User talk:Oxyman42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Howdy, Oxyman42, Welcome to Wikipedia!

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 Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia 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.

[edit] Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

[edit] Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 04:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Solipsist 05:41, 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. Oxyman42 00:05, 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 Wikipedia doesn't really want any external links. We really want content inside the encyclopedia. -- Solipsist 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Salvagesquad.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Salvagesquad.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia'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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Two accounts?

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 Wikipedia: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 *What's YOUR point? 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Welcome to WP:LT!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • You may want to join or create a task force which attempts to drive the improvement of articles within a smaller scope.
  • The project also provides templates to help you make the perfect article.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another 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

[edit] Please be careful about your tone at Talk:Inventions in the Islamic world

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. "[N]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