User talk:Oxfordwang

Welcome
Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Mr Radio Guy !!! 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Invitation
 Darren 23 Edits 01:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Oxfordwang, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 08:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not an external link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shadowstalker299 Secretlondon (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollback etc
Thank you for reverting your edits. Rollback is an easy click--please don't be too hasty. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Snotty templates and false accusations
You accuse me of "unexplained removal of content". Under no circumstances should I have to do this but seeing as you're stupid, I'll explain it to you. I explained all of my edits. In fact, I made several edits rather than just one, the better to explain what I was doing in the edit summaries. Here are my explanations again, seeing as you moronically ignored them and left me a snotty template asking me to leave edit summaries:


 * ‎Regional variations: rm irrelevant definition and irrelevant claim about property.
 * ‎Other river islands: Completely arbitrary and pointless. Removed.
 * ‎Notable river islands: Purely POV. No hope of neutral criteria for what should be included and what should not.

If you can't be bothered to look at an edit before reverting, don't revert. If you can't be bothered to check whether someone left an edit summary before patronisingly templating their talk page to suggest that they do, then don't patronisingly template any talk pages. And if you have a shred of decency, then apologise for your rude and insulting behaviour. 201.214.27.156 (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, 201, you have made your point--no need to insult. You were right and Oxfordwang was wrong, but this word choice won't convince them that they need to apologize. Oxfordwang, I hope this and other messages have indicated to you that rollback is to be used with care; that one should probably look at the recent history before pulling the trigger; and that one should be very, very careful with slapping templates on pages. Most of all, do not think that all IP editors are the same. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove CSD?
Hey, could you explain in the edit summary why you removed my CSD template with this edit? Thanks! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My bad, didn't see conflicting edit, edited from my edit. Oxfordwang (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem! :) --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pro-bending


The article Pro-bending has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non notable sport. Very limited amount of sources come up, most just give brief mentions of the term.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Tinton5 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed CSD: Ali Serhat Baran
I have removed the G7 speedy tag you placed on Ali Serhat Baran. Please see the article talk page for a full explanation. Cheers! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sno Isle
If you follow the red link File:Sno_Isle_Logo.gif you can see the image was deleted as an invalid fair use claim. All fair use images must be used - if they aren't used then they get deleted. See WP:CSD QU TalkQu 21:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LondonBridge444
Just to let you know that I have just reported User:LondonBridge444 for editing warring due to their breach of 3RR.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot is undoing changes to an article which uses the same story/source as before
Hi OxfordWang (not often I get to call anybody by that name!). I have updated the section on Scoot, listing its launch dates as per an article at Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/new-scoot-airline-to-launch-singapore-sydney-flights-on-june-4) but the bot has undone these. This site was the source for the previous dates, so it was obviously 'approved' then, but Scoot has now brought forward its launch date so I am trying to keep Wikipedia accurate with this, but the bot keeps undoing my changes. Can that be fixed somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.210.203.173 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

National varities of English??
Recently, you criticized one of my edits for altering the national variety of English to another, and referred me to the Wikipedia manual of style's entry on the matter. I'm really not certain how this was relevant, given that I am an American editor, living in America, editing an article about an American TV show, in American English, and even if I weren't tense changes are not germane to the issue of dialect change within Wikipedia's manual of style policy. Perhaps you meant to criticize for writing plot elements in the past tense, in violation of WP:INUNIVERSE; but I argue that this change was justified, given that the event was no longer factual true within the context of the show (and this was even mentioned later in the article itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.80.29 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pro-bending


The article Pro-bending has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unexpanded by author in 7 days, describes a fictional sport in real world context, wholly incomplete.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. MarkBurberry32 &#124; talk 16:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Risen 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risen_2:_Dark_Waters before rolling back anything and acting like a know it all twat atleast make sure it is vandalisam and not an attempt to actually fix someones blunder in a constructive way, the original article calls on the (incorrect) assumption the game follows the same gameplay system as the earlier risen and or gothic games > IT DOES NOT,

