Welcome
Hello OxfordLaw and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Anti-Arabism, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~
); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Uromastyx has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Uromastyx was changed by OxfordLaw (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.86678 on 2016-07-21T20:08:19+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Uromastyx, you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
September 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Neymar, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
What vandalism? I am using official sources. Many other editors have made the exact same edits. One person is trying to chance consensus here.
--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Question
Hello. I was wondering what's going on with this account, Hogdg (talk · contribs) and Bpkhy69 (talk · contribs). Are they the same user, or working in concert? -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I have no idea. I am just trying to improve the page about Saudi Arabia as I believe that it was and remains insufficient. It is a interesting county with beautiful landscapes and a very old history. It seems that there is a lot of bias against the country due to its system of governance and its rules. Given the country's geopolitical role, I believe that a lot of articles related to Saudi Arabia need to be improved and seen from different angles rather than the usual simplistic one.
Anyway why are you asking?--OxfordLaw (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's a lot of fine topics needing improvement. It is an inescapable fact that these three accounts (I haven't yet looked for more) appear to be either operated by the same person, or different people working together. Outside of school projects it's, well, unusual. I also noticed that after I left a bunch of warnings at one account about violating copyright policy, that account stopped editing and another account sprang to life. I wanted to know whether I need to look more closely, or if there's some plausible explanation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, you are completely free to investigate the matter more closely. However I will tell you that I have nothing to do with those users or individuals and from what I saw the user Bpkhy69 did not break any rules while I was editing the Saudi Arabia page.--OxfordLaw (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- As you'll see from both parts of this diff, they've uploaded a bunch of copyrighted photos, which have been or will be deleted. This one included ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I did not know about that. A shame as it is a good photo. Anyway I will replace it with the photo of a kabsa dish or find another photo showing some Saudi Arabian cuisine. Nice talking to you and have a nice day.--OxfordLaw (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "OxfordLaw", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it seems to be that of an organization, Oxford Law School. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Image spam
Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. --Moxy (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sir, what is the problem exactly? The photos are all related to the text and sourced. Moreover the number of photos in the page about Saudi Arabia does not exceed the photos of other countries pages, for instance that of Iran. I will take this matter to the highest place in Wikipedia as simply deleting hours of hard work and sourced material, I find very provoking.--OxfordLaw (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Copy and pasting
Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary. Original content contributed by users can be freely used if the original author is properly attributed. If you have copied text but forgotten to use the edit summary, this can be easily corrected: You can make a dummy edit by making an inconsequential change to the article—such as adding a blank line to the end of the article—and link to the source article in edit summary then. A note such as "content copied from [[source article]] on 1 January 2012" works fine.
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
This is a minor edit Watch this page
By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
It is also recommended to make a note on the talk page of the source article that copying has occurred, because the source article cannot be deleted as long as content from it is used. The template {{copied}} can be used for this as well as on the destination article's talk page.--Moxy (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sir, can you help me do that? Also this is only relevant on the section about the Nabataeans. I have indeed used parts of the introduction from this page below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans
But the material is sourced and above the very same text there is a direct link to that page.
Can you please help me do what you believe I should do not to get hours of hard work deleted?
I would really appreciate this.
Thank you in advance.--OxfordLaw (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi OxfordLaw. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. However, I need to point out that our article Saudi Arabia is already at 13778 words without your additions, well over the recommended 10000-word article size limit, so it's not a good idea to add any more stuff there. To do so will make the article impossible to load for people on slow Internet connections or on older mobile devices, When our articles get too big, we split them and provide people with a wikilink to the sub-article. I am restoring Moxy's revision 16:22, April 1, 2017. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear, I am using an incredibly slow internet connection and I have no problems loading the page. The country page of Saudi Arabia does not differ much from other country pages of countries of a similar size. That should not cause any trouble as I have not added a lot of text at all. Barely a new section about the Nabataeans who surprisingly where omitted and a very short section about tourism. I cannot believe that adding so little material is now a huge concern while nobody complained about the size of the article previously. Adding 6-7 more photos in a article with very few photos (compared to the likes of Turkey, Iran, Egypt or even other much smaller regional neighboring countries) should not be a case of concern.
