User talk:Oxyman42

Poll options on Fred Dibnah's birthplace

I've started a poll on Talk:Fred Dibnah with four options for his birthplace area. As you've edited the main Fred Dibnah article, I'm letting you know about this Poll and the chance to vote one of the options. Cwb61 (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "BRUTE"

Hi Oxyman; I saw your question on the talk page of the British Rail Class 307 article regarding the meaning of "brute", which was on one of the picture captions. I have edited this to reflect that it is correctly referred to as a BRUTE, being an acronym of British Rail Universal Trolley Equipment. Hassocks5489 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Islamic science

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.--BirgitteSB 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--BirgitteSB 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:LT!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia.
Suggest an interesting London Transport fact for inclusion on the Did You Know? section of our portal.

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!

— From the members of WikiProject London Transport

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh BTW I added the "commonscat" thing to Northwick Park tube station, and I also forgot that I took an exterior view of Ruislip. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Routemaster

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)[reply]

Looking at the above, you are skating on thin ice. --Abd (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Abd (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Please work constructively with other editors and avoid repeatedly undoing their edits. There is no reason for not civilly discussing matters rather than reverting. Also, don't try to circumvent 3RR by logging out. Your editing privileges will resume in 48 hours. henrik•talk 06:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 "other editors" are greatest of buddies and have set me up one of them is stalking me and have ignored 3rr themselves. I didn't log in because of stalking by one editor. this is ganging up on me

I am not given time to explain

Oxyman, your understanding of what is going on isn't accurate. If there was stalking, or abuse by other editor(s), that's a separate matter and it can be dealt with. Looking at the contributions of someone who reverts you, and responding wherever it is relevant, is not stalking, however. Meanwhile, if you have evidence or arguments about the issues you raised with Routemaster, you may wait for your block to expire, or open up a section here on your Talk and present them, I'm watching this page and would take what I consider appropriate to Talk, pending. I assure you, your evidence and arguments on the topic are welcome. You clearly have extensive knowledge re London transport, which can be very helpful, but do not edit war. Further, do not attempt to avoid "stalking," i.e., observation of your edits, related to what you do with Oxyman42, by editing as IP. You can edit as IP, but then joining in and editing the same article or participating in the same process, as Oxyman42, and without disclosing it before being asked, may be considered abusive sock puppetry and you were properly blocked for violating 3RR on Routemaster.

Henrik should probably have used a standard block template which would give you instructions on how to appeal your block, should you wish to do that. You can see it at Template:Block, the essential part is this information:

If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}, changing the words "your reason here" to a clear explanation of why you feel you should be unblocked. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

If you wish the unblock request to be taken seriously, I recommend that you avoid blaming other editors in it, see, as recommended, WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Just explain your actions, if you think them justifiable, and, if you made any mistakes and will not repeat them, say so. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and if you can convince a reviewing administrator that you will not repeat the problem, you might be unblocked more quickly. --Abd (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user would seem to have been aware of {{unblock}} already ([1] [2] [3]). henrik•talk 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

henrik•weather you asume that i'd remembered the {{unblock}} dosn't give you the right to ignore proper procedure please refrain from posting here as I'm sure your further coments will be more bullying

I did not know what I did could be classed as sockpupetry and I think this has been used as an easy stick against me, I'm not the only editor to ignore 3rr rule and targeting me is taking sidesOxyman42 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I will, as customary, let other people review my actions to decide whether they were justified. henrik•talk 22:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you mnot to comment here so don't

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).

Oxyman42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am being targeted by a gang of people who themselves ignore 3rr yet use their influence to throw the rule book at me administator bulying

Decline reason:

Request does not address reasons for block - Put another way, did you revert the article more than three times in a 24 hour period, or multiple times disruptively? The actions of others, or the motives you ascribe to other admins, is immaterial to a review of your actions. Please see also our Guide to Appealing Blocks before posting another request for unblocking. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Oxyman42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocking due to bullying is not an invalid reason

Decline reason:

Looking at the article and what you've said above, you knowingly and willingly logged out to continue edit warring. This block was placed because of that disruption. It was not placed because everyone else is "out to get you," therefore your unblock requests need to address your actions, not theirs. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Oxyman42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not "knowingly and willingly logged out to continue edit warring" this is an untrue claim against me by the bullies. I did not understand that there was an issue here usually other edit warers would be banned also, this is bullying targeted at meOxyman42 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly editing warring and used your IP to continue the edit war. You also seem to have admitted this above, and seem to be well acquainted with our 3rr rule. I don't see how the editing status of other users has anything to do with this. Please change your behavior upon the expiry of your block. Kuru ^talk 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

Oxyman42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"You were clearly editing warring and used your IP to continue the edit war. You also seem to have admitted this above" no I didn't and no I didn't this is unfair bullying by other users they are the ones sugesting and admiting for me somthing which I did not do

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2="You were clearly editing warring and used your IP to continue the edit war.  You also seem to have admitted this above" no I didn't and no I didn't this is unfair bullying by other users they are the ones sugesting and admiting for me somthing which I did not do |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1="You were clearly editing warring and used your IP to continue the edit war.  You also seem to have admitted this above" no I didn't and no I didn't this is unfair bullying by other users they are the ones sugesting and admiting for me somthing which I did not do |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1="You were clearly editing warring and used your IP to continue the edit war.  You also seem to have admitted this above" no I didn't and no I didn't this is unfair bullying by other users they are the ones sugesting and admiting for me somthing which I did not do |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}