Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{unblock reviewed|1=i think my behavior was reasonable when confronted by unreasonable and uncivil editors|decline=I don't. Further unblock requests will result in protection of this page. <b>] ]</b> 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)}}
{{unblock reviewed|1=i think my behavior was reasonable when confronted by unreasonable and uncivil editors|decline=I don't. Further unblock requests will result in protection of this page. <b>] ]</b> 18:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)}}
== ] ==
I reverted your edit removing my new text. I don't like to make a revert restoring text, but your revert was so obviously incorrect that I've allowed myself one such revert. I thought, first, of asking you to revert yourself, because I think you really were making a simple mistake. You challenged text with a cn tag, then I changed the text to something new that I thought would not need a cn tag, and ''then you restored the very text that you had objected to.'' This starts to look like a ] violation, I hope that's not the case, that it was simply an oversight. Please do not remove my edit except to replace it with something better. If you think the new text needs a cn tag, then the proper thing to do would have been to add it, not revert. That would not have been edit warring, it would have been adding a new tag to new text, allegedly unsourced and allegedly needing a source. Be careful. Once blocked, your actions will be subjected, typically, to higher scrutiny. It's actually not fair, but that's the way it is. Word to the wise.... --] (]) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Misplaced Pages:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Misplaced Pages related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.
Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thanks. -- Solipsist05:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know which link you are referring to, but if I added a link I thought it was relevant to the subject in question. I have nothing to sell and no wish to advertise. If i knew which link you were referring to it would help me to see my mistake. Oxyman4200:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I shouldn't worry about it too much. From the look of it, it was the links you were adding for articles on www.closertogod.net, drawing improbable comparisons with Masonic symbols. If you are not associated with closertogod.net, then it probably wasn't technically spam linking. Nevertheless, if you are finding websites that discuss some subject, then looking for articles to add them to - that's a bad idea. Instead, its better to know a subject well, then edit that article and find the one or two most appropriate web sites for that subject. Or indeed not add external links at all - after all Misplaced Pages doesn't really want any external links. We really want content inside the encyclopedia. -- Solipsist06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Salvagesquad.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Salvagesquad.JPG. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 04:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Photo008.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Photo008.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi Oxyman42. While looking into the situation at Inventions in the Islamic world I noticed User:Oxyman and User:79.68.135.210 also made edits on the article. Oxyman's name is very similar to yours and edits on similar articles. If this is indeed yourself then take a look at Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppet#Alternative_account_notification and follow the instructions. It might be as well if the other account is not yourself, to inform a checkuser that the other account is not yourself in order to avoid potential future problems. The IP account made a revert edit which could be seen as your account avoiding the three revert rule. As you know, it's bad enough to edit war to the third degree, but it's considered even worse to mask that third degree revert by using a sock puppet account. Taking a quick look at your talk page I see you have previously used a sock puppet and then deleted the information. My inclination now is to report this situation in order to ensure transparency and trust. I'd be interested to hear what you say before I do that, however I may go ahead and report within the next hour if I don't get an immediate response. SilkTork *13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the {{POV}} tag you placed on this category. I could not dertermine what it was you were disputing and it is not really the right tag to be using for categories in any event. You might want to take the category to WP:CFD if you believe it needs to be mergered or renamed. If your concerns was over a particular article in the category you should tag the article rather than the category. Maybe {{Category relevant?}} or {{Checkcategory}} would be more in line with your concerns if that is the problem. Let me know if you need any help figuring it all out.--BirgitteSB17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should first take Islamic science to WP:RM. If all goes well there ask the closing admin if they would feel comfortable moving the categories to an equvilent name as non-contentious. Or if you can get a favorable move for that page, I am willing to setup all the CFD's once I have the consensus name to link to. I don't think the categories will recieve support for a move as long as Islamic science exists as the main article. I am not sure if this exactly a POV issue although I do understand your concern over this not being the most accurate name.--BirgitteSB21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of London's transport system.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
Starting some new articles? Our Manual of style outlines some things to include. The project also provides templates to help you make the perfect article.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department has rated the quality of every London transport article in Misplaced Pages.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
Hi there Oxyman42. I have been asked to take a look at escalating tensions on the talk page for Inventions in the Islamic World. I was troubled by a few of your edits, and I would like to discuss this.