Why is it easier to pull teeth then fix a simple mistake on this wiki? (and no I do not wish to register nor be part of your community just trying to alter the article to actually represent the game in a true fashion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.54.203 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Peeta: Relationship with Katniss
Heyy-- I've seen you have been putting Peeta as Katniss' spouse. They never had a real relationship, you know. If you feel you must argue, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Grasch2014 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for "Hunting you down" :P Just a little pet peeve! Grasch2014 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you did there. Oxfordwang (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please help
Hello there,

A user has been repeatedly vandalising the page Shaikh_Haitham_al-Haddad. I have tried warning multiple times but they have gone on to abuse me and ignore such warning. I'm new to all of this. Could you help? Blix1900 (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reported to administration. He should be blocked soon. Oxfordwang (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Database reports
Sorry about that, I was testing a reported bug and wasn't logged in :S --Catrope (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi
I am reverting vandalism-a user puts German names in articles about modern Polish government leaders and current UEFA EURO2012.


 * Still, you should use the talk page. Oxfordwang (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote ⇒ ⇒  "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."  ⇒⇒  The result is binding on all parties. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. The IP obviously does not agree with the result of the vote - and that's ok - however, one should accept the vote of the majority. That's the priciple of something called "Democracy" --IIIraute (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is used in historic articles not modern articles about modern events. Lech Walesa or Euro2012 stadiums share no history with Germany and German names are not used commonly used in their context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.220.145 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ...as per Gdansk-vote - this applies to both before and after 1945 → see:. But I agree, please discuss at Talk:Donald Tusk.--IIIraute (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For this discussion, I have no knowledge of the actual topic. I'm just working with 3RR policy. I think it would be more relevant for this discussion to be placed on Talk:Donald Tusk. Oxfordwang (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually IIIraute is just edit warring (across several articles) plain and simple. He appears to think that he has found a loophole which makes him, but not others, exempt from the usual 3RR policy. This is nothing but just trying to game the system. No other editor so far has agreed with his highly idosyncratic and self serving interpretation of the Danzig/Gdansk vote, and several have explicitly disagreed with him. See for example comments here. See also my comments here. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and I have *never* seen anyone try to apply the G/D vote in this way - at least not without them getting quickly ban-hammered. Volunteer Marek 19:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ha,ha,ha... My oh my! must you feel threatened... so who are the "numerous" (two) editors - the ones that didn't get their way at the vote. Why don't you explain to all of us (Talk:Donald Tusk) what the following sentences do mean: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). This applies to both before and after 1945". @ Oxfordwang: sorry for this last edit! --IIIraute (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Myself, User Filelakeshoe, User 86.144.220.145 above obviously, User Skoranka, and User Piotrus, just from what I've noticed. You're edit waring across a dozen articles, reverting several editors, being rude and incivil in the process and at the same time have the nerve to claim some kind of special exemption from WP:EDIT WAR based on your own self serving interpretation of the Gdansk/Danzig vote (and like I said, it has *never* been interpreted the way you claim).
 * At the same time you're refusing to engage in discussion, to bring the matter up to the Gdansk/Danzig talk page and are generally being rude (with taunts like "ha,ha,ha... My oh my! must you feel threatened" above) and when someone brings up the problems with your behavior you spam them with the copy-pasted Gdansk/Danzig notice. Volunteer Marek 23:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal?
Hello. Could you please explain this? I am truly puzzled. There is nothing unexplained about my edit. Every edit summary has been explained and there is a discussion on the talk page that everyone seems to be ignoring. 92.36.173.254 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "unexplained" doesn't work too well. However, neither you nor the person have discussed the issue. I saw your report on Administrator's noticeboard, but I don't think that a confirmed user would simply ignore the discussion. Also, your removal of the section is still against 3RR, as neither side is clearly right here, and neither side is clearly vandalistic.