I cannot stop thinking that there is some kind of bias involved as I do not understand why people would want to delete useful sourced material and thus vast counties of hours of hard work of other people. I really don't want to create any trouble but simply improve a page that is in much need of improvement but I will take this matter to the highest level possible as if deleted, as such action will show a lack of consistency by Wikipedia admins (see my examples of other country pages) and unfortunately possible bias as I cannot see any other explanation.
Thank you in advance and I hope that you take what I wrote into consideration.
--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
Your recent editing history at Saudi Arabia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I see you have already been warned about edit warring once today. Please take the time to read and understand this message and the material I have posted at the article talk page regarding appropriate article size. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see the additions were copy and paste it again. Best to step back and read up on the rules.--Moxy (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Emir of Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Saudi Arabia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at FC Barcelona.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Anakimilambaste 23:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are not helping make any progress by repeatedly reverting. You already have a poor track-record with such matters. The table actually follows the Manual of Style, and so other clubs too must actually be in the same format as this. Try to understand that just because you find it different in other places, it doesn't mean that format is right. However, you are correct in pointing out that the record number of wins are difficult to notice in this table. It can be fixed simply by adding "Record"/"Shared Record" next to the number of wins. Would you agree? — Anakimilambaste 00:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Why was the design changed anyway after being the standard for years upon years just like almost everywhere else on similar club pages? The current design is ugly and graphically flawed. I don't understand why it is preferred. The old design did not give rise to controversy until very recently for some strange reason.
As for your last suggestion, I do agree.
--OxfordLaw (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it was actually discussed a couple of months ago at Project Football, and the idea was to make all the honours sections on club articles conform to the Manual of Style (as you have noticed, it hasn't happened yet, obviously). So the reason only a couple of clubs have this format is simply because, you have to start from somewhere, and this is one of the first couple of pages where it happened. Can you please explain why you feel the table is flawed? Perhaps it is something that can be improved? — Anakimilambaste 06:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. However if such a consensus was reached, why is it that only the FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF pages use the current design? Would it not be a rather easy job to make that design the standard on all pages? Yet despite this, the current design is only used (as far as I can see) on the aforementioned pages.
I believe that the design is flawed mainly because it is difficult to notice the trophies which have been won a record number of times.
--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
November 2017
Hello, I'm Bakilas. I noticed that you recently removed content from Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bakilas (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, OxfordLaw. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is about the football club, Futbol Club Barcelona. The disambiguation link is there for other uses
See the link at the top. That's why it's there. DC80 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing
Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the Battlebox of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, you may be blocked from editing. Warning, you broke the 1RR rule of these article. Wikaviani (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring at Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen
- Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- OxfordLaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
If you continue to revert this article without any effort to discuss your changes on the talk page, you are risking a block for edit warring, by me or any other administrator. If you disagree about the use of Al Jazeera, consider posting at WP:RSN. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
I've closed this report with a warning to you. --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Note
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--NeilN talk to me 18:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive editing 2
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing
Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the Battlebox of the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. This is the second Warning in 48 hours. Mr.User200 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Mr.User200 you are the one that are disrupting and reverting good faith edits. Al-Jazeera's claim is not an official number for God's sake. The article does not even state who the source is. The Saudi Arabian government has never claimed 1000 casualties officially. Find me a single source that says so. Making it clear that we are talking about an Al-Jazeera claim (the article) should be self-evident. Please don't remove good faith edits as the only editor after a silent consensus was reached. --OxfordLaw (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Dont talk about concesus when you a have reverted all my edits on Saudi related articles. I dont asume good faith on someone that errase content and call it "Revert vandalism". You have violated the 3RR before and continue reverting and edit warring behaviour.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Where have I reverted your "good faith edits"? Nowhere. You are the one that somehow has an agenda to prevent it being made clear where the claims (sources) derive from, for some very "strange" reason. You are the only editor that objected to my good-faith and factual edits in the past few days. Very strange behavior.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, it's true that the AJ article is strangely short and only states a loosely "according to state media" without any more information about this so called "state media". This is quite disconcerting. However, some sentence like "according to AJ" or "AJ's claim" is ok, but let's avoid any self interpretation about the reliability of AJ. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Which is precisely my point. The burden of proof (if my "opponent") wishes to turn that Al Jazeera article into something official (other than a claim) is to provide another source (should be fairly easy) of the Saudi Arabian government officially claiming to have lost 1000 soldiers in Yemen. Once he does that there is nothing to discuss from my part. That's where my objection is about and I fail to see how he can miss this fact unless he has an agenda. I am waiting for his arguments and reason on this issue--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Continued edit warring about the Saudi Arabian intervention after being warned on 5 June
- Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per a notice higher up on this talk page, you are under a warning on Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. "If you continue to revert this article without any effort to discuss your changes on the talk page, you are risking a block for edit warring.."
