User talk:Oxyman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop randomly insulting Americans on talk pages and remember WP:CIVIL. Now what, Mr. Wise Guy? doco (☏) 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tool for Education or American propaganda

Is Wikipedia a resource for education and carrying FACTS or a tool for American propaganda? I have edited out reticules claims by Americans in the Land speed record for railed vehicles and Empire State Express only to have arrogant Americans delete them and accuse me of pov can we have a neutral observer look at these sections Oxyman 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How is stating oficialy recorded facts insulting Americans?

Oh, by the way, I'm an arrogant German as you may have figured out had you ever looked at my user page, not an arrogant American as you have written in your multi-page hate spree. And as such, I am off to bed to steal your beach towel tomorrow. Meanwhile, have a look at WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and especially meta:Don't be a dick. Goodnight. --doco (☏) 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC) You acused Insulting Americans for putting oficially recorded FACTS on pages I sugest you view the pages you talk ofOxyman 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Kesh 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or original content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Kesh 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have better luck in working on articles here if you refrain from the "US propaganda" comments and provide reliable sources for your additions. If you have sources that provide information beyond what is included in the existing articles, I'm sure you'd be more than welcome to provide them on the talk pages of the articles in a civil manner. Also, I'd recommend against placing the same notice on many pages, as you have been, and keep policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in mind in your editing. Thanks, and happy editing. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits . If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Kesh 03:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule on Empire State Express. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future, instead of edit warring.

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Oxyman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

== Your anti-American edits ==

Please do not remove this 'American nationalist bias' from articles. The way you are doing it gives you an anti-American nationalist bias, which other people find just as offensive as you do. If you feel parts of an article are improper, please try to rewrite them in a completely neutral way, or discuss revisions to them on the talk page for the article. At the moment you are going too far the other way, and putting in bias for the other side.

It is important Wikipedia policy (list) to be civil (not shout at others or insult people), to be completely neutral (unbiased) when writing articles, to cite sources (give links to external, neutral and reliable evidence to support any points you make, see WP:FOOT for how to do it). You may also want to have a look at Etiquette, No personal attacks, Resolving disputes (I believe this may be of great importance to you) and, I'm sorry to say, Don't be a dick. You might also find Wikipedia:Disputed statement very helpful, so that you can have the bias removed without being shouted at/reverted/blocked etc. You might want to also take a short break from editing, to give you a chance to cool down - you sound very angry at the moment, and being angry while editing can lead to unintentionally bad edits. If you need help or want to talk about the stuff I've suggested, just post a note on my talk page or email me. Believe it or not, I think you have the right idea, and I want to help you! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that I was offended by American arrogance and over reacted, but is putting officially recorded information on Wikipedia really that anti American? I thought Wikipedia was for information not American propaganda. Anyway I have put my case in the discussion section's of Land speed record for railed vehicles and Empire State Express and I await to see if Americans can accept official information. I won't put the recorded facts on the articles for fear of been accused povy Oxyman 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You never did put "recorded facts" into the article, just your claims. That said, I've updated Empire State Express with the appropriate citations, and Land speed record for railed vehicles per Jeltz's suggestions. I hope that satisfies you but, next time, just ask folks for citations or provide your own, okay? Edit wars don't help anyone on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly given the users arrogance up to now he has written the article Empire State Express so that the casual observer will think these "unofficial" claims are fact it should be clear to the reader that these are unofficial claims, after all is Wikipedia a source of facts or American arrogance such as that displayed by Kesh. An American may say that the claims can be trusted but that is seen as ridicules outside the USA. I request that this article be edited by a non biased person Oxyman 17:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oxyman: official from whom? Who says the information's official, where does it come from? It could be that others believe it's just as biased as the existing stuff. And can you please stop calling it 'American propaganda' - it's just unverified information that you disagree with and see as having an American bias. Running around screaming 'The cabal is here! American propaganda has taken over the Wiki, it's all lies!' makes you sound like an over-zealous Communist. There Is No Cabal. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

