This is an archive of past discussions with User:OXYLYPSE. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi OXYLYPSE! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).
I’m not sure what happened there! I intended to reject the edit but got the ‘someone else has already done that’ message. When I looked at the history, it said I’d accepted it followed seconds later by your reversion. All I can think is that I accidentally tapped both the Accept and Reject buttons or something (I’m on an iPad). Anyway, thanks for tidying up. Neiltonks (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, OXYLYPSE! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over a hundred other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767talk!12:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Rollback granted
Hi OXYLYPSE. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2020-07-13. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Amanda(aka DQ)18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk
I suggest you read wp:talk you should not really edit another users comments, even if it is to insert your replies into the middle of them. Not only does it make it hard to follow a thread, it gives the impression someone has replied to you when they have not. Technically you did not do that, as it was two separate replies, but just a warning its against policy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, as you pointed out, you made two separate edits (1, 2), both of which were signed. I took the view these were separate comments and replied inline. At no point were you comments "edited". Thank you for your "warning" though! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I could see that, which is why I said that you did not technically do that. It was my mistake for making it look like it was two separate comments, when I signed them separately as a courtesy so as not to imply I had said not things at the same time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, not entirely sure what the sentence is supposed to say. If you purposely signed them separately then it would make sense that you wanted them responded to separately, making this entire discussion pointless. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It was an over zealous self imposition of the policy I link to above. The fact you are not supposed to edit talk page comments after they are posted. In fact I do not (and therefore maybe should not) have to obey that until after they have been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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.
This previous revision was not unbiased because it contains language and framing that could lead readers to form certain opinions about the podcast and its hosts, rather than simply presenting factual information. Here are a few reasons why it's not entirely objective:
Loaded Language: Phrases like "controversial figures and ideologies" and "disparaging remarks" introduce subjective opinions without fully explaining the context. This can make the reader view the podcast hosts negatively.
Selective Focus: While the passage mentions both criticism and support, it primarily highlights negative events, such as demonetization, bans for hate speech, and offensive comments, without balancing this with any positive or neutral aspects, like the podcast's popularity or positive feedback from its audience.
Unsubstantiated Assertions: The phrase "the contradiction is that [they are] very much part of the mainstream and validating the usual tropes about gender and violence against women" is a claim that isn't fully backed by evidence within the passage, and it presents a critical viewpoint as fact.
Lack of Neutral Tone: The background section seems to emphasize criticism and controversy, making it appear as though these issues define the podcast, rather than being part of a broader, more balanced discussion.
For an unbiased approach, the text should aim to present facts and events without implying judgment or selecting information that emphasizes one perspective over another. 73.172.168.34 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
That response looks awfully AI-generated. That said, you make some great points. Go ahead and put them into practice instead of just blanking the sections you disagree with. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Ironically the redrafted article was also done by AI to be less biased and neutral; that's what it came up with. I did put it into to practice. What I did was remove the obscene language and biased opinions about whether or not their talking points are "dispariging" to women. As their fanbase doesn't believe so, but you and the other editors do. So YOU all should practice unbaised writing, not me... Xlifter9000 (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
They're arent blank and it isnt my opinion. its your opinion that fresh and fit are bad people. I am providing a balanced neutral perspective. All i did was condense the sections. You act like i wrote nothing but positive accollades about them. Why are you so pressed to make it biasedly and obviously negative. I read YOUR VERSION as a non-supporter of them and came away with a negative take. You think other readers wont? Xlifter9000 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Besides to revert your blanking, I have never edited that page. I have no idea what the podcast is but I find it hilarious you don't see the problem with blanking several well cited sections that show the hosts in a negative light to replace them with "Although controversial at times, Fresh and Fit has cultivated a loyal following".OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
yes because that is neutral and balanced... Stating every negative opinion a detractor has about a person/entity is not unbiased if you really want to go there. That is like taking your info strictly from ex members of an organization/ frat, then saying oh yeah frats are bad all around, not taking into account some people just had singularly bad experiences or did not relate to the organization..... saying they are contreverisal is a true statement, while also noting they have amassed a huge following that is loyal is not only true, but a balanced and fair assesment. They are contreversial and they have a huge following goofy. Xlifter9000 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I have just noticed, at the top of the "Revision history" page for an article that I am working through, mention of the external tool "Fix dead links"; having for the moment simply removed a pair of these, I would appreciate some guidance on how I might get started in identifying viable updates using this tool. Seeing what I saw after again logging in to try to kick off the process for this tool, I could tell that some human guidance is going to need to come first. Thanks in advance. Cebran2003 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I am thinking that that poor practice would be on a par with deleting solely because the source appeared at first blush not to be revelatory for the material citing it, and I would not even consider doing either. More importantly, of course, that link is obviously a huge source, so thanks so much for sharing it! Cebran2003 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Of course, immediately after denying that I would consider doing either, and notably the former, I just had to second-guess myself in view of my original questions. I am delighted to report that I indeed engaged in nothing so rash, and more delighted to share what I did instead. In one case I added "In a 2012 interview" (info figuring in the citation to the dead link) into the running text before deleting the dead link (ref number in running text, and then unused-elsewhere ref itself) and moving on. In the other case I deleted only the ref number from the running text. Hopefully these steps were fine, perhaps even commonplace. Cebran2003 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