Here is one of your reverts from 7 June not preceded by any talk page discussion. Lecturing people in your edit summaries is not a substitute for proper discussion. Can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked per the prior report? EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, he is the one that is reverent my factual and good-faith edits, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on his side when he tries to make it appear like an Al-Jazeera claim is an "official number" in terms of casualties while I correctly want to point out that this is merely a Al-Jazeera claim unless he can provide another source that claims otherwise. The burden of proof is on his side.
- I am not removing any content but merely making it clear that an Al Jazeera claim in an article cannot be considered as an "official number" unless proven otherwise.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your changes are, in fact, reverts. I will proceed with a block unless you will promise to wait for consensus on article Talk before making more changes about the Yemen war. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please show me where. What content have I exactly removed? Why is his removal of my factual content not taken into account? He was the one that started removing my factual and good-faith edits.
Once again, making it clear that the claim in the Al Jazeera article is a claim and not an OFFICIAL number (in terms of casualties) is not removing any content but making it better. My opponent seems to have clear agenda otherwise I fail to show why he is removing edits that are clarifying where the claims derive from as PREVIOUSLY was the case in the past few days. He is the only editor who objects to this logical practice.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Moreover the the burden of proof (if my "opponent") wishes to turn that Al Jazeera article into something official (other than a claim) is to provide another source (should be fairly easy) of the Saudi Arabian government officially claiming to have lost 1000 soldiers in Yemen. Once he does that there is nothing to discuss from my part. That's where my objection is about and I fail to see how he can miss this fact unless he has an agenda. I am waiting for his arguments and reason on this issue.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston, sorry to interfere, but i'm the one who reported OxfordLaw on the edit warring notice board (this was the reason of his previous warning). I just want to say here (as i said in the above section) that OxfordLaw's edit you are talking about is quite legit , because the Al Jazeera article seems strangely vague with a loosely "according to state media" and with no more information about this so called "state media", therefore, saying "according to AJ" instead of "officialy" sounds pretty good and is WP:NPOV. That said, i'm far from being an admin, and it's of course your call to block him or not, i just wanted to give you a perspective in order to help you for your decision. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you support OxfordLaw's change that would be good news for him, but it's still a revert, so still technically a violation of the previous warning. If he will agree to wait for consensus in the future, this whole issue can go away. The extreme pattern of reverting can't be overlooked, since this is an article under general sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- To make it clear, i do not endorse his general behavior of edit warrior and his words about me being an Iranian and therefore (according to him), biased (see the report i made at the e/w noticeboard), however, i'm trying to be impartial and therefore, in this particular case with the AJ source, i endorse his edit. Thank you for the valuable time you spent on it. I understand your position, you're the admin and the final decision is yours. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you support OxfordLaw's change that would be good news for him, but it's still a revert, so still technically a violation of the previous warning. If he will agree to wait for consensus in the future, this whole issue can go away. The extreme pattern of reverting can't be overlooked, since this is an article under general sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why you are reporting me when I have never removed any content. I removed an source that was already used (the Al-Jazeera article from May 2018) by a mistake but included it shortly afterwards in my next edit.
It appears to me that my "opponent" Mr.User200 has changed his previous edits to my version by his own. Looks like he finally understood that the Al-Jazeera article cannot be considered as an "official number" but that it is merely a claim. After all, as I wrote before, the burden of proof is his, if he wants to turn that casualty number into an official number. He can easily do that by providing an source from the Saudi Arabian government where it is clearly stated that 1.000 Saudi Arabian soldiers have perished. If he does that I have nothing more to add. Until further notice, it should be made clear (as previously) that the casualty number is merely an Al-Jazeera claim by doing what he has done recently (and which I did all the way through all of my edits).--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It appears that a consensus has been reached as of now. Mr.User200 basically returned to my earlier edits before his changes and later reverts, which makes this situation even more absurd.
