliable source. I'm sure the vast majority of Wikipedia editors have that in common. It is however just not responsible to assume that every word from a reliable source is correct and fair (as demonstrated). Reliable sources have political leanings - in contrast with Wikipedia (for the most part). This leads to the distortion of the representation of all types of information. There must be a degree of critical thinking even when using reliable sources.
 * And I am sure that most of those arguing to say "Fake news site" can use the same argument about everything they edit. Who gets to decide if an RS's claim is reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The consensus of Wikipedians decide on the reliability of specific references. We cannot say that every word that comes out of established reliable sources is fair and accurate, so it should be scrutinized by the Wikipedia editors, as it was on the Alex Jones talk page. There was no clear consensus then, yet the overly bold words were put in. I do not believe BRD was fairly used then. Oscar248 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC) I fear some elements of text are turning into a popularity contest, where editors assert their opinion even when it is shared by a majority as fact, when in reality it is a misleading generalisation. For that reason, I would imagine this text in the article will stay as it is. Oscar248 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It's fake news 18 (17 if you exclude me) It is called fake new 6 Other 3 (4 if you include me) Now (as I have said) by one definition (it pretend to be a news site and is not) it is a "fake news site". Now why does your opinion trump mine (by the way that was rhetorical, this is not going anywhere and I am bowing out now with a warning. The road you are traveling leads to only one place. If you are not willing to obey policy and accept things like the RS policy then you are going to end up with a block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Oscar248 (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sean Hannity. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I did not instigate the edit war on the page, I changed the text to keep the text as neutral as possible, but the text was reverted almost straight away without very much explanation. I am not here to vandalise or show people in a positive light, just to remove the weasel words and keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible. With the polarisation and distrust of news organisations, it is vital that Wikipedia keeps as much away as possible from bias.
 * Please see WP:BRD. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

BRD can be used, but when it was removed there was no explanation of why my edit was not an improvement. Oscar248 (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes people do watch controversial pages like Hawks, and "they did it first" is not a justification for edit Waring. It is also hard to see why calling a deliberate misrepresentation of what someone said (and which at least one of those involved apologized for, and fox had to alter) a smear is incorrect. Yes BRD can be used, it however is not a coverall to justify any action. It was down to you to justofy the alteration, not down to others to explain why they did not agree.
 * "How to proceed
 * Discover the Very Interested Persons (VIP), and reach a compromise or consensus with each, one by one.
 * Be bold, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, :rearranging, adding or removing information.
 * Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a VIP.
 * Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a :consensus. Apply the consensus. When reverts have stopped and parties all agree, you are done."
 * It makes it clear that you make an edit then if it is reverted YOU start the discussion, after your edit was reverted, did you do this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have added a new section on the Sean Hannity talk page, asking for opinions. I will leave the page for now and wait for feedback. I justified the alteration in the edit summary and explained why I thought it was necessary for the neutral point of view. I appreciate that editors have different viewpoints regarding the wording, therefore I highly doubt that consensus will be achieved. My opinion however is stated on the Sean Hannity talk page. Oscar248 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that Sean Hannity's article is covered by both the discretionary sanctions mentioned above. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though I agree with your last edit, it was undone and you have made no effort to ask why it was undone. If your edits are undone ask on the talk page why, do not revert.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As stated in BRD, I have left a message on the talk page of the editor who reverted my edit offering an explanation of why I made the contribution. In the meantime I have reverted it back to how I left it. Additionally, BRD is an optional procedure. Wikipedia needs to be free of weasel words! Oscar248 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You were correct to discus it (though I would point out I had already started a discussion on it on the articles talk page). But BRD makes it clear you do not revert to your preferred option until you have reached agreement with any VIP's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alex Gurteen
Hi, I'm Slatersteven. Oscar248, thanks for creating Alex Gurteen!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has no references at this time. No evidence of any notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex Gurteen
Hi Oscar248. I'd like to ask if the article you created, Alex Gurteen, is about you or somebody you know personally. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This states that (hypothetically) I would be strongly discouraged from editing an article which I am the subject of. However, COI does not ban this. Bearing this in mind, all editors should be accounted for through the content they create, not due to the identity of the individual. Oscar248 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It also says Editors with a COI should disclose any COI when involved with affected articles, do you have a COI?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PSCOI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No conflict of interest in my opinion, I try to make sure the text is as neutral as possible, just stating the facts, with informative content. Oscar248 (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alex Gurteen


The article Alex Gurteen has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Self-authored article about non-notable person."