First and foremost, I want to say that I agree with you that the article has major problems. It is way too long, it is completely unsourced, many of the claims are dubious, and the tone is generally very WP:PEACOCKy. There are editors who are working on the problem, such as User:Frotz, who has been removing some of the more outlandish claims. Over time, hopefully this article can be repaired, because you are correct that in it's current state, it is not a great article.
That said, some of the comments you have made on the Talk page are inappropriate, and actually serve to hinder your cause rather than to help improve the article. For instance, your sarcastic assertion here that Muslims "developed, even if they didn't invent" suicide bombing (which is not only false, but is an unfair generalization, and borders on ethnic stereotyping).
Another example is here where you assert that any of Frotz's improvements to the article will be immediately removed because of some sort of secret organization within WP:ISLAM. First of all, your premise is false -- Frotz's edits have not been reverted, because he is actually improving the article rather than attacking Islam (see below). Secondly, allegations of a conspiracy never help your case. (You might want to take a look at this essay, where a user gives his thoughts on this) It is a monumental assumption of bad faith to suggest that other editors changes are driven by a hidden agenda.
This is all particularly frustrating, because you have grossly misrepresented the edits that were reverted. Frotz's edits are not being reverted because he is addressing the problems with the article, by removing dubious claims and tidying it up. I hate to drag out an old edit from January, but I think this edit is representative of the quality of edits you have been contributing to the article. "o Muslim has contributed to society since the Golden Age"? Are you serious, you think this is a factually correct, verifiable, neutral addition to the article??? You should not be surprised that such attacks are reverted.
In any case, your continued comments at Talk:Inventions in the Islamic world are not helpful, and they only make things more difficult for legitimate editors like Frotz to work on the egregious problems with this article. Honestly, if I were you, I would refrain from commenting on a topic that you have such strong emotional feelings about. If you must comment, then please make sure your tone is more measured and that you do not resort to sweeping generalizations, sarcasm, or allegations of a conspiracy. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the agenda of WP:Islam is open and evident even in it's name rather than hidden
Underground pics
Hi Oxyman,
I see that you and I have whittled down the list of stations lacking any images to a bare five. Do you have any plans to do any of the remainder? I actually took some pics of Northwick Park on Wednesday before I saw you had uploaded your pics the previous evening! Anyway that station and neighbouring Kenton have a special place in my heart because way back in 1994 when I first went to Uni they were the first stations at the edge of Travelcard Zone 4 that I visited (apart from my base, Newbury Park). But back then I lacked a camera of any kind, let alone digital! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice pics of the stations you visited at the weekend. This morning I took some pics of West Ruislip, South Ruislip and Northolt (and Ruislip Gardens roundel only). However I'm not sure of the adverse weather conditions affected any of them, but I will upload them tonight (South Ruislip Chiltern Rail platforms were taken during a torrential downpour - so not too hopeful about these!). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I actually went back to retake some of the pics I took earlier that day but then the complicating factor was the low sun! Yes there's still a lot of ticks left to insert on the Current Stations Images list. I have been adding to the list steadily. I also like your pics too. I notice you use a far higher resolution than me, I chose 1600 x 1200 since that seems a reasonable size for computer monitors. Generally I aim to take surface and sub-surface station platforms looking up and down, the platform signage, and the exterior. Tube stations at least one tunnel, maybe both, depends how crowded they are! Again without crowing too loudly, it is my aim is to photo all the stations for my own collection (around 80 at last count), but we'll see how it goes. As a side project now I'm back in London I'm also trying to re-enact my travels as a student and take in all the TfL and mainline routes within Zone 4. Well that's my prepaid Oyster, when I feel like splashing out on ticket extensions, I'll expand to Zone 6 (already done West Ruislip tube!). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:DICK
I have no idea why you are being such a dick about this. Frankly, I am right, but I am not going to spend time to go hunting for multiple sources to support the assertions of something so trivial and obvious that is just common sense if you had half a clue about the subject matter you are disputing, because for god knows what reason, you obviously seem to think this claim is a major controversial fact. Your removal of the image helps no-one and worsens the article, but I have no wish to be blocked over such a lame issue. Well done. Have a barnstar. Your escalation of this issue into wikilwayering to make a point is frankly ridiculous. Go and read the relevant policy, it is not wikipedia's policy to source all content, you have to have a brain about it and exercise some common sense, something you clearly lack. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems common sense to me that the article should picture subjects relevent to the subject it covers, frankly I can't see why you are being such a dick about this and obviously I can't see how you are right!