Thus I have nothing further to add other than my astonishment of my "opponents" previous logic which he is yet to explain here (after writing to me initially) and despite me giving him such an opportunity. BTW feel free to ban me, I will simply contact other administrators if this is how editors are treated. I am contributing and improving a long-necklected and biased page (pages in fact) but I am met with senseless hostility and my "opponents" are judged in a different light despite engaging in the exact same behavior. My time is too valuable to discuss such non-issues.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per the June 5 warning and the above discussion. Continued reverting about the Yemen war without making an effort to get consensus on Talk. If you actually tried to get support on the talk page you might find people to back your changes, but you won't do so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Laughable. But my opponent is free to remove my good-faith edits and FACTUAL edits without a warning beforehand or before discussing his changes, right? But when I revert (while explaining why I do so, unlike my opponent who is the one that is reverting my changes without reason), I am met with warnings and bans. I did not remove any content either! Ridiculous. Not going to bother with a 24 hour ban but next time my factual and good faith edits are removed without reason by the same single editor, I will report him (as all my opponents seem to do with me) and take it to the talk page UNLIKE all of my opponents. While at the same time contacting administrators and "playing the good boy" which is apparently the standard here because speaking frankly and directly, is after all illegal on Wikipedia apparently. Still waiting for you to point out which content I removed (that I did not remove by accident and 1-2 minutes afterwards included again on my OWN) and why my opponent does not get a warning let alone a 24 hour ban for reverting my edits. --OxfordLaw (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- OxfordLaw, you would be wise stopping this discussion now and avoiding to caricature an administrator's decision. An advice : Calm down and leave the thread. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- OxfordLaw, I'm still waiting to hear why you are unable to use the talk page. It seems likely that your arguments might have some influence there. But if you never go there, you won't find out. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Why should I discuss anything on a talk page when I and several other users already discussed this exact issue a little over 24 hours ago on the talk page? Why should I discuss something as self-evident as the need to make it clear from where the source of casualties originates from, in this case Al Jazeera? My opponent (the one turning claims into official numbers) is the one that should provide proof. Anyway as I wrote earlier, he finally (on his own) agreed with my version which makes this entire joke even more funny seeing that he felt the need to remove my good faith edits and FACTUAL edits without reason later to write the exact same thing as I did!
Also why am I blocked for not removing ANY content and for not starting this recent edit war while my opponent is not even given a single warning? How should I otherwise judge this moderation if not in a negative light? I am simple banned for speaking my mind and for deleting a tiny link (content) by mistake that I myself included once again 2 minutes afterwards.
I am completely calm. Me being banned on Wikipedia for 24 hours does not give a single reason to be upset (LOL). What annoys me is the lack of consistency and him making decisions without fully understanding the whole scope of what went on or my reasoning. As I see it, I am judged differently for the exact same offenses. I believe he needs to do some explaining as blocking me for 24 hours is a very easy thing to do. But while he is "here" on my talk page, he could elaborate where the difference lies between my and Mr.User200 edits TODAY. That would be a pretty logical thing to do. I don't buy his talk about a talk page when my opponent has not done so not to mention his lack of explaining for his edits, unlike my ones. Never mind, I will discuss this with other administrators on another occasion.
Is there a reason why you have failed to explain you reasoning and edits on this page other than making "threats" and claiming "disruptive editing" while you were the ones that was removing/reverting my factual and good-faith edits?
Also can you please explain to since when Al Jazeera has become a neutral source when it comes to Saudi Arabia even more so since the Saudi Arabia-Qatar proxy war began in June 2017?