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 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 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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex Gurteen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Gurteen 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 Articles for deletion/Alex Gurteen 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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Third person
You really do need to stop the pretense you are not Alex, if you had gone through proper channels the article would still have been deleted but you would have got a lot more help then you have by your continued acting as if you are not Alex. It is not doing you ant favours and is costing you a lot of sympathy. I would suggest accepting that you are not notable for winning one race (and coming up to third in others) and move on.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not winning one race, it is winning the season's league championship (until recently this was considered notable according to WP:NAFD Performing at a consistently high level for many years increases notability. The page is still live and I am confident that the page will stay in the long term. Oscar248 (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alex Gurteen


A tag has been placed on Alex Gurteen 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 a real person or group of people, 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 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. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), 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. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * As you have continued making the disputed edit after this warning, I have reported you at the edit warring noticeboard for violating the three revert rule. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. only (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Block
I will not contest the block due the short duration but it is sad to see such a severe misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. I am also outraged that Ambrose2015 has been blocked so soon after joining Wikipedia on the false premise of a sockpuppet, just because they happen to agree with some of my statements. I suppose silencing editors viewpoints is a very clever way of achieving consensus against Alex Gurteen. Oscar248 (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In what way was this a "severe misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy"? You clearly added the information to the notability page 4 times after it was initially removed by another user.  This is a violation of our 3 revert rule and is a justifiable block.  only (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The fourth edit was an attempt to make a compromise through merging the text into a new section. This did not break the three revert rule. Therefore, Wikipedia policy was misinterpreted. Oscar248 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No...you needed to gain consensus from the talk page discussion, not just add it back in a different form under the guise of "compromise". No policy has been misinterpreted by me; it seems you may be misunderstanding the policy, though.  only (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in your capacity as an administrator, could I suggest you unblock Ambrose2015 (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC they have got nothing to do with me and it is deeply unfair on the new editor who happened to disagree with the other editors. Oscar248 (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ambrose2015 is certainly welcome to post an unblock request for other admins to review. However, the fact that they showed up 15 minutes after your last edit yesterday, and immediately involved themselves in the discussion about you and your article is not likely going to gain them an unblock.  We've seen this kind of thing happen plenty of times over the years so it's not going to pull one over on us. only (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ambrose 2015 did make a request, contesting the block. As he did nothing wrong, he should be unblocked without hesitation. Oscar248 (talk) 13:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Let us assume for a moment that you are wrong and Ambrose is a sock. If this is so arguing the toss about it will get you a block also. Maybe a check buster is need to clear this up.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No sock, I sometimes edit at the library (as I am now) so my ip changes around. Oscar248 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep running!
As you aspire to be a notable athlete: train relentlessly, associate with like-minded people (often your rivals), compete often, always go for the win! Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, enjoying the training and the running is going better than ever! I am hoping to run the London Marathon in a few years, but even with the hard work it is going to feel very challenging to top my victory at the East Surrey League Oscar248 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 continued
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit at Alexander. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by 'vandalism', this edit was in good faith. I do not believe saying Gurteen is the most famous, but he in my view is a clear second. Alex Jones should be in third. Oscar248 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop talking about yourself in the third person. You are Alex Gurteen by your own admission. Please cease any edits in regards to yourself per WP:COI, of which you have already been notified and participated on the Noticeboard. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I only talk in the third person and will continue to so I am not discriminated against based on my identity. I just want to be treated like all the other editors. There are more references that exist of me which I will find. Also, lets examine the word 'notable' more closely. The word means a 'subject which can be noted'. It does not mean I have been noted. My unique variety of notable achievements means my page should clearly be kept. Oscar248 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alex Jones (radio host), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 - Indefinite block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. only (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Edits like this (adding yourself to a list of Alexanders), this reply at the AFD (the Sir-mix-a-lot stuff at the end), this reply (suggesting you're the second most famous Alexander in history], and this (inserting a link to your own article in the midst of another conversation] show that you're not here to help build the encyclopedia. In fact, it appears to be trolling at this point.  only (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC


 * But your suggested condition, that you "do not edit disruptively again" is a condition that everyone always works under and so is meaningless as an unblock condition. I'm also concerned that you already had a 24 hour block, but that just did not get through to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your concerns are understandable considering the high number of bad faith edits. However, I strongly believe my intention is not meaningless as it can be enforced very promptly if unconstructive edits are made. I have no intention to edit in bad faith again, I want to use logical arguments and follow Wikipedia policy to improve and expand its content. This is a wake up call for me and I will apologise to the editors whose time has been wasted. Oscar248 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This may be part of the problem. Wikipedia is not based upon logical arguments, but verifiable ones made in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a court of law where rhetoric can win the day. The only way I can see the block being lifted is if you agree to not make any alterations to article space without first gaining consensus on talk pages, and that is a very harsh restriction. At least for a WHILE.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Slatersteven. Firstly, I would like to apologise for wasting your time over the last week. I would be happy to follow those terms to show that I am editing in good faith, including productively particpating in discussions. Oscar248 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on my recent interactions with you and your immature responses, I highly recommend taking at least a one month break before making an unblock request. You wasted a lot of editors' time and once you were unblocked the first time, you immediately made vandalism your apparent top priority. Yosemiter (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I know I carried on the trolling/vandalism after the 24 hour block, but the indefinite block has highlighted the severity of my actions. In contrast to the previous block, I have apologised for my actions and signalled my intention to constructively contribute to wikipedia. This block is no longer neccesary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Oscar248 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ( recent changes patroller ) Patience to walk away for a month and then come back might be extremely worthy. Unless you do not want to get unblocked. ! dave  17:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you follow Dlohcierekim's excellent suggestion of spending a month away from Wikipedia (during which time I suggest you do other things that you enjoy), and come back refreshed and ready to contribute constructively. It's a better offer than I thought you were likely to get, and I think you should snap it up. (And the comment by someone who is not called Dave is a wise one.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A big part of editing constructively, especially when proposing to redeem oneself after a block, is knowing when to drop the stick. You don't quite seem to have understood that up to this point.  General Ization Talk  17:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the offer - I will agree to it and then ask to be unblocked. In the meantime, can I edit just my userpage? Oscar248 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Stuff me with green apples! You have to totally walk away for a month, it really is not that hard to understated. All this does is reinforce the impression you are just going to "Lawyer" what ever restrictions are imposed upon you and try and find loop holes. We really are not as stupid as you seem to think we are.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not technically possible to enable you to edit anything other than this talk page while blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will walk away for one month. Oscar248 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to be clear, because I'm not 100% sure this has gotten through in the conversation here: in a month, you can request an unblock, but that is in no way a guarantee that you will be unblocked at that time. It's possible at that time that the reviewing admins will want to require a standard offer of 6 months, or something else.  only (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Oscar248 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Note that since he was told "come back in a month and we'll see," Oscar248 has been editing with which has now also been blocked indefinitely. only (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Really?, Why would you even think of doing this, do you really think we are this dumb?

Sorry but I now see no justification for any unblock. You were given more then a decent chance, and you just spat in our faces.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a range block may be in order as I am suspicious this user may have other accounts such as Raspberry Blood.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to edit Wikipedia again. I made clear who I was - had I not have done this I would still be unblocked. I would like to edit constructively and I am asking for a period of probation where all my edits are monitored. I am truly sorry for all the time I had wasted and want to make it up by contributing to the encyclopedia. By all means ban account creation as I have no more sock puppets but don't range block as my Dad is an experienced contributor. Oscar248 (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You were not even capable of not breaking the rules for 4 days. As I am sure everyone else here now thinks you will get another block within a week of being unblocked I see no reason to waste an admins time. If you had been really sorry about wasting everyone's time you would not have wasted more of it like this. And )top be frank and just a little insulting) none of your edits have been so great (nor is your academic credentials so amazing) that I see anyone wanting to take the time to check every edit you make. You are not so fantastic we need to put in any effort to include your input. If you have not done this (by the way) you might have been unblocked after the period stated, now you will not be unblocked. As to your dad, well maybe admins should contact him and explain the situation. But I for one do not think his interests should take precedent over the (I think very high) likelihood you will block evade again and just be disruptive. Feel free to ask him to contact me if you wish.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not an experienced editor, I want to learn more about editing as Wikipedia has been such an benefit to me over the years due to contributors such as yourself. The trolling is finished for good. I don't think a permanent ban is fair or needed over one week of unacceptable behaviour. I fully agree that my Dad's account should have no leeway over this, I just don't want him to be blocked because of my mistakes. Oscar248 (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then whatever happens do not create any more accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We've had enough trolling and time wasting from you, so I've revoked talk page access. Further appeals may be made via WP:UTRS, but I strongly suggest you take a long while off with no more sockpuppeting before you attempt it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jesus do you not learn?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A2043 road moved to draftspace
Thanks for creating A2043 road. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Reading Beans (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I thought that source would help establish notability. I can look for more but I doubt I will find many. It is quite a major route and the page existed for many years London2024 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess the creator can't help me! London2024 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)