 * Mother of god. This is probably one reason Huggle doesn't work well in all cases. It only shows what you removed, showing nothing about the talk page or things at the bottom of the page. I'll remove my warns now. Oxfordwang (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. I hope all of this will end well. 92.36.173.254 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

inapproprate external link
Why do you consider it an inappropriate external link?

I just fixed the link, which name reference existed and was removed from an other section.

And if there is a good reason, why did you not undo just this link? 79.182.215.205 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Great Wagner Conductors
You object to my inserting references to Jonathan Brown's new book on Great Wagner Conductors on the basis that this is advertising or soapboxing. I wholeheartedly support the Wikipedia policy on advertising, but my intention in inserting the references to this book was to enrich the pages concerned. It is a serious, scholarly book, with separate extensively researched chapters for 23 Wagner conductors and a discography for each one, some of whom (viz. Bodanzky, Coates) have no monograph written about them at all, hence the book is of importance to anyone interested in those people. But even for the more general reader on Wagner conductors, Brown's book is precisely the sort of reference that a Wikipedia reader would like to find in the bibliography/references/further reading sections of the webpages of the 23 conductors and related pages, and I would respectfully ask you to reconsider. The structure of the webpages differs, in some cases (Wagner's own page being a case in point) the heading is 'other sources', and a new book is not strictly a source that has been used, but this occurs under a higher level heading 'Sources and further reading', and the insertion is certainly relevant as an item for further reading.78.105.55.142 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably get bored soon...
Thanks for keeping up the reverting... I had a whole spell of this yesterday when no admins were around for hours. Gets boring after a while! QU TalkQu 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I was under the impression that you were an admin, so the lack of a block was kind of... odd in my mind. Oxfordwang (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not here I'm not... I'm an admin on Wikibooks. No time to do both! QU TalkQu 21:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, when we're not going back and forth claiming Huggle flags, do you do reviewing? Oxfordwang (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not certain what you mean as "reviewing" has lots of different meanings here. I tend to wander around doing bits and pieces. This week I've done some work on possible copyright problems, some typo fixing, some general clean-up using AWB on the new pages queue and quite a lot of anti-vandal work with Huggle. The other area I look at is articles that have been abandoned and are in a poor state and try and rescue them (Engineered bamboo is one I found, for example, in the article incubator). Basically I do something until I get bored, then move on. QU TalkQu 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reviewing, as in WP:AfC. You do so much more than I do.. Everything I do is running automated stuff. Oxfordwang (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did loads of AfC stuff back in 2006 but it was such a drudge after a while. 100 articles reviewed for each one that made it through. Back then we didn't have the tools or templates that exist now which made it harder. I do occasionally look at requested articles as that can be a good source of ideas for something to write (that's where I found Control self-assessment to write). Need to be careful though that it doesn't already exist under a different name. It's a lonely job writing articles in the less popular fields - nobody else contributes, the Wikiprojects are inactive and probably very few people read them so it is hard to get motivated. The shame of the vandalism is the time it wastes of active contributors - imagine if all 1400 admins and the 2000 active vandal fighters spent all their time writing and expanding content instead and doing it in a collaborative way instead of warring over different POVs. That would be so much more fun. A dream of course, it'll never happen QU TalkQu 21:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I have a shared IP, someone else has been making changes to random pages. Im not sure who, but i'll see if i can find out. Sorry about that.

Also, i wasn't sure where i was supposed to contact you, so.. i hope this is the right place.


 * I'd recommend making an account for yourself to avoid having problems like this. Oxfordwang (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

April 2013
Can you stop threatening me? It looks like you're reverting my edits within seconds without even looking at the text. 82.153.101.160 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I set the article back to your revision. Sorry about that. Oxfordwang (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationaaaa
Thanks for clearing up the edits of a problematic contributor. You may be interested in this SPI case - Sockpuppet investigations/Imaginationaaaa --Biker Biker (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, just helping out. Oxfordwang (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

161.142.32.170
[HELLO Oxfordwang: I was the one who made the changes about whatWikipedia has to say about Somalilad. This is because, Somaliland though not yet recognized is an existing country which has been a British protectorate. It united with Somalia in 1960, and regained its lost independence in 1991. That is the way it is known to the world and the Wikipedia has to say that. Thanks. Sorry if i put my feedback in the wrong place] - Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.32.170 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although this may be true, saying things such as "Is a country that deserves to be recognized" breaks many wikipedia policies, such as NPOV.