Can you also explain to me how come a claim in a Al Jazeera article (which was agreed on the talk page to be a claim as all the other sources used until further notice) suddenly became an official claim using your logic? You have some explaining to do, I believe. Likewise EdJohnston who blocked me for 24 hours but is yet to contact you or even give you a warning for the exact same "crimes" not to mention those I mentioned above.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I am wasting my time as my opponent Mr.User200 fails to even argue his case even remotely. Not to mention his backtracking on his own when I countered his obvious bias in the edit comments and here. I am on my phone and I don't bother discussing something as useless as this especially not when rules are applied differently for me than people engaging in the exact same "crimes". Not worth my time or energy. I intend to take this issue and make a complaint to other administrators about the judgement of the administrator who blocked me for 24 hours and the behavior of my opponent who continues to refuse any kind of dialogue repeatedly while making threats on my talk page out of the blue AFTER initiating this recent dispute after dealing my factual good faith edits later to backtrack and write the exact same thing as I did (after being challenged about him turning an Al-Jazeera article into something official rather than a claim) initially AFTER having started this entire mess. Unfortunately the administrator's judgements are not helping either as far as I can see.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Never mind, I will discuss this with other administrators on another occasion." : this will not help, see WP:ADMINSHOP. You should just drop it, wikipedia is not about winning or losing. Good evening. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "winning or losing" but about what is right and what is wrong. Besides I already "won the argument" (using your logic) as my opponent Mr.User200 himself realized that he was wrong as he eventually ended up with agreeing with my previous edits that he for some incredibly strange reason started reverting and changing for God's know what reason. I suspect that he is not exactly neutral here as I am. Also I have not taken a look at your link but I do believe that I can discuss this incident and the content of this discussion page and what occurred on those Wikipedia pages without needing to be compensated. I will merely look for answers and explanations that I am not being given here on my talk page. BTW English is my fourth language.--OxfordLaw (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism and unexplained edits in the Yemen Civil War thread by user Mr.User200
Vandalism and unexplained edits in the Yemen Civil War thread by user Mr.User200
Wikaviani have you by any chance reported the recent vandalism of Mr.User200 in this thread below where he inexplicably (without explaining why in his edit comments) has removed the information that states that 11.000+ Houthis have been killed by the Arab Coalition as of December 2017 while all the other claims deriving from Al Jazeera and The Independent in regards to Saudi Arabian casualties have remained?
(UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)
- EdJohnston, Mr.User200 and OxfordLaw, I fixed the issue with the casualties. Also, as i said in an edit summary, the page is on my watchlist and i will report any further disruptive edits/edit warring to the relevant noticeboard. Enough is enough. regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for your good work. This is appreciated. However I would have liked to see :EdJohnston being consequent here and not selective because I have a feeling that I would be blocked if I reversed Mr.User200's most recent edits. So when you see this lack of consistency and rules being applied selectively, you don't exactly see matters as others might see them.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
EdJohnston are you going to take a look at this vandalism and removal of factual statements without reason and giving him a warning for removing sourced and good faith edits without reason or is such behavior only limited to me? Because if no action will be taken I will take this matter to other administrators as I will not accept this difference in how the rules are applied (selective application) let alone the removal of such information without reason while the other information is retained.
--OxfordLaw (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm staying away from this issue for a while. My above posts contain some advice for you. It would be helpful if you would follow some of the advice. Consider WP:Dispute resolution, and for source questions (like Al Jazeera) you can use the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Noted. Well, initially I objected to Al Jazeera being used as a source due to the ongoing Saudi Arabia-Qatar proxy conflict and due to the nature of that very short and not exactly informative Al Jazeera article. However when it turned out that such sources are acceptable I wanted the other party's claims to be included as well. Later on Mr.User200 used The Independent whose only claim in that article is (a source told us that the casualties are 10 times higher). Not exactly strong sources. On the other hand the Arab Coalition in their briefing in December 2017 provided over 100 videos of military interventions targeting Houthi (armed men at least) gatherings using drones and fighter jets. However since I am fairly neutral (I solely have an interest in Yemen and Arabia in terms of history, current day events etc. due to past visits as a tourist (especially to Yemen before the Arab Spring reached that country and removed Ali Abdullah Saleh), although neither a fan of the Houthi's and their ideology or the Saudi Arabian regime (any Islamic regime for that matter in the region), I believe that the Yemen civil