so is it ok to put "unverified information" in Wikipedia so long as it has an American bias? Oxyman 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that observers claimed the train reached 112 MPH. I have provided a well-researched citation for that claim, which itself points out the facts recorded. It's specifically noted that these were unofficial timers, so the reader can decide for themselves if that is or is not sufficient to claim the record. If you can WP:CITE sources that dispute the claim, please do so. Otherwise, you are only inserting your own personal opinion, which is not relevant to Wikipedia. -- Kesh 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I use copy and paste if that is the most appropriate way of posting information, Is that OK? Please realize that you are arrogant and stop putting thinly veiled insults everywhere, at least I am open about my insults."No. 999 entered service in May of 1893, making the trip from Syracuse, New York to the Chicago World's Fair. The Express was recorded traveling at 121.5 mph (195.5 km/h) during an exhibition run between Batavia and Buffalo on May 10, making No. 999 the fastest-moving manmade invention of its time and the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph (161 km/h)".where in this statement is it mentioned and visible to the casual observer that this is an unoficial claim? Oxyman 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There you go with the reductio ad absurdum again - just calm down and think logically, stop making the silly, rash statements. It's mentioned at the bottom. You see the little number next to the end of that sentence that you mentioned? Like this:

"making No. 999 the fastest-moving manmade invention of its time and the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph (161 km/h).^[1]"

You see the little number one there? Click on it. It'll take you to the bottom of the page, showing you a link to a source in the references section below this comment (John Lienhard, Rain, Steam & Speed: Inventing Powered Motion) for that statement. This is what I was talking about earlier - the "to cite sources (give links to external, neutral and reliable evidence to support any points you make, see WP:FOOT for how to do it)" bit - this is how you use WP:FOOT. If you don't agree with that source, then discuss it politely on the article talk page, and stop being paranoid. Remember, There Is No Cabal, we are just trying to help. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ John Lienhard. Rain, Steam & Speed: Inventing Powered Motion. Retrieved on 2007-01-28.

[edit] User Pages

Please do not edit the user pages of other editors. It is considered vandalism, and you may be blocked for it in the future. --Maxamegalon2000 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention he even misspelled "arrogant." -- Kesh 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I use copy and paste if that is the most appropriate way of posting information, Is that OK? Please realize that you are arrogant and stop putting thinly veiled insults everywhere, at least I am open about my insults.Oxyman 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that aspect of wikipedia, the Arrogant insulting [user:Kesh] has written The article so that the casual observer will be mislead into believing these are official or credible claims wich of course they are not, the claim lacks vital caveats I would be happy if it was clearly visible when reading the article that these are unofficial claims. I thought Wikipedia was about credible information not American propaganda. The Empire State Express article is at present just a tool for Americans to rub their ego's the minimum that should happen is there be a disputed.

{{NPOV}}

banner Oxyman 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fine - put that banner in the article and mention why in your edit summary - but STOP insulting people and accusing everyone of American arrogance and propaganda or you will be blocked. You are starting to be VERY annoying now - we are trying to help you and all you show us is a closed mind. Open up and actually listen to what we're saying. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I strongly suggest that you refrain from further claims of American propaganda and arrogance in your discussion of articles here. With regards to your edits above and elsewhere, describing editors as "arrogant":

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zastava Koral

In the UK, the name Yugo was generally applied to the marque in general, not just the Koral/Tempo/45/55 model. I own a Zastava 101 derivative model, comercialised as Zastava Yugo 311 in Britain. I would say the 311/511/313/513 series was nearly as popular as the 45/55 and both known as Yugo. Regards, --Asterion^talk 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I've edited out the offending inputOxyman 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nrmlogo5.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Nrmlogo5.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lonarray.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Lonarray.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More than one account?

Hi Oxyman. While looking into the situation at Inventions in the Islamic world I noticed User:Oxyman42 and User:79.68.135.210 also made edits on the article. Oxyman42'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 managed to stir up some controversy with this account. 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?} 13:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)