surname-prefix capitalization, through immigrant choice and/or per style-manual guidance
Do you have info about a certain hatnote (found by me for Martin Van Buren and the two Van Halen brothers) touching on surname-prefix capitalization, which may happen through immigrant choice and/or per style-manual guidance? In its current form, it lends itself to the incorrect inference that the prefix capitalization inherently figures in the name in the origin country. It is also, by simply declaring that a prefix is mandatory (by implication, for purposes of the individual article), unclear about why one is required in certain cases. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cebran2003 Honestly, no clue! If it's not covered by MOS, I'd suggest you boldly edit it as you see fit, and if you're reverted you can discuss it further with someone who is a little more knowledgeable? Sorry I can't be more help! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
The thing I am wondering about is the location and editability of the hatnote, not its attempted guidance per se. Anything about location, preferably about editability too in case that should be an issue? Cebran2003 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I'll try haha.. Disambiguation hat notes usually go at the very top of a page, but you can get hatnotes that just go at the top of sections too? Regarding the content/name capitalization, based off van (Dutch) and this post, I think you'd be okay to change it (if I'm understanding correctly)? -OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Nope, the location of the source code (which is why I thought to ask here). "In this Dutch name, the surname is Van Buren, not Buren" is obtained from "family name hatnote|lang=Dutch| prefixed whatever | unprefixed whatever" (both "Dutch" and "surname" being duly bracketed, of course). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure of editing protocols. I do know that there are quite a few errors/omissions on the Wiki page for the South Wales Metro. Please feel free to use my book as a source so you can update if you want. https://cardiffmetro.wales Thnx R Mark Barrymarkd (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Barrymarkd (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Barrymarkd. By all means please feel free to update the page, but inserting your website into articles without good reason is generally considered spam.Thanks, OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
It would be great if you could create a page to inform others about:
- Isaac is the son of a servant, not Ismael.
- Abraham and Sarah built a tent made out of rags that was raised with a dried up tree branch.
- They owned a few goats and a couple of camels. Their status in Egypt wasn't much more than slaves or wandering vagabonds. No way they owned a slave that was Egyptian. Abraham would have been enslaved or killed for just saying that he wanted to own an Egyptian slave.
- The people of Hagar the Egyptian and mother of Ismael built massive monumental structures and one of the world's great civilizations (they were Hemites, not black).
- Sarah was a concubine in Egypt (taken from Abraham without regard to his acceptance or refusal). Any of Sarah's masters could have been a relative of Hagar the mother of Ishmael.
- Sarah could not have children, so she gave a slave girl to Abraham to give birth to Isaac.
- Sarah herself was the daughter of a slave girl and is the half sister of Abraham.
- After Hagar the Egyptian demanded that Abraham circumcise her son Ismael, he did so to himself aswell and all males in his camp. This was an Egyptian custom before Abraham was even born. It wasn't that God ordered him to do so as a symbol of a covenant with him.
Important>>> 4 out of 12 sons of Israel (Jacob) were children of servant handmaid girls according to the old testament. The Jews married their cousins for centuries still to this day and the seed of the 4 sons of the slave girls spread through the entire 12 tribes of Israel. 98.62.84.55 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi OXYLYPSE -- I've declined this as there are just about claims present in terms of the blue-linked guests; there's also some bullet-pointed news coverage on the talk page which looks as if it was removed from the article and would count towards a claim. Such conventions often receive significant local or even national press coverage but given the rather generic title that might be hard to find. If you choose to go the prod route I won't contest but others might on that account. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
cabanatuan city
Hi. I'm 4wd lover 2024. I live in cabanatuan City and why i'm constantly turning it to TREE((G64)) is bcs it is a large number, so i put it to the city i support. 4wd lover 2024 (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey @4wd lover 2024, and welcome! Note that it's generally helpful to use edit summaries to explain your changes. It probably says a lot about my math skill that I had to just google what TREE was, but I still don't think it's appropriate for that article in that context. The reader would just want to know the population. Can we not just stick to plain old numbers? Thanks, OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@4wd lover 2024 That wasn't quite what I meant. You're, of course, free to update the population (with a source) but changing the way the number is written just doesn't seem helpful to me. OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
You removed information from the wiki page of Jay Hart, I have evidence but it's protected due to the evidence including the name of the victim, and her address. I disagree with your version of moderation. 110.20.114.233 (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@110.20.114.233 I'm sorry you disagree. Wikipedia has a strict policy on how we write about living people. All claims must be supported with sources. I flagged your revision to the oversight team, who removed it, because I believe it was particularly egregious.
You are free to add the claim back if you can support it with a reliable source. Otherwise, you should not. How would you feel if someone wrote about you in this way without proof?
Hi OXYLYPSE, please don't edit unblock requests (though, thank you for doing it so clearly). If you make a regular talk page reply under the request, the admins patrolling the category will see it and read it. Also, sorry you had to deal with that. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering Acknowledged with thanks. I saw the unblock request in my watchlist and clearly let the frustration get the better of me in the moment. It won't happen again, apologies. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xsolla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. 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.)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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.