war related pages should not be one-sided which I felt that they were and have been for a very long time. Mainly due to edits by pro-Houthi editors. Case in point my previous examples. In reality neither party are much wanted by the Yemeni populace who wish for peace, stability and a representative government. Neither of which the Houthis, Hadi or the Arab coalition can guarantee for now at least. Then you have the whole regional mess (Arabs vs Persians), Israel, the US, throw Turkey into the mix, and internal rivalries within those countries. Case in point the recent GCC-row where now two former allies (KSA and Qatar) are at odds against each other to put it mildly, hence Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya (state tv channels) having been waging a war against each other since June 2017. Thus why I look at Al Jazeera suspiciously when they talk about KSA. Similar if Al Arabiya talks about Qatar. In any case Yemen is a very fascinating, ancient and beautiful country that deserves a much better faith. Hopefully peace will return soon whether as a united nation or a two-state solution as pre-1990 (North and South Yemen)--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- All sides claims have to be presented equally. also, as to your remarks about the Arab coalition's casualties, please note that only one high ranking Saudi officer (Ahmed Assiri, who is in fact a spokesman and not really fighting on the battlefield ...) is still alive (the other 6 are all officially dead), this is telling us that the Arab coalition's 500 deads claim is probably by far under estimated. And to be fair, the number of Iranian high ranking officers killed in Syria (among them some of Qasem Soleimani's friends) is also telling us that Iranian claims about their casualties there are probably under estimated too. This is just war and this will always be like this, but we have to avoid favoring one camp over another and keep a WP:NPOV editing profile. This is what i'm trying to do, even if you were accusing me of bias a few days ago. Follow the admin's advice, avoid edit warring and discuss the matter with other users on the talk pages of the articles you want to edit, this should be much more constructive and WP:HERE. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Claims, regardless of which party we are talking about, will likely always be inflated or the opposite. However I would claim that claims deriving from the Arab Coalition have more legitimacy in the sense that their technology and air control, gives them the technological edge. I have seen many videos of Arab coalition jets and drones targeting Houthi gatherings and Houthis (those videos are out there) as well as Houthi raids and videos however it is much harder to determine whether those attacked (by Houthis) are Saudi Arabian soldiers, the Yemeni military allied with Hadi, UAE forces, Sudanese forces or other anti-Houthi factions, whether Yemeni or not. Or whether those attacks resulted in casualties. It's easier to asses the likeliness of recorded drone attacks and fighter jet attacks on gatherings of people having a bigger probability of ending deadly due to difference in fire power.
I am talking about videos of a nature like those below of which there are many;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gon5hS0HpqY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8iIslcE8Ek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2kRxDTESqM
Regarding the Saudi Arabian high-ranking officers and generals, only a small number of them have been killed on the battlefield. Those that have been mentioned (apparently one died in London and not Yemen) are only those that have perished. Hence they are mentioned. Similar the other way around.
BTW I remember writing, on the talk page of the Yemeni Civil War, that the current use of sources is necessary until the end of the conflict and until independent scholars can determine which numbers are most likely correct. Same case with all other ongoing conflicts whether in Syria, Afghanistan, Sinai, Iraq or elsewhere.
I must admit that I was too quick in judging you initially. I simply disagreed with an edit and quickly took a look at your profile and I saw that you wrote that you were an Iranian, so I assumed that you were pro-Houthi and anti-Arab Coalition, anti-Hadi etc. I was too quick in my judgements which was based on my previous observations of other editors. I was solely an reader of those Wiki pages until recently. My reason to even "interfere" and contribute to those talk pages was the fact that for years it was claimed that Houthis only lost 300 men and that Saudi Arabia alone had lost 450 soldiers. That made little sense for me and for anyone that has been following Yemen, even before September 2014, hence why I believed and believe that those responsible for such numbers, had/have a bias.
BTW can you take a look at my request to you on my talk page? It would be appreciated. Best regards to you as well.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Friendly request to user Wikaviani
Wikaviani can you please take a look at this page below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi–Yemeni_border_conflict_(2015–present)
and make it consistent with the two other pages relating to the conflict which you have already done correctly (as I just saw).
I am asking because Mr.User200 has been at it again.
In the Saudi-Yemen border conflict page, civilian Yemeni casualties should be mentioned below those 500+ Saudi Arabian civilian casualties as in the other two pages regarding the conflict.
Moreover Mr.User200 has repeated data twice (1000 Saudi Arabian soldiers killed (Al Jazeera) and 3000 Saudi Arabian soldiers killed (The Independent) on this page below as you can see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi–Yemeni_border_conflict_(2015–present)
Also kindly state the source of the claim as was done with the Arab Coalition claim under casualties.