Don't patronise me.
My edit was constructive. if you search on the internet using you linux thing, you will find media players for linux that have those names. i linked the pages to make it look pretty, so the links point elsewhere, but I can pretty much guarantee the bits of free linuxy software exist, complete with tux the penguin branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.231.80 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Not constructive"
Hey douchebag, the beauty of a free encyclopedia is that it doesn't matter if the information is "Constructive" or not (Which by the way is a subjective word and I doubt that you are the end all be all guardian of knowledge) as long as the information is true. The edit I made was accurate. Barbara Corcoran made her money by selling real estate in the hottest real estate market in the world which does not take talent. That's like saying it would be difficult to sell water in the desert. Oxfordwang, please pull your head out of your ass, and then go take a lesson from David Carradine, and fuck yourself to death.

Peg Entwistle
Thank you for correcting the vandalism on her article! 169.232.212.14 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

hi Oxfordwang
thank you for your advice and next time i will be careful..

Oxfordwang
Your reversal of my edit on the Derek Hough page was inappropriate and incorrect. You do not make plurals of proper names by adding an apostrophe; the plural meaning "members of the Ballas family" is "Ballases". I am going to change it back and hope you have the grace to look it up and then let it go.

Against Oxfordwang who censorships this page
The beauty of wiki is that it is for everyone, not just for you alone. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to delete add ons by other people, and your behavior is not only despicable, it is territorial. Most of what is on the page is controversial and not representative for what an entry on macroevolution should be. If you are yourself unfamiliar enough with the subject, you should stay clear of it. Wiki is not a blog where you merely display what is to your likings, what you do on this cite, and what I find out from the comments from other people above me, is nothing less than censorship. we live in a free world and in a democracy. If you can't handle that and just want to use it for propaganda, you should open a blog. Wiki is not the space for you. Wiki is about people being freely able to share information on subjects they have knowledge on and that they want to share with other people all over the world. what happened in this case is that you provide a narrow shortsighted vision of what macroevolution is, you use it to your advantage to give a distorded, single-sided and narrow view, and you use nothing less but censorship. I added a book that has contributions by leading scholars in the field of macroevolution, and just who in the hell are you to think you have the right to eliminate reference to these expert scholars? Shame on you, shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * All you did was blank the page, and that is not proper protocol for contesting content. There's no propaganda here. If you want to challenge content, use the talk page, don't just delete the page. OxfordWang (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

against oxfordwang
well yes indeed, after you censcoring a valid info on macroevolution that I added, I indeed deleted the page, because if other points of view are not allowed, you are using wiki merely as propaganda, and this is not the place for it. Again, I added a book that has contributions by leading scholars in the field of macroevolution, and just who in the hell are you to think you have the right to eliminate reference to these expert scholars? Shame on you, shame on you!


 * Blanking the page is not the same as deleting it. There is a process on wikipedia called "Speedy Deletion". Please read up on it.

- I reported you to wiki, you great dictator! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MEOWCAT™️
Hello, would you like a prototype of the new and improved, MEOWCAT™️? We are handing out a cat for you.

Anyways, careful with the cat.

DIEHARD PET STORE

Over 200,000 branches in Wikipedia alone!

DIEHARD PET NO: 2018-001-A

Diehard Pet Store sends cats to various Wikipedians around the world. We use special WikiLove technology to give out cats. Please return cats to A diehard editor, and please send us the DIEHARD PET NO. so we can get the pet back.

A diehard editor (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC) 