It was explained in plain English, nobody but a disruptive edit warrior could fail to see how the image relates to the article subject. Like I said, you've helped no-one here by your wikilawyering, and done nothing except inflated your own ego. You've made understanding the article even harder to the layman, although by your actions, I class you as one of the very people that photograph was included for. How stupidly ironic. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The language used to describe the assertions you make is not in question. the arguments you use seem to be very weak "in your experience" etc I have come across many types of buses mistaken as RM's I can't see why an RT type must be pictured and not say a Leyland Titan
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Routemaster. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mfield (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
minkythecat should discus properly why a non relevent picture MUST be included rather then turn to vandalism as he is doing, there are many buses confused as routemasters for example or the Leyland Titan do we need to picture these images just to say that they are confused with routemasters yet are not routemasters? there is already an internal link to the RT type and the layland tytan and I can't see why this dosn't surfice aparently an RT type must be included because in some people experience they are more often confused then other types of bus, this is obviously an unsourced statement the rule I refer to is the rule about sourceing statements a well known rule I thought Oxyman42 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I am not "the sole person to have gone over 3RR" thats your opinionj as you have somehow not looked atyour actions Oxyman42 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Very simple, Oxyman. 3RR is a bright line, don't cross it unless you have very, very good reason (and are willing to be blocked until it is sorted out). I came to see your block when I looked at another user's page, who had been reverting you, and who was also blocked. The admin is acting properly by blocking edit warriors, even if they are "right," for determining who is right and wrong can take far more time than an administrator can spare. Basically, the cop comes into a bar, and people are fighting. Is it his job to figure out who was right and who was wrong? No, he tells them to stop, they don't stop, he arrests them. If there is some kind of emergency, then, sure. Break 3RR. But you may well be blocked, promptly, until the matter is settled, in which case, if your reason was strong enough, you'd be exonerated and unblocked. But is an inappropriate (possibly) but mostly harmless (probably) image of a bus worth the disruption of edit warring, is it an "emergency?" I don't think so. Find consensus in Talk. If there isn't enough participation there to find rough consensus, there are further procedures. Don't be the sole defender of an article, beyond minor defense. Ask for help if you need it. If it comes to edit warring, go to Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents and put up a notice for admin attention. Don't edit war and don't let others edit war; but you don't stop edit warring by edit warring. You can also ask for article protection, but, notice, there is no guarantee what state the article will be protected in. However, if you can show consensus in Talk that the article should be changed, you should be able to get an admin to change a protected article for you. Eventually, the protection will expire.
In addition, you and the other editor were both uncivil, and that, alone, could have resulted in a block as well. I'm not going to get into who did it first. Nor do I think either of you should be sanctioned for it, if you can realize that it was a mistake. I'm sorry that you had to find this out the hard way, but you were warned about 3RR at 19:00 (when you had hit, I think, 6RR) made other edits and so presumably saw the warning that you had messages, and then reverted again at 19:11 and were blocked. But you already knew that 3RR was prohibited. My advice: apologize, promise you won't do it again. And don't do it again. Ask for unblock on that basis, not on arguing about content or some supposed unfairness. 3RR is about behavior, not content. There are better ways. And did I mention, don't edit war? --Abd (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I can't see why I have to consider so called warnings (or more like threats) about breaking 3RR rule as credible when the hypocritical and uncivil editors doing the warning were completely ignoring the rule themselves, anyone in my position facing bullies that think they owned the article would do the same
Decline reason:
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because others were breaking the rules doesn't mean you also weren't. Focus on your own behavior; again, see WP:GAB. Mangojuice18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I reverted your edit removing my new text. I don't like to make a revert restoring text, but your revert was so obviously incorrect that I've allowed myself one such revert. I thought, first, of asking you to revert yourself, because I think you really were making a simple mistake. You challenged text with a cn tag, then I changed the text to something new that I thought would not need a cn tag, and then you restored the very text that you had objected to. This starts to look like a WP:POINT violation, I hope that's not the case, that it was simply an oversight. Please do not remove my edit except to replace it with something better. If you think the new text needs a cn tag, then the proper thing to do would have been to add it, not revert. That would not have been edit warring, it would have been adding a new tag to new text, allegedly unsourced and allegedly needing a source. Be careful. Once blocked, your actions will be subjected, typically, to higher scrutiny. It's actually not fair, but that's the way it is. Word to the wise.... --Abd (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Routemaster. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mfield (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