In other words, can you make this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi–Yemeni_border_conflict_(2015–present)
identical with this one (as per your most recent changes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen
and this one (as per your most recent changes once again) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)
This way everything is clear and nobody can accuse the information and layout of being biased. It is consistent this way.
I am asking you as I don't bother doing it myself as MrUser200 will revert my changes and I might risk a blocking again, lol, for revering/correcting such edits by him. I stopped trying to have a dialogue with him as he ignored what I and others wrote on my talk page yesterday and what I wrote earlier today as well.
Thank you in advance and have a nice evening.--OxfordLaw (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. I added civilian casualties on both sides myself and thus the number of civilian casualties is consistent and identical on all 3 Yemen Civil War related Wikipedia pages as explained in my edit.--OxfordLaw (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Copyright problem on Al-Magar
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://paleolithic-neolithic.com/overview/al-magar/ and http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/these-may-be-world-s-first-images-dogs-and-they-re-wearing-leashes. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some of the content had to be removed and some was paraphrased. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ibn al-Khattab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circassian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
July 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Moxy (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC
I do not believe that my changes are disruptive. I addressed some of Nabataeus criticism and changed it for the better. The common goal should be to improve the page. I used the talk page as well.--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
BTW, the Saudi Arabia wikipedia page has about 10 fewer pages than the Iran one and numerous other country pages. Why only focus on this page? I don't have the problem that you talked about on the talk page when accessing the page. Let alone when using a computer.--OxfordLaw (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think you should just stop comparing Saudi Arabia with Iran or other countries. Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia, Iran is Iran and other countries are other countries, each has it's own history, culture etc ... it would be quite unencyclopedic to try to homogenize all of them. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not about countries, it's about many country pages, Iran being one of them, having more photos than the current Saudi Arabia page and this not leading to questions which I find strange.
BTW are you stalking me bro?
--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, i don't stalk anybody, i just posted on your talk page weeks ago about Saudi led military operation in Yemen, do you remember ? and since i use Twinkle, the gadget automatically adds any page i edit to my watchlist (even talk pages). Btw, an admin protected the Saudi article until 28 july, this will give you some more time to find a consensus with Nabataeus. Also, Nabataeus clearly disagree with the edits of yours i reveted. Take care dude.---Wikaviani (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe that Nabataeus necessarily disagrees with me as my edits addressed some of his criticism of the previous version. They were made to easier reach a consensus. Yes, I noticed that.
--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, as i said before, if he agrees with your edits then feel free to revert me when the protection expires. Btw, if you want me to remove your talk page from my watchlist, just tell me. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that he has become angry at me for simply not accepting his version out of the blue without prior discussions and consultations (reaching a consensus or compromise).
I might be wrong.
He might reply here if I tag him. Nabataeus
No, it does not bother me.
--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- So as you can tell I got the page locked......this would be the time to address the merits of your edits with other and wait to see what others have to say. If I see a solution has been found I will request the page unlock before it's current time frame.--Moxy (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that. Well, we will try to do that. I am at least ready.
Well, just out of pure curiosity, about those photos, how come there are no such issues on country pages that have more photos than that of KSA? I would want to know what should change? Should some of those photos on the tourism section be used elsewhere on the page under geography and other sections? Is that it? Kindly please tell me.--OxfordLaw (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- Images can be used beside accompanying text..... images are there to help the text not to stand on their own.
- WP:Image use policy "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery should not be added so long there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text."..... --Moxy (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hejaz
Hi, I would request you not to upload images that may get deleted from Wikimedia Commons due to copyright issues. As it is, you admitted that those photos that got nominated for deletion are not strictly yours, which means that you should not have uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons in the first place. I however kept another photo which you placed in Hejaz which did not have such an issue. Leo1pard (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
DRN
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Nabataeus (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Personal attack, editwarring, etc
The personal attack is here, telling someone they are lying. You clearly have a tendency to editwar as I can see by the warnings above and your blocks. You failed to take part in the DRN discussion. Your best bet to avoid another block is to only edit after consensus is gained at Talk:Saudi Arabia. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)