You have voted in the admin recall petitions which have been presented. Both appear to have been effective - in the re-RfA running now opposes outnumber supports and the other admin has retired. No admin de-sysopped for cause has ever succeeded at RfA. One such is this character Special:Permalink/1243623079#Catastrophic. You are invited to open a recall petition. 89.243.12.172 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. OXYLYPSE (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
editing Ericsson Nikola Tesla page
Hi, I'm new here and sorry if I did something wrong. There were wrong facts abourt Ericsson Nikola Tesla and I wanted to make changes including removing old Ericsson logo as company has new logo now. Can you help me? Ericsson Nikola Tesla (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The first thing you need to do is change your name at Special:GlobalRenameRequest to something like "Bob at Ericsson Nikola Tesla". Generic usernames like yours aren't allowed.
You have a conflict of interest so you should avoid editing articles directly. You can use the Wikipedia:Edit_Request_Wizard to request the changes you'd like made to articles.
Considering this wiki page about Ericsson Nikola Tesla, main reason for my involvement was that I wanted to update logo , url and other info about company Ericsson Nikola Tesla. And yes I work there and our task is to have right info about company.
What can I do about it because there is direction "The practice of editing or creating articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors is strongly discouraged."?
Thanks for your tip . I will do that. But I hope this will not take too much time because we shouldn't use this Ericsson logo anymore and it can be legal problem. Other problem is innacurate url that was changed few days ago and innacurate content. And when you google ericsson nikola tesla you get this incorrect content I was talking about Ericsson Nikola Tesla (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Ericsson Nikola Tesla Fantastic. It's important to remember Wikipedia is primarily edited by volunteers, so there's no fixed time on when edit requests are answered.
I can understand the concerns about the company image, but Wikipedia is built as an encyclopedia. The purpose isn't to serve as a promotional page for a company. It wouldn't have mattered if a random person had come along and added the changes you did, they would have still been reverted because they were promotional in tone and used first person (i.e. "we") instead of the third person.
It looks like the ericsson.hr URL has been there since at least 2022. It now redirects to ericssonnikolatesla.com so I have updated that. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I can see you're just repeating the same questions to Sangsangaplaz on their Talk page. You're not going to get a different answer, but I'm going to stop responding now as it's just a waste of my time. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Timtrent Great to meet you too! Somehow I knew the "short famous prayer" was going to be the serenity prayer, I think that says a lot about the calm vibes you give off, haha :)
@Knitsey sometimes only a wordy word will do. Short sharp words can look curt. One may use a wordy word without periphrasis, and to slow a conversation down.
I've no idea why it's on my watchlist. I assume I bumped into you reverting vandalism at some point. I usually put those editors on my wl as they usually end up with abuse/vandalism. Who knows, blue nose.🤷♀️ Knitsey (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Just an observation- but in my personal experience, I'd say anybody editing from the username "Cornchips287" and copy-pasting a bunch of material to a high school page is far more likely to be a bored teenager from the school than somebody with an actual COI. I could be wrong, of course, but I think in this case I'd have gone for a different warning. YMMV, of course. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey @GreenLipstickLesbian Honestly I hadn't even noticed the blatant copy paste. I just noticed the external links and weird tone, but you're probably right. Either way it felt off and tagging for cleanup got it the attention it needed, so I guess it was a win in the end! :) OXYLYPSE (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring at Jim Gamble
Following on from recent discussion re: Jim Gamble...
It seems to me that there must be something wrong somewhere when a user can return to the scene of their edit warring 6 weeks later, revert a user and then be immediately warned to stop edit warring upon pain of possible blocking, and then reverts again, refuses to engage at the article talk page in a meaningful fashion (while hypocritically asking me to do so, which I had been doing throughout, while they had not) and then disappears again having reinstated 'their' favoured version of the article.
I'm obviously reluctant to make any further edits there myself, as per your advice at the time, but the present situation seems entirely unequitable when I've made all of running in trying to get some kind of resolution.
As I've said elsewhere, my concern is more with the other user's conduct than with the rather lame edit war - but for that conduct to be rewarded by allowing their favoured version to remain in place seems wrong to me.
Hey @Axad12 I can appreciate how frustrating it is.
In terms of content, it looks like the section on the labour party has been in the article at least a year, so arguably the onus is on you to prove it needs to go. You don't have to agree with Marty on this, you just need consensus at the talk page.
I don't disagree their communication sucks, but you don't have to stoop to their level. I really wouldn't let it get to you, there's more to life than Wikipedia.
If it helps, if you made a discussion over at AfD, I'd vote to delete the whole article as WP:MILL.
The article has historically been the subject of much promo/COI editing (by either the subject or his close associates). This has included some fairly desperate/pathetic activity such as adding photos of the subject standing in shot when more famous individuals were being photographed. (Those photos have also been spammed to the articles of the other personalities.)
If the article was to be deleted it's fairly obvious that it would be re-created and used once again for promo purposes, so I suspect it may be better to allow the current article to continue to exist, where user:MartyTheArty is at least apparently keeping an eye on the contents.
